Just a couple of weeks ago, Dow Jones published an analysis of PR agencies. Using Dow Jones Insight, our media analysis service, we looked at the media coverage of PR agencies and identified those who were covered the most.
The story generated a lot of interest, and several readers pointed out that PR firms typically are too busy promoting clients rather than themselves. That led PRNewswer to survey its readers, asking whether appearing on the list was a good thing or not. The results are in, and nearly two-thirds said it was.
We plan to take a look at social media coverage of PR firms in June, so stay tuned.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
PR Week recently reported that the job market for PR professionals was rebounding, particularly for senior level positions. This is good news for the profession and job seekers. Looking into the future, what type of skills will senior PR professionals need to succeed in today’s complex communications and business environment?
Martin Murtland, VP and Managing Director, Dow Jones, shared his view with Bulldog Reporter late last month. He sees two skills as being critical: alignment with the business strategy and strong analytical skills. Those with these skills will be “winners” who will drive new metrics designed to measure brand and issues in a much more complicated media landscape.
The article is based on a joint presentation Martin did with Cindy Droog, APR, Senior Public Relations Specialist, at Amway. Their session at PRSA’s International Conference in Washington, DC, looked at new ways to measure brand and reputation, including velocity and advocacy.
Read the Bulldog article and look at both Martin’s and Cindy’s presentations below, and share with us the new metrics you’re discovering.
Diane Thieke is Marketing Director at Dow Jones.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The marketing and media efforts of FIFA World Cup sponsors and advertisers during the run-up to the tournament have been discussed previously in this blog. Now that the tournament is over, it’s an appropriate time to analyze the most interesting aspect of World Cup marketing this year, which involved the intense competition between sporting goods companies Adidas and Nike.
Adidas has a long-standing relationship with FIFA and the World Cup that goes back more than 30 years. As an official partner, the referees’ uniforms and the balls are Adidas-branded, along with the ads around the playing field and on television during the matches.
Nike, which was not an official sponsor, had to be creative in order to be competitive with Adidas. The company’s approach was to launch a viral “ambush” campaign on its Facebook page prior to the start of the tournament. Its “Write the Future” ad featured players from several countries who imagined how their lives would change if they starred in the World Cup. By launching the ad on the company’s Facebook page before it ran on television, Nike created a buzz that saw its number of followers on Facebook double within the first week.
This buzz resulted in a large spike in Nike’s coverage in social media generally, as many blogs and message boards discussed the ad and provided a link to the video. An added benefit for Nike is that the ambush campaign created the impression for many consumers that Nike was a sponsor of the tournament. This was quite a coup — as well as a cost-saver — since FIFA charges $125 million for its World Cup “partners.”
The volume of coverage is of course important in marketing, but so is the quality of the coverage. Fortunately for Nike, much of the social media buzz generated by “Write the Future” was favorable, with numerous people recommending the ad in public forums or sending the link to friends.
Adidas saw its biggest spike in coverage shortly before the start of the tournament in June, but much of the coverage – both in social and traditional media – concerned criticism of the Jabulani ball Adidas created for tournament. This negative coverage is proof that the quantity of coverage doesn’t necessarily translate into advertising value equivalency (AVE).
Of course, both companies wanted the teams and players they sponsored to succeed and there’s a certain cachet for outfitting the top teams. Performance probably wasn’t a critical factor, however, since Nike generated the buzz they wanted prior to the tournament and only hard-core fans focused on the disappointing performances of such players as Wayne Rooney, Franck Ribery and Christiano Ronaldo, who were featured in the ads.
So who is ultimately the winner? It’s hard to find much wrong with Nike’s strategy, since they didn’t have to pay the $125 million partnership fee; much of the publicity for their campaign was generated by consumers; and they managed to receive more media coverage than all of the paid sponsors, except Adidas.
On the other hand, Adidas may be able to overlook all of the costs and controversies it encountered, since the ultimate image of the tournament will be the Spanish team raising the World Cup trophy – clad in Adidas jerseys.
David Breg is a media consultant based in Washington, D.C.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
It’s easy, I think, to draw conclusions from a quick scan of headlines. Sometimes what we intuit can be right on the money, but other times, a deep look at data can challenge our perceptions. Every day, I give a cursory read of several local and US national papers and web sites, and based on this, my take on the economy has been mixed. There are bright spots and not so bright spots.
Luckily, there are a number of economic indicators that can give me a more accurate read. Yesterday, the Dow Jones Economic Sentiment Indicator hit its highest level since June 2008, up a full two points from last month to 42.3. What’s interesting about this indicator is that it’s calculated by analyzing the economic coverage in 15 major daily newspapers in the U.S., using Dow Jones Insight. This is the same media analysis tool used by Fortune 2000 PR and corporate communications teams to measure their media coverage.
So, rather than simply rely on my own amalgamated view of what the news says, I now have a serious – and more reliable – way to evaluate all the economic news running in these papers (more than I read, actually). Changes I’d often overlook – for example, an increase in boat sales in Chicago – are factored into the indicator.
Neal Lipschutz, senior editor at Dow Jones Newswires, explains how this indicator works on Fox Business.
Diane Thieke is Marketing Director, Dow Jones Solutions for Communicators, based in Princeton, NJ.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
We’ve seen it before.
A negative event happens and the negative sentiment is attached almost exclusively to the most well-known brand involved, and not to the other brands who often should share the blame. Not too long ago we can remember the case of Dell catching all the negative press when the Sony batteries in its laptops overheated and caught fire. And does anyone know the name of Toyota’s brake supplier?
This month, the obvious example is the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. BP is the name nearly exclusively associated with the event in the public’s consciousness. But BP Plc didn’t even own the rig which exploded on April 20; it had been leasing it from Switzerland’s Transocean Ltd.
However, the still evolving story seems to indicate BP does not deserve all the blame. And it fact while it is accepting responsibility for clean up, it is pointing fingers at Transocean, one of three other companies involved to some degree in the event. Those other companies have been much less mentioned in the press and social media.
Houston-based oil and gas equipment and services company Halliburton was the company who was engaged in the now notorious well-cementing operations around the time of the explosion. And Houston’s well-servicer Cameron International made the blowout preventer device, which failed to engage completely. Had that failsafe worked as designed, this story would be gone from the front page by now.
An analysis of these four companies on Twitter, on blogs and boards and in the mainstream press shows a consistent picture. Household name BP has gotten the lion’s share of the press, arguably more than the others combined.
In Twitter comments, Cameron is virtually absent, perhaps enjoying its anonymity outside the oil industry. Only the testimony that Halliburton and TrasnOcean have had to give to Congress this week has gotten them into the consciousness of the Twittersphere.
In the mainstream press, BP still tops the others. Halliburton, well-known for its activity in the other “Gulf” as a contractor for the U.S. governement, has gotten less than 10% of the mentions of BP, running about 5000 per day for BP to 400 per day for Halliburton of the approximately 20,000 sources analyzed using Dow Jones Insight. Transocean, is continually more than Halliburton in the press, on several days last week about four times as much.
But in Social Media the name Halliburton probably has struck that familiar bad-guy chord and bloggers are talking about it nearly twice as much as Transocean.
How have these companies reacted to the event? BP has been looking straight at the microphones. Its CEO, Tony Hayward, has for example, been interviewed multiple times by NPR and others on exactly how his company is reacting. The company has created a web site and a feed on Twitter, focused on its response to the cleanup efforts. And it has created a crisis center in Houston, according to PR Week, “staffed by communications professionals flown in from BP’s offices around the world.”
The others companies seem a bit more camera shy. Halliburton hasn’t said much more than it did its job properly and completed it hours before the explosion.
I can’t find a Twitter feed for the other companies. Though I found one called TransoceanRumor, which clearly means Transocean isn’t driving the social media conversation, they are being driven.
Glenn Fannick is the director of product development for Dow Jones Insight, a media measurement tool. He is based in Princeton, N.J.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
My colleague, Inma Canti, and I recently prepared a report on media coverage of the corporate sponsors of the 2010 World Cup football (soccer) tournament. We thought this would be an interesting topic because the event is the world’s most watched sporting event and a big platform for corporate sponsors who are willing to shell out millions of dollars to have their names and brands affiliated with the event.
A noteworthy finding in the report is Coca-Cola’s strong emphasis on marketing events associated with the World Cup and its efforts to promote these activities in the media. For example, Coke had more than double the number of media placements for its World Cup activities than Visa, which was the company with the next highest volume of placements. Also, Coke CEO Muhtar Kent was the executive quoted or mentioned most often in the coverage.
These results should not be surprising, considering Coke’s recent strategy that emphasizes growth in global markets. Kent noted in the company’s 2008 annual report that, “critical to expanding our global beverage leadership is achieving balanced growth across a range of geographies. We have identified emerging markets as critical to our business growth. We are [also] taking aggressive actions to reinforce our business in key developed markets like Japan, North America and parts of Western Europe.”
Being a World Cup sponsor is an expensive proposition: official sponsorships cost $125 million, which doesn’t include the marketing activities undertaken by the companies to promote their involvement with the tournament. It’s logical for Coke to devote considerable resources to this effort, however, since the event is an ideal platform for a company emphasizing a growth strategy focused on emerging markets (16 of the 32 participating teams are from Africa, Latin America, or Eastern Europe), Western Europe (9 teams) and Japan (also a participant). Our data show that 74% of the media coverage for World Cup corporate sponsors in Q3 came from either European or African sources, which confirms that the World Cup is probably an ideal vehicle for Coke’s marketing strategy.
A copy of the World Cup 2010 Sponsors media report can be found here.
David Breg is a media consultant based in Washington, D.C.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries