RonAmok!

During the past few weeks, I’ve had the pleasure of dealing with the local LA television folks from ABC, NBC, and CBS. And while there will always be something exciting about seeing a television news van pull into your parking lot, the sight reminds me of how much things have changed over the past few years.

Before the advent of New Media, companies required third parties to deliver information to prospects and customers. This reliance on third parties forced companies to budget for the distribution of content as opposed to development of it.

As a result of being subservient to those who own the channels, companies have honed their skills for “messaging” as opposed to “communicating.” And they’ve funded entire armies of professional communicators who can deftly stay “on-message.”

Take the term “media training,” for example. Media training is an example of how companies work within the limitations of those who own the distribution channels. With media training, we’re taught to hammer the same trite messages over and over in hopes that a journalist either capitulates and uses the information, or that the captured audio and video is so contaminated, that it’s impossible for a journalist to edit it out.

But the introduction of New Media channels such as blogging, podcasting, online video, Facebook, Twitter, and even location-based services like FourSquare have changed everything. These technologies have dropped the price of distribution to where it is too small to measure. But instead of seeing this economic shift as something to take advantage of, most execs prefer to look a gift horse in the mouth. Instead of shifting budgets from the distribution of messaging to the creation of relevant content, they continue hiring those same old message mongers.

The end of the year offers a time of reflection. It’s also the time to start planning next year’s budget. If you’re an executive who is responsible for corporate communications, consider looking at the process through a different lens. Should you fund messaging through third parties, or communicating through your own channels? No need to be draconian about it–what if you did both, shifting significant money from messaging to communicating?

Be careful though. Those trained in the art of messaging won’t take too kindly to your taking food out of their mouths.

Photo Credit: anitakhart

Last night I heard about the Kohl’s Cares program — where the retailer is giving away $10 million in $500,000 chunks to 20 schools.  By diverting advertising funds into philanthropic projects, Kohl’s has joined other companies such as Pepsi who are also re-allocating advertising budgets. For example, so far, Pepsi’s Refresh Project has donated $1.25 million to 31 different charities.

This fundamental shift in focus–from interrupting people to helping them–is something that most businesses aren’t ready for. As someone who has played the corporate game for more than a quarter century, I’ve witnessed first hand the nasty corporate politics that ensue when budgets are discussed.  Nothing is more dangerous than a middle manager with a threatened budget.

But there’s something more important than corporate politics that execs must consider with such a shift. Past advertising budget transfers have simply shifted money from one way of interrupting people to another. But “giving” instead of “paying” is a totally different animal, requiring a shift in employee skills. Advertising requires lots of creative and media-buying skills. Philanthropy requires those skilled in administration.

Philanthropic projects come with added responsibilities. Anyone who gives to a social cause must also ensure that the money is being spent wisely. Philanthropy requires a long term commitment, something that companies with big ad budgets have never had to worry about when simply writing a check for advertising services.

This trend to combine philanthropy and advertising (philanthrotizing?) is worth watching. Will it work? Only time will tell. But in a tough economy, where corporations are viewed as pariahs and shoddily run local governments are filing for bankruptcy, philanthrotizing may create an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

Photo Credit: Wonderlane

Earlier this week, someone sent me a music video of 20 Robots dancing to Beyoncé Knowles’s popular song, Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It). The video has been seen 41,000 times since its release just seven days ago. Check it out.

According to strict interpretations of copyright law, mashups like these are considered illegal. Therefore, it’s probably only a matter of time before Myren the Beancounter launches a cease and desist letter, claiming that the robots are hurting Beyoncé financially.

As someone who wears two hats–content creator who supports artist compensation and businessman who supports the bottom line–I’m left with the following question: ”Is Beyoncé being harmed financially or benefitting from said video?”

On one hand, she’s not receiving direct revenue from each time the video is played. On the other, she’s benefitted from 41,000 new earworm opportunities to send fans to iTunes.

Content creation and distribution technologies are changing the way we do business. They cause us to question fundamental assumptions that formed the cornerstones of entire industries. Ten years from now, we’ll probably look back on these issues and laugh. Until then, we’ll sit on the sidelines watching Myren protect the top line while ignoring the bottom line.

What sayeth you?

Tags: fair use copyright Ron Ploof Orange County Public Relations Marketing Social Media