Deciphering the “Know Your Audience” Mantra – Part One

Those in the communications field have had to pivot their expertise over the past 15 years, and while many thought it would be easy, it turned out it was anything but. 

Many of us remember when media outlets had the upper hand when it came to deciding what they wanted to share, promote and endorse on a given day (and the public relations specialists, corporate communications professionals and event planners of the world had to do everything we could to convince them what they should be focused on).

This process evolved in any number of ways once organizations could bypass the media and get their message directly to the people. However, it came with a price. Organizations had to learn how to engage an audience directly and influence their behavior without alienating or offending by making it sound like advertising. Many thought it would be simple, but quickly learned that the underlying “seal of approval” the media could authentically give couldn’t necessarily be recreated. Audiences weren’t that gullible.

To this day, the idea of knowing your audience confounds companies in every industry. Many know they need to make the effort to do their due diligence on learning who is listening to them (and who isn’t), but even after this effort is completed, the methodology on how they use the data becomes almost stereotypical in nature. They use trite reasoning, assume that different demographics will continue to act and react the same way, and don’t take into account outside factors that could influence their audience’s trust.

Audience engagement starts with a formula: the RIGHT message + the RIGHT tone + the RIGHT channel + RIGHT time. In Part Two, we will discuss some simple ways to use this formula and understand how your audience needs to hear things (as opposed to wants to hear things) in order to be influenced.

How to Accept an Award for "The Wolf of Wall Street"

Hollywood award season is in its full, glorious, absurdly-expensive-outfit bloom, and despite the diversity of this year’s top-tier films – from slave trading to space walking – a common denominator is that many of them are loosely based on true stories (specifically evil true stories), which can have a negative effect when it comes to being recognized for brilliance.

This came to light at last week’s Golden Globes. While the internet was aflutter with long walks to the podium and hilarious presenters, one unfortunate topic seemed to go unnoticed. In his acceptance speech for the role of con-man Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street, Leonardo DiCaprio did an eloquent job of graciously congratulating his fellow nominees and cast mates. However, before departing the stage, his last  "thank-you" was the most controversial (starting at 2:01):



This remark seemed a step too far for me. By thanking the real Jordan Belfort (at least, I believe he was referring to Jordan Belfort. After a brief look at the crew of the movie, I did not immediately see a grip or make-up artist named “Jordan”), he was almost saying, “Thank you for living the life that you have because it allowed me to win this trophy.”

This comment is intriguing because it comes on the heels of producers being on thin ice for simply making the film. Recently, all those involved with the greenlighting the project came under harsh criticism for satirizing the story of the individual responsible for swindling thousands of people out of millions of dollars. The defense was immediate from many of those involved with the film, primarily claiming that the movie is telling a story, not glorifying the story. After seeing the movie myself (and then attempting to fit into the shoes of those that were bamboozled), I found the critiques of those promoting a boycott understandable, but still a bit over-the-top.

However, then one of the most famous actors in the world went on national television and thanked the real life Jordan Belfort for detailing his life, which strengthens the case that DiCaprio is indifferent to the plight of those that were victims to Belfort's wrath.

However, award season is, in fact, a season, which means it offers those involved with several more chances to fix the situation. For example, DiCaprio is also nominated for an Oscar, and if he should win (which, I think he deserves to on performance alone), here is my recommendation on how his speech should go:

"Wow…I am tremendously honored. Thank you to the Academy and the other nominees. This year was an amazing year for telling stories and for roles that challenged people on a number of emotional levels.

The movie Martin Scorsese made was extravagant and, in many ways, visual gluttony. It was an amazing experience and, as I always have, I enjoyed the entire experience and learned an immense amount about what it takes to make more than just a film, but a film that impacts everyone that watches it. Thank you, sir, for once again making something of this caliber.

Telling the story of Jordan was amazing. However, while the story and the character seem almost surreal, in truth he is very real and the harm he did was very real. A lot of lives were ruined because of the antics Jordan and his friends pulled. Telling the story of Jordan Belfort does not equate to endorsing what he did, and so, while I graciously accept this award as a storyteller, it is worth remembering that the story we told did have real world consequences. Thank you."

Does Forced Social Networking Work?

Do you follow your company’s social media pages? If so, do you do it to show loyalty to the organization that pays your salary, or is it because it was “heavily encouraged” by those in the marketing department that you do so? If it is the latter, you are not alone, and it is leading to a potentially detrimental trend for the ability of social media to effect business. 

Social networking was originally developed for individuals to share and learn optionally. People had the ability to be everything from political to juvenile, and it was voluntary as to who, what, how that sharing and learning happened. When the ability for brands to participate came along, it allowed businesses to share information that made them unique and capture the attention in the same way individuals had, putting buyer and seller on the same, even playing field. 

However, this led to the inevitable: Competition. Like the web impression rivalries that have existed for the past 20 years, like brands fought to have the most fans/followers (often coming at the price of quality content). One of the easiest (and cheapest) ways to accomplish this was by “recommending” that employees of brands follow the brand’s pages. While this is a way to increase awareness in a small way, in social media especially, “small” has the potential to become “big” in just a matter of clicks. 

Based on this trend, those that observe and participate in the industry knew that businesses wouldn’t be able to help themselves, and instead of focusing on improving on existing mechanisms, the “kitchen sink” technique would rear its head - especially among larger companies. 

And it has, in the form of internal social networking. Now, instead of (or in addition to) a social networking mandate for employees with external sites, companies are using platforms like Sharepoint and Yammer to create internal social networking capabilities to have staff participating / collaborating via the company intranet. On its surface, this seems innocent enough (just another option for communicating). However, what happens if it doesn’t take? What if employees choose not to engage? Unfortunately, due to the financial investment companies often incur, the “voluntary” aspect becomes “heavily encouraged”, which leads to a potential laundry list of new problems (especially with companies that have a union component). 

Having worked with more than a few companies that have had this storyline play out, here is the advice I offer: Companies should use social networking philosophies to increase brand awareness, offer exclusive content that demonstrates identity and subject matter expertise, and communicate with a community of people that choose to communicate with you. If you are trying to use social media techniques for any other reason, think carefully about whether it is possible to accomplish and whether those you expect to participate will be there to do so.

How Netflix is Giving Us What We Want

With House of Cards recently winning an Emmy, alongside its soon-to-be released second season, I think it is a perfect time to revisit an unpublished post I had written earlier this year...


Would you rather start a fire from trying to predict when lightening will hit something or research where fire already exists, and replicate that environment? Consider your answer and then read the fascinating piece from Fast Company and Salon about how/why Netflix developed the American version of House of Cards.

The truth is, they didn't necessarily know if the show was any good, but they did have a mountain of analytical evidence that demonstrated that it would be a hit based on the viewing habits of their subscribers (specifically those that watch streaming video). They collected the information,  determined what was being watched, found some commonalities, found a show that they could afford with many of those themes, and put it together.

This concept is a spinoff of the concept that television networks have been using for generations, known as, well, the spinoff: Based around the idea that viewers loved one or more characters from a popular show so much that they would migrate over to a new program with them, the Netflix concept takes it to the next (and more successful) level.

Too often, I think studios and producers go after the "lightening in a bottle" mentality for finding a hit, which I applaud. Truth is, while I appreciate the Netflix model, I wouldn't want this strategy used throughout the industry. If it were, nothing innovative would be developed. It would be an array of catering to the masses. But, to expect producers and studios to ignore new data that can help in the conceptualization of a show is foolish. Their careers depend on knowing what viewers want and filling that void.

So who will win out?

Who will be the Real Loser in the Manti Te'o Saga? The Social Media Professional

Despite some great football being played so far in 2013 (and other stories outside of the sports world), a majority of the news cycle over the past two weeks has been dominated by the controversy surrounding Notre Dame football player Manti Te'o.

If you have the capability to find this blog, then you likely know the basic details behind the story. A star athlete at one of the premiere universities in the country had his profile raised to a higher echelon when details arose of the fact that he was playing the season with a heavy heart due to losing both his grandmother and girlfriend within hours of each other.

The nation fell in love with this story, and him, and it propelled an already-stellar football player above many others.....until it didn't.

When the existence of this girlfriend came into question, it came with follow-up questions that previous generations of people couldn't imagine ever asking:

"So, you were in a relationship with a girl that you did not meet?"
"You described a girlfriend in multiple interviews that you never saw in person?"
"You were in love with a person that died, but didn't go to her funeral?"

It was so unbelievable, and only made more so by the slow leaking of information that brought into question his credibility. As many have said throughout the life of this incident, at best, Manti is a gullible sucker. At worst, he is a borderline sociopath.

However, while there are many that consider themselves victims of this incident (or at least, left hurt and utterly confused), the people that will feel the brunt of the long-term repercussions aren't the fans or even Manti himself. The people that will be hurt are those that make an honest living utilizing social media.

The utilization of social networking sites as a marketing mechanism for businesses has been around for about half a decade (anyone claiming to have been a professional in this niche any longer is exaggerating). It has proven to be an excellent mechanism for businesses - especially ones with limited marketing budgets - to brand and promote their capabilities to the public, and there are a number of individuals (call them social media specialists, content managers, online curators, etc.) that have proven to be capable of helping businesses use the medium effectively.

The problem is that in the marketing world these days, anything new that is worth incorporating into a communications strategy is also considered, by some, to be worth utilizing just to earn a quick buck. For example, as soon as email found its way to being the default form of business communication in order to improve time and efficiency, the world was introduced to "spammers."

When this happens, it can be difficult to the untrained eye to tell the difference between the legitimate and the fakers, which raises the question, "who do I believe?"

This brings us back to Te'o. With such a public incident of how online communications can go beyond bad to the point of humiliation, it puts a stigma on social media as a whole. All of a sudden, nothing is believable, everything is a hoax, and anyone that is associated with the industry is just like the people that made up a person to trick a nice young man.

The industry will take a significant hit which will take an indeterminate amount of time to overcome, and those that have taken the time to learn the ins-and-outs of what makes social media different will have to suffer for a bit. The only thing they can do is be part of the solution and not become part of the problem.

Defining Legacy: What Does Jim Calhoun’s Career Really Mean To The Fans He Said Goodbye To?

The following essay was written on my Facebook Page on September 20, 2012

Articles galore have been written about the retirement of University of Connecticut Coach Jim Calhoun. As a fan for a majority of my life, I had to wait a few days to put my thoughts together, partially for reasons of denial, but primarily because immediate reactions to the retirement announcement focused on the man himself, the teams he coached and the program he ran. Taking a breath allows us to consider a more expansive view of a body of work, and in this case, that means the impact he had on a wide range of people, most of whom he has never (and will never) meet.

There are very few fan bases that can comprehend what Jim Calhoun and the work he did over his career at UConn truly means to those that lived through it. In fairness, it isn’t their fault. Here is why.

In general, states fall into one of three categories:

1. States that have universities with marquee athletic programs and professional sports teams.
2. States that have multiple universities with marquee athletic programs.
3. States that are jealous of the first two.

For a long time, Connecticut was in that third category. We had pride in our schools like UConn, Yale and the University of Hartford (and of course, the Hartford Whalers), but for us to be part of something that others beyond the Nutmeg State cared about – or even better, feared – we had to leach off of the fan bases in New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, LA… We had affiliations based on family legacies or hero worship, but nothing because of geographical location that could be seen as truly ours.

But then Jim Calhoun led the effort to grow a fourth category: States that have universities that grow a marquee athletic program from scratch.

Starting a quarter century ago, Connecticut sports fans were presented with something that was more than just a quality athletic product. Coach Calhoun gave us something of our own to cheer for. Something others looked at with hate (which we all knew was envy). Something that was homegrown that forced people around the country to take notice of that land between Massachusetts and New York.   

Fans, critics, spectators and others can have their views of who they believe Jim Calhoun really was or how he should be perceived, and they will likely do this based on statistics or headlines. The truth is that it is fair of them to do so because, from their stand point, that is how coaches should be based. But for us – the people that lived and breathed UConn since before it was the only mainstream show in town – we know that what Jim Calhoun left behind can’t be defined by wins and losses, but rather by the feeling we have (and will continue to have ) every time we see the Huskies take the court.

That is how you define legacy.

A Perspective on Voting

A piece on voting that I originally published on my Facebook page in November

It went from years to months to days to hours, and now, today, brings with it the close to the election season (technically), and while we may only be a week or two from the unofficial start of the next election season (if it isn’t already upon us), it is important to take a moment to reflect on what we are hoping to accomplish on this first Tuesday after the first Monday of November.

Democracy isn’t perfect. Anyone that tells you it is, well, is running for something.

• Everyone’s candidate can’t win every time.
• Everyone’s problems can’t be addressed every time.
• Everyone’s expectations can’t be met every time. 

At its best, democracy is a blurry reflection of where a republic both is and what it hopes to become, and therefore the exercise of voting can’t be graded by whether your candidate won or lost.

If you choose not to vote (as opposed to "can't"), while I won’t agree with your decision, I will respect it as long as your reasoning is supported by a clearly-stated, non-ranting perspective on why you don’t agree with any proposed strategy for how this country can improve (and this includes any and all third-party platforms as well). Anything less than this is, frankly, irresponsible to yourself and your community.

There are few things on this planet that are as personal and unique as the human thought process. Of course, we all know the derogatory jokes about opinions (and what bodily orifice they are like), but in truth, our ability to synthesize information and form ideas is a mechanism that is too often taken for granted, as is the ability to voice those thoughts in hopes of shaping the future. So, don’t look at today’s election as finally coming to an end; look at it as yet another opportunity to share your beliefs on how your country can improve.