ImaginativePRO Blog

MOBILE HOMES & FISHES USES AN OUTDOOR BILLBOARD TO HELP THE HOMELESS, AND A HOMELESS MAN NAMED DANNY SILVER FINDS A HOME

Austin-based nonprofit Mobile Loves & Fishes wanted to raise a more visceral type of awareness about homelessness, and teamed up with marketing agency T3 for a two-day stunt in which an actual homeless man, Danny, slept on a 50-foot billboard where passers-by could text donations to raise money to find a new home for him and his wife. Two days, 252,000 people on Twitter and $12,000 later, Danny was able to find shelter.

More than 3.5 million people in America are homeless, yet too often, they go unseen. Austin-based homeless mission Mobile Loaves and Fishes wanted to change that, to give homeless people a voice with which to say “I am here” and empower others to help.

That’s why, April 27-28, 2010, MLF founder Alan Graham, along with Danny Silver, a then-homeless man, went up on a billboard on I-35. The goal was inspire people to text enough $10 donations to get Danny and his wheelchair-bound wife Maggie off the streets and into a gently used RV (just $12,000).

Not only did we raise enough money to get Danny and Maggie a home, we raised awareness of homelessness to a dramatic new height.

During the time Danny and Alan were on the billboard people, tuned in around the country, with news coverage in 30 markets nationwide. One of those people tuning in was Danny’s daughter, whom he hadn’t seen in ten years. She contacted Alan, and they were reunited the same day Danny and Maggie moved into their home.

COMMENTARY:  Thanks to the "I Am Here" outdoor campaign by MLFNow (Mobile Loaves and Fishes) Danny Silver was re-united with his daughter and found a home.  What a great ending.  Thanks MLFNow.org.

Courtesy of an article dated December 13, 2010 appearing in Advertising Age

SHOW ME THE MONEY: VENTURE-BACKED CEO's EXPECT HIGHER SALARIES

Despite the nation’s flagging economic recovery, chief executives of venture-backed companies remain optimistic–at least when it comes to their compensation.

In a small poll of its members by ExpertCEO, an online community for senior executives, 76 CEOs from venture-backed companies on average expected modest increases in salary this year and in 2011.

These executives reported an average salary of $238,000 in 2009, and they expect that number to climb to $250,000 this year and $262,000 in 2011. Their bonus on average is expected to remain flat at $94,000 this year, however, well short of an average target bonus of $131,000. The average target bonus for 2011 is estimated at $130,000.

These results were part of a broader survey of 188 CEOs from companies including those that are private family-owned, public and non-profit. More than half of these companies bring in less than $10 million in revenue.

The overall survey results proved a bit more optimistic, at least when it comes to bonuses. Salary is estimated to rise on average from $217,000 in 2009 to $224,000 this year and $234,000 in 2011. Bonuses are expected to climb from $85,000 on average last year to $93,000 in 2010. The survey doesn’t break out expected bonuses for 2011, only a target, which on average is $108,000, less than the $111,000 target for this year.

About 65% of respondents expect to receive a 2010 bonus, while 55% received a bonus in 2009.

Very small companies, or those with revenue under $1 million where cash is scarce and incentive compensation is often earned by vesting in substantial equity stakes, not surprisingly pay the fewest and smallest bonuses. Almost 75% of these CEOs received no bonus in 2009; and 56% don’t expect to receive one in 2010.

The latest survey from ExpertCEO, which connects more than 1,750 senior executives, follows a poll in July that gauged how satisfied private tech-company CEOs are with their incentive compensation. That survey found that 20% of respondents weren’t happy with the process used to determine their bonuses.

COMMENTARY:   I believe CEO's should draw no monthly salary at all.   Compensation should be strictly performance based.    If the company does well, the CEO gets the lions share of the glory and should then be entitled to a year-end bonus.  The amount of that bonus should be voted upon by the company employees, and approved by the board of directors.   I would also set as a benchmark that a CEO's total annual salary should not be more than 10 times the highest paid salaried employee working for that company.  

To create "executive compensation remorse", Fortune 1000 corporations shall post a sign in their corporate HQ front lobby listing the total compensation, including stock options and other benefits of all their corporate officers.   Next to that sign will be a white phone, where employees could leave messages.  There identities would not be disclosed to protect them from retribution.         

Courtesy of an article dated October 11, 2010 appearing in The Wall Street Journal's Venture Capital Dispatch

BABY BOOMERS AND THE NEW (NORMAL) ECONOMY

Last week we learned that the Great Recession (part one) was from December 2007 through June 2009. Lasting a full 18 months, it has been the longest downturn since the Great Depression.

Most agree that the jury is still out on whether there will be a part two.

Also last week in this very space, Brent Bouchez made a passionate and valid case for marketers and advertisers to focus their attention on the 50+ segment because that is where the money (still) is. Brent is right, but this recession has affected how Boomers think, feel and act when it comes to spending money. And it is a change you need to know about and understand as you craft your 50+ business plan (you are crafting one, aren't you? If not, go back and read Brent's piece again).

Boomers, like most consumers, have moved to a new place when it comes to spending money.

Thanks to our partnership with BIGresearch and its Consumer Intentions and Actions study, each month over the last three years we have been monitoring the attitudes of Boomers on a variety of spending and money issues. The first week of each month, BIG fields a huge survey among a representative panel of consumers, ages 18 to 80, asking all sorts of questions about where they shop, what they buy and what they plan to do next.

One such question is about behavior: "Over the last six months, have you made any of the following changes?" The simple "yes" or "no" vote gets tallied and, month-after-month, we can determine trends. Three changes are about spending money:

• I have become more practical and realistic in my purchases ... yes or no

• I have become more budget conscious ... yes or no

• I focus more on what I NEED rather than what I WANT ... yes or no (emphasis mine)

The higher the score, the more fiscally responsible or conservative consumers are. The lower the score, the more free-spending and loose consumers are.

Here's the chart since September 2007, months before the Great Recession's official start, through this September (the BIG survey is fielded the first week each month and the data released by the 20th, so we can track fresh trends).

You'll see the sharp increase in all three scores as we moved into the recession. The peak for all three occurred in early 2009; it seems once the new Administration took office, Boomers eased their attitudes about money and spending. Until this summer, when the scores began moving back up.

The New Normal

The trend line is important, but the broader point is that, on each measure, Boomers are not close to returning to the same level of attitude about spending money. The "floor" is some 10 percentage points higher than it was in September 2007, pre-recession.

Looking toward this holiday season, Boomers remain cautious about spending. In September every year, BIG asks "Based on your present situation and feelings toward the economy, which of the following best describes your plans for the December holiday season?"

Over 40% of Boomers said, "I plan on spending less for gifts than last year." Last year that figure was 44%. In 2008 it was 43%, and in 2007, pre-recession, it was 35%. Four out of ten spending less doesn't bode well for retailers, again.

The evidence continues to mount that there is a new mentality among consumers, especially Boomers, when it comes to spending money on goods and services.

If your job is to figure out how to best motivate them to spend it with your company, your job has a new normal, too. It's much harder.

COMMENTARY:  The "Boomers are in a different place" chart signals that Boomers are still not over the shock from the Great Recession with the financial meltdown that occurred in September 2008 and massive bailout by President Bush to keep America from going into a depression.  Brand marketer's must not only deliver a branding message, but address the increased caution and apprehension of the Boomer consumer.  The brand message needs to incorporate NEED, PRACTICALITY and BUDGETING within the context of the four P's--people, product, price and promotion.      

Courtesy of an article dated September 27, 2010 appearing in MediaPost Publications Engage:Boomers

DEPT OF JUSTICE RULES: ITS OK FOR APPLE, ADOBE, GOOGLE, INTEL, INTUIT AND PIXAR TO RAID EACH OTHERS EMPLOYEES

The Department of Justice has just settled an antitrust suit with Apple, Google, Intel and other firms over not cold-calling each other's employees. The DoJ was worried the secret no-call policy was anti-competitive, so now the firms are freer to poach staff. Is this better?

Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc., and Pixar were targeted by a DoJ probe into an agreement the firms had made with each other years back--one of many "gentlemen's agreements" that exist behind and above the normal rules of business (whatever they are) that keep businesses ticking along. The deal in question was that these firms wouldn't cold-call each other's employees to tempt them to work for alternative enterprises. In some circles it could be considered base thievery, and may suppress desire for inter-company business partnerships due to lessened trust at a corporate level--particularly if really prominent staff were targeted. In others it would be easy to argue that a company shouldn't want to retain a staff member who could be so easily tempted by a flash of currency.

Whichever way you or the companies concerned thought about it, the DoJ saw it as a reason for worry because it led to "overall diminished competition to the detriment of affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities." As a result it just filed a civil antitrust case against the six firms, and proposed a settlement at the same time: All six must abandon any anti-cold-call policies they have with any of the others, for a period of five years.

The case targets not just cold-calling, but also any anti-compete policies about recruiting staff, but here is where the DoJ's case gets murky. Because though the firms had agreed (in a complex web of deals, spelled out in the DoJ's lawsuit) not to directly solicit each other's staff, any other kind of action was acceptable--say if a Google employee, of their own volition, gently tested the waters at Apple to see if a move was possible. To this end, the companies weren't really suppressing competitive pay deals for staff at all, and the DoJ was being heavy-handed, perhaps in an overly literal interpretation of the anti-competitive laws.

Google, responding to the news took the unusual step of making a public statement about it in a blog post: "In order to maintain a good working relationship with these companies, in 2005 we decided not to “cold call” employees at a few of our partner companies. Our policy only impacted cold calling, and we continued to recruit from these companies through LinkedIn, job fairs, employee referrals, or when candidates approached Google directly. In fact, we hired hundreds of employees from the companies involved during this time period."

The Google statement is interesting for two reasons: It supports the notion of reasonable business practice associated with the no-call deals, over and above the DoJ's strict interpretation of the law. And it's an extremely open door into the normally secretive business goings-on that happen in all companies, and apparently particularly in Silicon Valley.

Companies have all sorts of work-arounds like the one in question in place with both their allies in business and their competitors (complicated by the fact that sometimes these are the same firm--look at Apple and Google for example) because real life is much more complicated than simple legal rules would have you believe. These sorts of deals, which tip-toe along the lines between overlapping regulations, happen throughout a company, and as you can imagine they get particularly twisty in the final moments before one firm buys another and everyone has to lay their cards on the table. The anti-calling deals these particular companies struck may smack of corporate intrigue, complete with imagery of chubby businessmen puffing cigars in darkened rooms and muttering in quiet, indirect code about their various dealings, but they are no more or less than the kind of legal rule-bending that goes on when a speeding ambulance breaks the law and jumps a red light and isn't pursued for the "crime," or a cop uses his judgment and doesn't arrest you for J-walking at 3 a.m. when there was no traffic around.

Sometimes the agreements do indeed overstep the mark, and the DoJ's intervention appears warranted. But who benefits in this case? The end-user consumer? The companies in question? The high-ranking employees implicated in the suit? These last would seem to be the real target, but it's hard to imagine someone becoming senior enough to warrant poaching in these multi-billion dollar firms without also acquiring a keen sense of their own worth in dollars.

COMMENTARY:  This so-called "gentleman's agreement" is a bunch of bullshit in an era of intense competition and market overlaps.  It is really unfortunate, but companies would not be able to compete effectively if they were not permitted to recruit the best employees.  Raiding each others employees is common practice.  Lawsuits about this are legendary.  Missing from this whole equation is Facebook, which has been heavily recruiting Google engineers to develop the Facebook smartphone.  Such crybabies.

Courtesy of an article dated September 27, 2010 appearing in Fast Company 

A business meme that keeps making the rounds is “entrepreneurs, do your own PR.”

Since I’m a PR “agency of one,” you are welcome to hereby disregard the rest of this post.

Before you do, though, you should know that I’ve been both client and agency-side; and have been, and am, a small business owner. What follows comes with 15 years of experience from both sides of the table.

A couple of weeks ago, my BNET blogging colleague Michael Hess decided to “piss off a bunch of good PR firms” by giving you five reasons you don’t need a PR firm.

Let’s examine them.

Myth #1: PR agencies can never know or sell your product as well as you do.

Fact: True, PR agencies might never know your product as well as you.

But “sell”? That’s a completely different ball game.

As an entrepreneur, it’s quite possible that you are so taken with your product that you’re not objective about it. Guess who can best help you figure out how to position it?

It’s not you. It’s not your lawyer. It’s your PR counsel.

Lori Saitz, founder of Zen Rabbit Cookies (and a Women Grow Business blogger), said, “Most [entrepreneurs] don’t know how to do their own [PR] and have a difficult time distinguishing between what’s really news and what’s just company promo [sic].”

Myth #2: Money and “ROI.”

Fact: Agreed, hiring someone to manage your PR is not as inexpensive as doing it yourself.

But what is the opportunity cost of doing so? As an entrepreneur, wouldn’t you rather focus your time (which means money) on growing your business?

To quote Saitz: “Even if they do know PR (they’ve done it professionally in their career), [I'm] not sure doing it now is the best use of their time and focus.”

Myth #3: The media like entrepreneurs.

Fact: Of course the media like entrepreneurs. Who wouldn’t?

But the media likes being pitched even better. I give you ‘Exhibit A,’ which I received in the last couple of weeks:

“Dear You - The Person I want to cover my story, or shall I say UNCOVER a great hidden secret to the world,

“I hope this email finds you well. I’m writing to you about an incredible newsworthy story I’d love you to cover… In 1999, at the age of 24 and still living at home, I started my successful business out of my parent’s basement. In fact, it took a rejection letter from MBA School to push me into this path of entrepreneurship earlier than I had expected!”

Given that I now write for/publish three blogs (BNET, WGB and my own), might you understand why I was a tad cranky on receipt?

Where’s the personalized pitch? How does this make my life easier as an editor and/or blogger? Why would it be interesting to my readers… any of them?

And, why were you, Exhibit A, still living in your parents’ home at age 24?

Myth #4: It is easier than ever to do it yourself.

Fact: It is indeed “easier than ever” to undertake the mechanics of media and blogger relations than ever before.

Michael lists several tactics in his companion post on how to get started doing your own PR. Actually, there are even more, as I explained when I presented at Social Commerce Camp-DC earlier in 2010. (See? I can be helpful too.)

But what you need to understand — especially when it comes to building your own media lists and setting monitoring processes in place — is that these take time.

A. Lot. Of. Time.

Be very, very sure that the opportunity cost is worth it.

Myth #5: You need to build permanent relationships [with the media].

Fact: Relationships are the bedrock of your business. That’s why it’s so important to turn customers into evangelizers.

When it comes to media, though, what they want is a good story, quickly, and with easily accessible resources (such as video, images, quotes).

These elements, if provided, are the first steps to building a good relationship with them, which may prove invaluable in time to come. Without them, no amount of media “pals” will help you get that hit you’re looking for. Moreover, with fast-moving changes in the media, they switch industries in a heartbeat.

When I ran communications for the ASPCA, I built up a good relationship with a writer for a major pet trade publication. Next I heard, she was writing for a PR trade.

Go figure.

True PR

True PR is much more than “spin” or “buzz.” It’s a business function that supports and helps to achieve organizational goals and objectives.

As an entrepreneur, DIY PR is your prerogative, and you might be brilliant at it.

But you should understand exactly what the ramifications are for your business if you do so.

COMMENTARY:  Actually, I don't see why entrepreneurs cannot prepare some of their own press releases if they know their public very well and how to reach them.  This applies only to very simple PR topics such as new hires, new products, appearances, events, etc.  

As far as conducting complete public relations campaigns, I would advise hiring a public relations firm or publicity agent.  Public relations firms understand the public relations process start-to-finish, plan and execute entire public relations campaigns, write PR copy, research the best and most cost-effective publicity channels, negotiate prices. It's best to let them handle the latter.

Courtesy of an article dated September 14, 2010 appearing in BNET  

HOW SARAH PALIN MAKES SURE HER FACEBOOK HOMEPAGE IS JUST 'RIGHT'

The comments on Sarah Palin's Facebook page offer a relatively unbroken chain of adulation, applause, and approval: "Tell it LIKE IS MRS. PALIN." "God Bless you Sarah!! Thanks for all you do!!" "Palin 2012!!!!" No matter the topic of her posting—an endorsement of a candidate or a remark about energy policy—scores call for her to run for office.

It should not surprise you that the comments to posts she makes on her page are screened. For any high-profile politician, online comments are like town hall forums: Both appear to be spontaneous but are actually highly choreographed. In presidential town hall meetings, people sit in high-school gymnasiums and wear flannel as they jockey for the microphone. They almost seem genuine, but as they ask questions, it becomes clear they have been carefully selected. Each question to the candidate features the same sentiment: You're pretty wonderful, aren't you?

Palin's Facebook page is a key tool in her public brand management. She has used it effectively to project her message, appear connected with voters, and bypass the traditional media (while simultaneously using it to rebroadcast her message). In a recentFacebook post, she celebrated her 2 millionth fan on the site and the size of her reach. "Two million! Wow! That's more than some cable news shows. Thank you all and let's keep the momentum!

How much work does it take to keep everything so sanitized? To help me find out, my colleague Jeremy Singer-Vine wrote a program to capture comments to Palin's page before the clean-up crew could arrive. (Here's an explanation of how Jeremy's program works.) All these posts were initially public, if only for a few minutes. We looked at the comments to 10 Palin posts over 12 days, capturing the deletions in the 24 hours after the posts were live. In that period, a rough average of 10 percent of total posts were deleted.

The deletions amount to a real-time look at how much effort and care Palin puts into protecting her public image. It's not just the number of posts that are screened out that gives some indication of how seriously Palin's team is monitoring things. The superfine mesh through which posts are sifted also gives an indication of the work involved. You don't get erased just for using vulgarity or pushing spam (which Facebook might remove anyway if flagged). The kinds of posts that are likely to get you removed from the Palin comments section can be divided into categories (the comments have not been edited):

Mean comments about Sarah Palin. "Please go away from my wall. I do not like you or agree with any dumb thing you say or do."

Mean things about the people who say mean things about Sarah Palin. "if you dont like her posts LEAVE THE GROUP DUMBASS!!!!

Racial or ethnic slurs. "America's greatest threat is Marxism and International Jewry/Zionism! We will never regain our Liberty and Freedom until we expel every Jew from America!"

Polite disagreement. "Sarah, perception is everything! I learned that in the military. All you have to do is disassociate yourself from those Tea Partiers that are indeed racist and the NAACP gones [sic] away," wrote one in response to Palin's post on the NAACP's charge that the Tea Party tolerated racism. "Even they [the NAACP] admit the Tea Party is not a racist organization. Mrs. Palin, I believe you to be an honorable Woman. You believe in your cause. Sometimes for the good of the cause one has to make a stand even to those that support the cause. Remember John Mccain, circa 2008 in which a woman stood up and called Candidate Obama a Muslim. The Honorable John Mccain rebuked her. This could be your moment."

Too much agreement. "Do us a favor Sarah, trap a few Wolves and ship em to D.C., they do eat Rats don't they? Have a great trip Sarah, God Bless."

Criticism of her children. "please dont let your daughter do a reality show :( but i love your family and you ..hope thats just a rumor from the liberals."

Anything about Obama's birth certificate or conspiracies related thereto, even in muted form. "Just so we're clear, Conspiracy theories about Obama's refusal to release his college records—lunacy. Conspiracy theories about Trig Palin—journalism."

Complaints about her endorsements of so many female candidates. "I am beginning not to like you (Sarah). You have endorsed every women candidate running. You are looking quite biased." (Actually, she's endorsed as many men as women.

Excessive use of religious prophesy or imagery. "The ones I feel for is one day those in the media that are doing the way they are will come down .you are a threat to them and their evil ways. David only needed 5 stones to bring down the giant. and i belive those five stones had on them five letters JESUS. The road may get hard but one day you will know God gave you that to walk."

There are a host of benign posts deleted from supporters who simply disagreed with the person Palin chose to endorse in a particular note. A typical one addressed her endorsement of Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire for U.S. Senate: "I can't believe Sarah endorsed Ayotte. Ayotte is not a Momma Grizzley, she's just another progressive in Rep. clothing. The 912 group I belong to and some of the other groups in the state are disappointed by this endorsement."

This caused a little stir among the commenters. "Why are the few comments expressing disagreement with this endorsement being deleted?" wrote one. " Just because some of us disagree with the endorsement doesn't mean that we don't follow Sarah Palin." Alfred Petross wrote, "I just wish you would listen to me as a resident of the 3rd Congressional District. All I am doing is voicing my opinion and my posts keep getting deleted...." (These comments were then deleted.) "Having my posts deleted were extremely disappointing," says Petross, who went on to post his letter to Palin on his Facebook page, "because I was under the impression that Sarah Palin was in fact a political activist who was all about hearing the opinions and voices of the constituents of the United States."

Though recent deletions seem heavy on these voices of protest, Palin's screener doesn't take out every voice of dissent. Indeed, the outcry over her endorsement of Carly Fiorina for the U.S. Senate in California prompted Palin to respond to her fans.

My efforts to get some insight from Palin's camp have so far gone unanswered. (Given how prolific Palin has been, and how carefully the posts are screened, they could be too busy.) This leaves us without explanations for some intriguing deletions. "Hey all Sarah fans! Come and 'like' Mike Huckabee on Facebook. Like Sarah, he is a common sense conservative. Sarah and Mike have ideas that will save this great nation." Many posts make innocuous requests that readers support causes or read Web pages. So why was this one about a potential rival for the Republican presidential nomination deleted?

Palin is far more rigorous with her Facebook friends than most other political figures. Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann,* and Scott Brown get the familiar trolls and mischief, but those comments stay on the page. (Over on Rand Paul's page, one poster is wishing cancer on another.) President Obama's page is perhaps the only other one that is so carefully tended. Though when we looked at the deletions on Obama's page, they were less than 1 percent of comments posted and surprisingly rather benign: "We the People are NOT unertaxed...YOU, Mr Obama are spending too much!

Palin is a polarizing figure, which makes this kind of curation necessary to guard her reputation and keep her from being linked (literally if not figuratively) to anything controversial. There's no reason she should be responsible for the nutty posts on her Facebook page, but that doesn't mean her opponents won't try to put them there and then make her guilty by association. She's also wise to scrub the offensive posts of the kind the Republican National Committee only recently removed. So Palin never allows anything that might be considered mildly controversial.

Political strategists say that it's often hard to talk long-shot candidates out of running for office because they have so many friends and hangers-on telling them they deserve to be president. If that's true, then there's no political strategist alive who could persuade Sarah Palin not to run for president. She has 2 million Facebook friends telling her otherwise.

COMMENTARY:   I thought I would have some fun after I learned about what is truly going on with Sarah Palin's Facebook homepage.  I realize I may have gone over-the-top and spreckled the Slate article with political humor, but that's the price you pay for being a blogger.

Courtesy of an article dated August 3, 2010 appearing in Slate