The Pre-Roll Experience

We wanted to watch an online video news clip. So we clicked. And we were forced to sit through a Cadillac commercial. Ugh. 

But you know what? we thought. Not this time. We'll move onto some other content on this site and skip the video. So we move our mouse over the bottom of the video to stop the commercial. But there's no way to stop it. There's no pause or stop button.

So we clicked off the site. Not the video. The site. Gone. We'll find that content elsewhere.

This incredibly entertaining (!) anecdote is not simply about a website risking loss of traffic by pushing (a key word here) pre-roll video ads down a visitor's throat. It's about something bigger than that. It's about intentionally creating a negative user experience. It's about ignoring what the Internet is all about.

Yes, we know advertisers will find us online. Everywhere online. But when we click to watch a video, we want to watch the video, not a commercial. But sites (i.e., brands) don't care, as exploding online video ad revenues prove. (Online video is the fastest growing ad format in 2012 with nearly 55% growth—eMarketer, January 2012). Online marketers are putting themselves before the consumer. Again. And it's turning the internet into another interruptive media experience. Simply, that makes it a less positive experience than could be.. 

Deutsch's David Van Praet raises another really good point in a new FastCoCreate piece. Just by using the word "consumer," marketers are making a huge mistake. They're assuming that stimulating consumption should be their goal, instead of improving people's lives. 

Bad idea? Skeptical that helping people can make money? Okay, see "Apple, Cupertino, CA." 

Should consumers be worried about their desired content taking a back seat? We say yes. DIgital- and social-media measurement techniques improve continually, and they provide the rationale for the integrated marketing programs that reach out and touch us—unwelcome as some of those touches might be. So marketers likely will continue to step over the fine line between strategic engagement and advertising overkill. 

But there is hope, saddened,worried "consumer." Some of us remember that it's the person who comes first. Maybe we should all remember to remind each other about that.

Linguistic (In)competence, Social and Otherwise

We've written about how ultra-casual communication through technology has affected our ability to express ourselves. John McWhorter's NYT piece argued that texting and e-mailing are not in fact methods of writing; he calls them "written conversation" and "fingered speech." It's an interesting distinction and one worth exploring because it affects individuals and brands. 

For us here at Positively Writing, McWhorter misses a key issue: the culture of exceedingly casual communication. Because social media affects popular culture in such a massive way, its associated behaviors now exist well beyond its boundaries. Twitter-talk happens over dinner. OMGs become titles of television programs. Texting shortcuts creep into journalism.

Is that a problem?

Well yes, because this underlying culture impacts issues much larger than capitalization and acronyms. It's not about simply messy chatting; it's about messy thinking. And now the people who are paid to report news approach their work the way they approach communication with friends. It's not that  communication with friends is careless but that there is less care taken with friends. 'If I misstate something, no big deal' seems to be the prevailing notion.

We're so disappointed with "the media" because we've seen so much evidence of this—in social media and elsewhere. And this evidence suggests that less care equals less accuracy. 

And that's unacceptable.

Where do you get your news?  A USA Today headline told us baseballer Barry Bonds said Detroit's Miguel Cabrera is "not as good as me." Simply not true (the quote). Bonds said Cabrera doesn't match him in MVP awards or statistics. And he was responsible enough to add the qualifier "yet." 

If a universally acknowledged steroid-user (i.e., cheater) Bonds is more careful with his words than USA Today is, do they deserve your readership? 

In another sports story, almost every prominent media source reported Indiana Pacer head coach Frank Vogel called the Miami Heat (the Pacers' playoff opponent at the time) "just another team." Simply not true. Vogel said his team is "competing for a championship and they (Miami) are just the next team that’s in our way." Even worse, the hometown Miami Herald exacerbated the error by saying Vogel "flip-flopped' when he simply restated his words. . . and they did this after acknowledging he was misquoted. 

These examples raise the question (no, they do not "beg" the question) "Where is accountability?" Well, we think it's in the same place as accuracy: nowhere. As a culture we not only tolerate it, our lack of outrage or action indicates we don't care. So it happens more frequently. So it doesn't jump out at us. So it gets ignored even more frequently. Ugh.

When CNN and the New York Post disgraced themselves with their incomprehensibly irresponsible reporting on the Boston bombings, the social mediascape called them on it. Their response? They didn't apologize, they rationalized. And by giving excuses, they sidestepped accountability.

We freely admit that we here at Positively Writing are sticklers. We cringe when announcers misuse words and newspapers slant their stories with sly wording (we cringe a lot). We can't begin to list the number of times ESPN talking heads mispronounced the names of athletes that may not be considered mainstream (often soccer players). This is their only job—to communicate their subject matter—and they make outrageous mistakes with shocking regularity. We acknowledge we're in the minority and that precise language simply does not matter to most people. But we're appalled that news organizations seem to be leaning in that direction, too, because it doesn't suggest carelessness, but rather incompetence. 

And are we really okay with incompetence. From any quarter? 

We shouldn't be. We've all seen "the power of social media." It can literally create social movements that change societies. So let's create the "Accountability in Media" movement. Let's have a million people rain down their outrage when a newspaper or network blatantly ignores facts or tries to create a story that doesn't exist. If we create real accountability—and affect, say, employment—maybe we'll see a positive change. A change that can only benefit our culture and us. All of us.

Deal?

Part Two: "In Nothing We Trust"

We lied to each other so much
That in nothing we trust

My friends, this is what it's come to: We need to look to a band called Megadeath to summarize our current state of mind. Dave Mustaine's lyrics from 1997's "Trust," echoed by a number of more "mainstream" writers, crystallize the single most important issue for marketers: Nobody seems to trust anyone.

Think we're overstating things? Take a look at Marc Fisher's Washington Post piece, "Romney's tax returns, Obama's birth certificate and the end of trust." It's not merely political 
claims that cause distrust, Fisher writes, rather "we're cynical at the very nature of facts." (The italics are mine, for emphasis.)

So maybe even facts can't counteract our predisposition to trust nothing And maybe that's not such a novel idea. Fisher's piece cites philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, who said that the more we demand evidence, the more we create doubt. 

What the heck does that mean? That we shouldn't use facts as our basis for believing something? As a prominent financial-services marketer and good friend of ours says, "Aye aye aye . . . " 

We say let's be a little more positive and re-frame for a second. Let's go back to basics and start with respect for our customers and consumers in general.

And once again the shining example of customer respect is Apple. Why does financial site The Street flatly state "Apple's Customer Trust Tough to Beat"? By doing simple, smart things that most other companies don't do. From CRM guru Don Peppers comes this:

"If you accidentally try to order the same song twice from iTunes, you’ll be warned that you already own it. Not because it would be illegal or unethical for Apple to profit from your forgetfulness. There’s a clear busi­ness reason: the leaders of iTunes realize there’s no better way to make you trust them than to be totally honest when you least expect it." (Again, my italics) Honesty equals trust. Simple.

Yes, it can be so. So says another group of loyal customers, those of financial-service giant USAA, the number one-ranked firm in the 2102 Temkin Trust Ratings. Why is USAA so trusted? Perhaps it's because they've received two J.D. Power awards for superior customer service. Better service equals more trust. Simple.

Fisher's article quotes market researcher Flint McGlaughlin: “The Post-Modern Consumer just doesn’t believe us anymore. They have endured too many empty promises, too many exaggerated benefits, and too many artful disclaimers. The predisposition now is to doubt every claim.”

Whew. Every claim. That doesn't leave too much room for error does it? It only heightens the need for every marketing organization to follow the lead set by the likes of Apple and USAA: Earn trust by respecting the relationship with customers. By delivering consistently superior service. Unqualified service. Real service. Respect.

                                    * * * * * * 

And wouldn't you know it, just before "press time," we learned about another reason that "nobody trusts anybody." Melky Cabrera, a heretofore likable baseball player for the SF Giants, was having the best season—by far—of his career. He was selected as an All-Star, even won the MVP of the All-Star game, and was among the NL's leading hitters at an amazing .346, or nearly 60 points above his career average. 

MLB just suspended Melky for using testosterone.

Trust. So elusive. But for those who embrace it as a real and lasting value, trust can be earned. And inevitably, good things will follow. 

Part One: About "Liars."

In a Keller@Large piece on CBS Boston's website (will-they-stop-using-the-word-liar),  the headline addresses the use of the word "liar," and the article then equates that word with several euphemisms. We think that equation is misplaced.


Mr. Keller's article cited an exchange between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (remember him?).  In the exchange, Newt did everything he could to not call Mitt a liar; he tap-danced all around it but did not use it. That tap-dance is precisely the point.


Our Positively Writing view: the use of those euphemisms clearly demonstrates an unwillingness to use the word "liar." Since we always espouse clear, direct communication, we suggest that NOT using "liar" when warranted is less effective communication. It also implies discomfort with using the word.


We find this discomfort . . . well . . . discomfiting. And amazing, too. Modern politicians will say virtually anything to win a vote. More precisely, they lie incessantly. So why should we focus on their phrasing when we should castigate them for the (mis)information they are providing? They lie. They lie consistently and then look people in the eye and lie again.


But they're loathe to use the word "liar." Their wordsmithery is a bit bizarre. Do they edit themselves because they think calling someone a liar offends that person? While they are lying to us.


How disheartening for the country that we hear their vitriol. And how sad that we are forced to decipher the deceit. We've long advocated that any politician's paid media cannot mention an opponent. Wouldn't that change the political landscape: Force a candidate to talk only about their proposals and worthiness. 


Our two pieces of advice: First, stop pussyfooting. When given a chance to debate or confront, say it. If someone lied, say it. Say "You lied, and here's the proof." If you don't use the precise word you are communicating less effectively than you should be.


Second: Campaign positively. Give everyone credit for their willingness—and perhaps their likelihood—to engage more with a positive message. As marketers we've seen proof that a positive message is more effective than a negative one. And after all, who is more of a marketer than a politician running for office?


If someone lies, yes, label them "liar." If you're the liar, deal with the label. If we all stop lying, the entire issue disappears. Positively.

Death by Infographic?

"Simple" communicates better.

That's always been our Positively Writing philosophy. And we're wondering if the explosive increase in the use of infographics might challenge those who share our philosophy. Even casual observers of the digital-marketing landscape can't help but notice the preponderance (plethora?) of infographics in daily use across the Web. But what's behind the dramatic increase in that use?

Our view is that it's linked both to the presentation of data and to the effect technology is having on our ability to digest said data.

When individuals and companies decide to present us with infographics, they may be simply trying to illustrate—literally—data. By adding color and graphics they may be hoping to make a bigger impact than they would by showing us a bar chart. Good for them. We like interesting much more than we like boring, especially when thinking about data.

We're now also automatically inclined to expect some graphics with virtually every app or platform or online engagement of any kind. We heard an amusing comment recently describing Craigslist as looking like it was "from the invention of the Internet." The point was well taken.

But when the need to "cleverly" present data trumps the data itself, well, we have a problem. A 10-panel vertical infographic with swirling graphics and myriad colors and numbers embedded in endless layout elements? Probably wouldn't qualify as "simple." or "clear." And if it's not clear, it's falling short of it's goal. Simple.

While we're not surprised there's a bandwagon for infographics, we're eager for the wheels to fall off, so to speak. As marketers, we might want to take a step back and remember what our ultimate objective is: clear, persuasive communication.

Period.

On Resilience

1: the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress;  2: an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.


We were inspired by the cover story in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine about kids' success. Specifically, about the value in failure and learning how to deal with it.

The piece also questioned whether focusing on perfect performance is overvalued, and cited some illuminating results of multi-year studies among middle-school kids and their longer-term success . . . or lack thereof. The gist: Kids who scored higher for traits like resilience (i.e., "grit") were more likely to attain more lasting and meaningful success than kids with higher grade-point averages and standardized test scores.

This sounded a lot like the central message of the famous Ken Robinson TED talk, in which he so brilliantly called for schools to rethink the fundamental principles of education itself. He states, convincingly, that we're teaching kids to fear making mistakes, and that fear systematically stifles creativity.

Think about it. A young child of say, four, will often make up the wildest, weirdest answer to a question that baffles. Ask a tough question to a 12-year-old, and the likely answer is "I don' know." Older kids have been taught to not take a chance on an answer that might be wrong; it's "safer" for them to shut down and not try to conjure up an answer.

If the education system focused more on rewarding kids for their strength of character—for overcoming obstacles with relentless dedication—we might be better served. The kids, certainly, would be better served, as the research in the Times piece makes clear. Grit makes good.

Here at Positively Writing we notice the companies, especially in our field of advertising/marketing, who make it a point to state they employ "nice" people. Polite. people. Respectful. This hits home for us (especially the notion of respect), because it speaks to the character of a person, not just his or her experience or college or industry awards. For us, the companies that hire people who will run through he proverbial brick wall are better positioned for long-term success than those who "require" MBA-level job candidates.

We tend to over-dramatize mistakes in business, perhaps because the spectre of money—or potentially losing money/clients—looms. Wouldn't it be more productive, for employees and companies alike, if mistakes were acknowledged as a way of life and we emphasized the value of learning from mistakes . . . and we did not imply that the mistakes had better not happen again?

Answer? Yes it would. We would all be better off long term and we'd be happier, too. Fear of failure can become insidious and can have deeply negative effects on a company's culture and on its employees. We know from painful experience: Going to work in a decidedly negative, threatening environment is a stifling, debilitating experience that makes people feel disrespected.

Our advice to the job seekers out there: Seek out companies with truly collaborative cultures that value the ideas that come from all of their employees—not just the "idea" people. And if the spirit moves, take a run at that proverbial brick wall once in a while; strange as it might sound, it couldn't hurt.

More Proof the "Me" Plan Does Not Work—From Baseball!

We were awed by the drama and excitement of the final day of baseball's regular season: three remarkably dramatic wins that determined playoff teams and, in two of them, historic events that truly defied all logic and probability.

Today, the day after, we read quotes from players reacting to the games. And we were struck—once again, unfortunately—by the self-centered attitudes of these athletes. But upon further review, we realized those selfish thoughts may not be unrelated to losing.

Three Boston players offered shockingly selfish reactions to their loss and, moreover, their team's amazing September collapse. Two were mentioned in Boston Globe sportswriter Dan Shaughnessy's piece today.

Carl Crawford had a chance to prolong last night's game but missed a sliding catch on the game-ending hit; he evaluated the play this way: “If I should have caught it, I could have caught it." 

Huh? 

Putting aside the fact that this may not in fact be English—it certainly isn't coherent thought—Crawford doesn't come close to taking responsibility. Not really my fault, is what he's essentially saying in a disturbingly bizarre way.

Adrian Gonzalez took the "higher" route to irresponsibility: "“God has a plan,’’ he said. “And it wasn’t God’s plan for us to be in the playoffs.’’ Shaughnessy's one- word reaction to this: "Wow." We can't say it any better.

The Globe also reported that 45-year-old pitcher Tim Wakefield, when asked if he would play again next year, said he wanted to come back to break the record for most wins in team history. He said nothing—not one word—about helping the team win.

Hmm. Three key players saying nothing about their roles and responsibilities as teammates . . . and then their team goes out and loses in an epic way. Coincidence? We think not.

Perhaps the most shocking lack of character was shown yesterday by the Mets' Jose Reyes, who asked out of a game in the very first inning so he had a better chance of winning the batting title. Reyes' act is indefensible; his level of arrogance and disrespect, to teammates and fans alike, tells you everything you need to know about him. (The Mets season was marked by rampant losing and organizational disarray.)

When your team includes players who are more focused on individual priorities, your team chemistry suffers. By definition, you're playing as less of a team. 

We won't suggest reasons for the "Me First" approach because there may be societal, economic and personal forces in play here. We will suggest, however, that when you put on a uniform (or join a company of any kind) you might want to think big picture first. Why? It's simple: If the team wins you win. How that could be considered anything but a positive outcome, for the group and for the individuals, escapes us. 

Our Positively Writing view is, always, that you get what you give. So we always strive to do the respectful thing, the selfless thing, and we persevere with positive expectations. Always. And when we witness events that are so unexpected, as we did in these baseball games last night, we feel more justified than ever in our approach.

Baseball as a life lesson? Why not? The universe once again is showing us that by giving we'll all be getting what we want—happiness. 

Simple and satisfying, isn't it?