In a recent post on B2B Magazine’s web site, Stephen Brill, L. Gordon Crovitz and Leo Hindery announced the launch of Journalism Online, a company designed to help newspapers, magazines and other media get paid for content distributed online.

And publishers of every print media could use the help.  Magazine revenue dropped nearly 25% this past quarter. Newspaper and other medias are down big, too.

The new venture will build and manage a password protected site where content from client publications will reside. Users will be able to purchase access to the site’s content and the site will negotiate royalties from other web site publishers for rights to the content.

The venture will also provide reports to its publisher clients on best practices for generating additional circulation revenues.

The three partners have experience in major media ventures ranging from cable television (Brill was the founder of CourtTV) to newspaper (Crovitz is a former publisher with the Wall Street Journal) to technology (Hindery is the former CEO of AT&T Broadband.

For now, all Journalism Online has is a small web site with biographies of the founders and a copy of their press announcement regarding the launch of the venture.

We’ll check back later and see how they’re coming along.

I suppose it was just a matter of time before the Mancrunch stunt finally raised enough hackles in the gay community to motivate a few curious bloggers to do the legwork necessary to find out what was really going on.  Kudo’s to Lyndon Evans for writing a blog post that provides a fairly concise summary of the whole affair.  A second post debunking the Mancrunch controversy, written by Alex Blaze, provides even more sordid details on the site, its ownership and makes a direct connection between the site and other online dating sites of questionable moral values (i.e. these other sites promote affairs and secret/discreet relationships focusing primarily on sex).

(NOTE: Both links go to sites with gay content and may be considered NSFW in some situations.)

And here’s one other thing of note – it looks like this stunt (and the ensuing controversy) isn’t a first-time experience for Mancrunch’s ownership (represented by Bridge & Tunnel PR’s Dominic Friesen and Elissa Buchter).  As pointed out in a piece appearing in Tuesday’s LA Times (by Dan Neil), another site represented by Friesen and Buchter – AshleyMadison.com – ran the same gauntlet last year, generating tons of press and web links in the process.

The tv guys have caught on, as Mr. Neil reports in his column:

Martin Franks, executive vice president of planning, policy and government affairs at CBS, told Reuters: “A whole cottage industry has grown up out of trying to make use of network turndowns. . . . They’ve found a loophole in an otherwise well-intentioned process.”

So what’s the point of this whole exercise?

It’s all about search engine placement and creating as many in-bound links as possible for the lowest possible cost.  Because search engine placement means traffic and for web sites that charge desperate people a monthly membership fee – traffic means big bucks.  If you were searching the Internet for this kind of site, you would find over 2,000 stories about Mancrunch listed before the first link to a competing site.

Mission accomplished.

It’s too bad they had to hijack the Super Bowl to do it.  But for those of us not in the targeted demographic, we’ll hardly notice.  None of these marketing shenanigans are going to impact the telecast of the game – unless the Mancrunch people have a “Heidi moment” planned for the fourth quarter.

UPDATE: 02/03 @ 10:00 pm – Popped back into the office this evening and found a link to an article covering this issue that included an interview with me.  Big thanks to Michael Tripplet at Mediaite.com for taking the time out of his day to call me and talk about this entire situation in more detail.

And when I received a news release yesterday about the brewing “controversy” over the Super Bowl spot submitted to CBS by Mancrunch, I had my doubts.

As I’ve noted in my other post on this subject, I tried to confirm a few facts in the previous story and wound up leaving messages or missing late-night call backs.  Today, however, after being approached by Mancrunch’s PR guys for a second time, I submitted some questions (in bold) that were quickly answered by Mancrunch’s spokesman, Dominic Friesen.  What follows is the entire exchange, verbatim – and after that, my thoughts on this entire thing:

1.) Prior to the decision from CBS there were already reports that the spot had been rejected – primarily from bloggers covering gay issues. Was this outcome expected?

Not at all.  Especially given the fact that they accepted the Focus on the Family spot we thought CBS would eventually accept ours given the public attention.

2.) What do you think you could have done from a creative standpoint that would have forced CBS’s hand into accepting your commercial?

Based on their response to this, we don’t think they would take any commercial we created that promoted gay dating.

3.) Do you think a similar spot for a hetero equivelent (i.e. Fling.com, AshleyMadison.com or something like that) would have been accepted by CBS? After all, Mancrunch doesn’t look to be like Match.com or eHarmony - it’s about hooking up, right?

You’re comparing a dating site for single men to a cheating site like AshleyMadison.com?  Nowhere on our commercial do we mention sex or on our web site, for that matter.  We definitely think that if the spot contained a man and a woman kissing on the couch, there wouldn’t be an issue.

4.) What agency produced the ad? The concept and production values of the spot, quite frankly, don’t seem to be all that “out of the box” or expensive – why did it take the agency so long to produce your commercial for the largest advertising stage on the planet (the Super Bowl)?

We produced the spot in-house.  You’re right the spot didn’t take that long to produce.  The reason we only submitted the spot on January 18th was that was only when the web site was ready.  We literally just launched the web site last week.

5.) Why isn’t the URL for your web site included in the ad?

To be honest, we posted an earlier version of the ad. Here is the actual version.

6.) You now have over 5,000 inbound links to Mancrunch as a result of the publicity surrounding this situation with CBS. While it would have been nice to spend the $2 million (or more) to run an ad in the Super Bowl, do you still consider this effort a successful launch?

The effort is not even close to over.  If we can’t advertise in the same places that Match and eHarmony can, this is just the beginning.

7.) Do you intend on running any other television spots on network television this year? In your opinion, do you think the programming would influence the likelihood of a network to accept your creative (for example, would an ad produced for the Academy Awards be more likely to be accepted to run versus an ad produced for the Winter Olympics)?

Absolutely.  We plan on running on network television this year and we’re confident that any program that allows alcohol, erectile dysfunction and other online dating ads will allow ours … which we thought included the NFL.

Now, I’ve done a little more checking and have found some things that, I think, point out that this brouhaha is really just a big stunt – playing on the fears and deadline pressures of both the mainstream and gay media. In fact, in my view, this is a great example of “wag the dog” and shows why, as a society, we still have a long way to go to accept the differences between people and form a more civil society.

Let’s go through the questions I asked and the answers I received and I’ll attempt to point out why I’ve reached my conclusion …

Mancrunch was surprised by the rejection.  Really?
Bloggers covering gay issues were reporting that CBS had rejected Mancrunch’s advertising overtures yesterday.  I’m sure some of the editorializing on their part was based on an assumption of  pre-determined bias against an advertiser reaching out directly – and obviously – to the gay community.  I can understand that.  After viewing the spot, it seemed to me the commercial was made to be rejected – and, for a stunt like this, the spot HAS to be rejected to resonate in sympathetic communities – so I wasn’t surprised by CBS’s rejection.

But according to Mr. Friesen, they didn’t see it coming.  Really?  He claims that since the right-wing Focus on the Family spot with Tim Tebow was accepted, the Mancrunch team thought their spot would eventually be accepted given the public pressure (brought about in an afternoon).  Really?

Whether you agree with Focus on the Family’s anti-abortion/anti-choice/pro-life (you pick) spot or not, it’s clearly a spot advocating a public policy/political stance – not selling a dating service.  Mancrunch is clearly presented as a commercial venture.  They’re not advocating public policy related to mashing with your football buddy over a bowl of chips.

In addition to all that, if you read the rejection notice from CBS, you’ll see that there were also questions about Mancrunch’s credit that needed to be worked out.  This is a multi-million dollar buy we’re talking about.  In typical advertising situations, advocacy/political ads are “cash-up-front” buys which means the station or network know they’re going to get their money after the spot runs.  I’ll bet CBS would have been less inclined to reject Mancrunch’s spot had it been seriously produced and paid for in advance.

Creative changes – would they have made a difference?
Mr. Friesen says “no” – and I’m inclined to agree.  To a point.  Unless Mancrunch had produced this ad with the serious intent of airing it, there isn’t much you could do with it to make it worthy of the biggest stage of the year for advertising creative.  Really.  This is a crappy spot.  Having one character tell the other he “sucks” wouldn’t have made it out of any legit creative department in any agency I’ve ever worked in.

The spot doesn’t really do anything to sell the site, just stir up controversy.  But then, I suspect that’s the point all along.

Would a spot for a hetero equivalent site been accepted?
Here again, Mr. Friesen makes the point that if the spot had contained a man and woman kissing on a couch, there wouldn’t be an issue.  That’s true.  We’ve seen that issue time and again in television ads.  But these two characters aren’t just kissing – they’re mugging each other.  And they’re promoting a site that doesn’t say a thing about “finding a soulmate” or any of the other sappy slogans thrown around by Match.com or eHarmony.

No, Mancrunch is  - as the site claims – where many, many, many men come to play.  Doesn’t sound monogamous to me.  So, while Mr. Friesen is right when he says they don’t mention sex on their commercial or on their web site.  The music on the site talks about wanting to kiss a guy and the site promotes promiscuity by innuendo at the very least.

In addition to all that, I thought it was interesting that Mr. Friesen would single out my reference to AshleyMadison.com and show some offense at my comparison.  He claims the Mancrunch site is “a dating site for single men” (which is not stated or obvious on the site) compared to the other site which promotes affairs between married people (and was featured on CNN a while back, by the way).  His reaction is interesting to me not just because I still think it’s a fair question (as is the comparison to Fling.com) but because the PR firm Mr. Friesen is a principal in, Bridge & Tunnel Communications, represents AshleyMadison.com.  In fact, the Mancrunch spokesperson who left a message for me on my phone, Elissa Buchter, also works for Bridge & Tunnel Communications and as of January 11th was still serving as a media contact person for AshleyMadison.com.

What’s up with the spot?
As I mentioned earlier: in order for the stunt to work, people have to be outraged.  In order for people to be outraged, the spot has to be rejected.

And it’s much easier to reject a crappy spot than it is a good one.

But what ad agency, in their right mind, would take on a creative assignment to produce an ad with the expressed intent of having it rejected from appearing in the Super Bowl (besides GoDaddy’s agency, of course).  The answer – none.  More to the point, what client would say “Hey, I’ll fork over 2-3 million clams to make sure our first-ever, ground-breaking ad gets seen by one-third of all the people in America – but I won’t pay more than $500 to produce the spot.”

I don’t buy Mr. Friesen’s excuse here.  This is the best he could do because, I suspect he suspected that I’d call the agency if he gave me a name of an agency responsible for producing the spot.

The ad for a web site without a URL.  What?
Yeah, the first version of the ad I saw didn’t have a URL in it … I swear it didn’t.  The Mancrunch team sent me a new YouTube link, this time with an ad that included a tiny little “.com” after the Mancrunch name in the spot.  Not much better, but better.

So, which version did they send to CBS for evaluation?  How could they expect their spot to be taken seriously if they didn’t even get their own web site into their ad?

Was the stunt a success?  Mancrunch says “no” so loudly it has to mean “yes.”
The team at Mancrunch has to be eating up this publicity like crazy.  The FOX News hit was critical to the campaign’s success.  It legitimized the story even though it wasn’t a real story – even I could see that – but FOX News didn’t care.  Next to abortion, gay rights is pure gold to FOX.  It winds the stems on their faithful and drives tons of web hits and viewers.  The guys at Mancrunch know this and played FOX News like a fiddle.

And, I’m guessing, the guys at FOX News didn’t mind a bit.  They just laid back and took it like … well, like that baldish guy with the green jersey in the spot.

Once the fire was lit, other sites started jumping in.  My guess is this thing will continue to burn for a few more days and when it’s all said and done, Mancrunch will have tens of thousands of inbound links and an established place atop the gay-dating world.  Whatever that is.

Are we through, yet?  Unfortunately, Mancrunch has pledged to “fight on.”
I’m not so sure this is a good thing, but Mr. Friesen has pledged to “absolutely” plan on running on network television.  That means, I suppose, we’ll see this play staged again around some other event.  And why not.  For Mancrunch, it’s a no-lose scenario.  As long as their ad gets rejected, they’ve created a viral hit and generated tons of publicity and – more importantly – inbound links to their web site that will raise its profile among search engines and the like.  If their ad gets accepted, it runs and creates even more controversy (in all likelihood).

So, what’s the wind-up on all this?

This is, I believe, another manifestation of manufactured controversy like the fake US Chamber of Commerce Announcement or Balloon Boy controversy of last year and any number of other fradulent PR events and fake news that – over the long run – diminish what little confidence the general public still has in the news media.  It’s a shame to see that none of the major news outlets covering this story are doing anything more than dancing to the same tune implanted into FOX News’ brain by a savvy PR flack.

But it’s not really a surprise.

Where’s Howard Kurz when you need him?

UPDATE, 01/30/2010 @ 1:25pm (CST) – I’ve been receiving a few comments on these posts that have been, shall we say, off-topic.  I’m not endorsing or condoning a lifestyle.  This is a blog about media and marketing, not about politics.  And certainly not about people feeling their First Amendment Right to free speech gives them the license to use hateful words on my blog.

I follow the “dinner party” rules of blog monitoring … I allow and encourage spirited conversations about the things people expect to talk about when they come here.  And that’s advertising, marketing, public relations, publicity, journalism and the media.  Anyone who comes in here and tries to be a boor by wading into off-topic, red meat political issues will be shown the door.  Sorry.  But it’s my party and I make the rules.

After all, the outrage we should feel here isn’t about gay dating it’s about the manipulation of an all-to-willing media and people who would rather believe in grand conspiracies and imagined enemies than take the time to think about the messages they’re being fed and how realistic or reasonable they are.  This is just one of many examples as to why we all need to become better (and more critical) media consumers.

Editor’s Note: This is the first guest post by a contributing writer to the Brand Central Station Blog.  Mary Ann Johnson is a member of Team Position2, experts in search and social media marketing and sent us this post on behalf of the team.  You can learn more about Position2 by visiting their web site.

by Team Position2

Social Media Monitoring has become a hot topic of discussion over recent times. A brand makes or breaks its name by its users.

With the huge outbreak in the online media and platforms like, blogs, forums, microblogs and different types of social networking sites people have an effective place to express their opinions and influence others. In the online world people own the brand. Social Media Monitoring is to keep track of all the conversations happening in the online world.

Social Media Monitoring is all about figuring on what the objectives are, listening, refining the talks, analyzing and taking action.

Social Media Monitoring and analysis can be used by a brand to improve a product, get feedbacks, customer service, market research or any marketing and communication.

Listen: It is very important to “listen” to what people are talking about your brand, your competitors and the industry as a whole. People and their opinions influence your customers. Watch out for any complaints against you or your competitors, as it is the best opportunity to showcase your customer service to them and show that you care and value customers.
Potential customers also look for others opinions before they make the purchase decision.

Participate: It not about just listening, you need to get engaged and converse with people. If you respond timely to any of the questions it reassures the faith in your brand among the people. Even if your brand is not talked about its essential to know the key influencers and what are they talking about. Make a plan and start conversation at relevant places and establish your footprint so that you are equipped for any future talks of your brand.

Respond: When you are monitoring the conversations you know the happenings and can implement relevant responses. A proper response goes a long way in spreading the good about your brand in these times of the ripple effect like Twitter.

Tools: There are many paid and free tools to keep a tab on the conversations. It could be as simple as setting an alert through Google, Yahoo etc, searching for your brand name or the relevant keywords on Twitter, Social Media aggregators like Social Mention, Same Point, Backtype.

There are paid tools, which help in monitoring and analyzing the brand such as radian6, Collective intellect, TechrigySM2 to name a few.

About Position2
Position2 is a leading Search & Social Media Marketing firm that delivers continuous growth for its customers through its proprietary “Surround & Intent Marketing” methodology. The company’s adaptive technology solutions are customizable to customers’ evolving marketing needs. It delivers integrated Search & Social Media Marketing solutions that engages prospects at multiple touch-points in the online environment. For more details, Please visit http://www.position2.com

(Editor’s Note: This is one of my favorite blog posts – not just for the comments it generated but for the way it addressed a re-occuring theme: that, somehow, PR is dead and Social Media killed it.  C’mon people.  Get over it.)

I’m going to try and infuse something that’s been missing from this whole “Social Media is killing PR” meme that seems to be sweeping through the Blogosphere/Twitterverse lately. 

A little common sense.

This maelstrom has been whipped up, primarily, by PR’s and journalists/bloggers working in the technology space.  And the echo is practically deafening.

While there have been plenty of valid points raised about the nature of public relations, the profession’s current and future place in the enterprise, the role of blogging and other Web 2.0 apps in brand building, sales and CRM – I’ve come to one major conclusion:

Social media “experts” need to get over themselves and PR people need to stop looking over their shoulder to see who’s trying to do them in.

First, a little history
Thanks to Al Krueger and this post on his Comet Branding blog.  Al was actively pimping his online radio show via Twitter yesterday (listen to it here) by sending out about a dozen tweets to his followers (I’m one of them) including a re-tweet of a pimp from some other Twitterhead shilling the podcast.  While I’m not crazy about Al’s method, I was curious, so I checked out the podcast and an earlier post and podcast, from September, on the same subject (you’ll find the post here and the podcast here).

Al did a good job of linking to several posts by bloggers (Scoble, Calacanis, Ruebel and Arrington) and a journalist (ZDNet’s Jennifer Leggio) raising questions about the value provided by PR people who either don’t know how to pitch a story or, worse still, don’t know how to take “no” for an answer.  Look, it’s not vinyl siding sales folks, it’s public relations – show some discretion and restraint.

How “death” looks to the PR profession
All of these bloggers, journalists, PR folks and social media experts seemed to agree that the profession has some serious issues that need to be addressed.  The conversations on the podcasts seemed to sum up this way:

1. PR – as a “brand” – is going through a crisis of identity.  No one seems to know what it means, anymore.
2. The practice of pitching stories can’t continue today the way it was done years ago as a result of social media effectively removing the PR person as the filter between the journalist and the story.
3. Social media requires its own kind of “professional” in order to be effectively used on behalf of a company or brand.
4. There needs to be more professional education and standards in the PR profession that will help re-establish its credibility.
5. PR pros are often in a “no-win” situation when it comes to dealing with journalists who don’t need them nearly as much as they need the journalists.
6. Start-up companies with a dynamic CEO probably don’t need a PR person’s help.

Now a big part of the problem with this entire discussion is that most of the offending PR folks, complaining journalists and put-out bloggers deal in the tech industry.  This is an industry that adopts technologies (like social media) early and falls in and out of love with digital solutions in a never-ending quest to find the “next big thing.”  It’s not the real world.  It’s the echo-chamber of the tech world.

That’s why I was glad to see level-headed analysis from bloggers in the space like Jeremy Pepper get back to the basics of PR, discuss the value of social media as a tool for media relations and offer some basic rules for its use.

The report of PR’s death is an exaggeration (with apologies to Mark Twain)
Let’s take a look at each of these mortal symptoms and evaluate them in a little more detail. 

But before we do, it’s important to make one significant distinction between this screed and many (if not most) of the others you’ll read online: my perspective is that of a person who works with clients almost entirely outside of the technology space.  That’s where most of the people in this world live and work today and it’s to those businesses this blog (and this post) is directed.

First, PR’s identity crisis.  It’s nothing new.  If you’ve worked with PR people in the past you know the good ones are always a little paranoid – always worried about what other people think and if they’re doing everything they can to ensure a positive outcome.  That’s good. That’s what you want in a PR person.  Unfortunately, that trait also leads to a perpetual, professional self-esteem issue that’s maddening.

It’s this constant self-questioning of PR’s value as a discipline that leads the profession into episodes of mental masturbation over “advertising equivalency values” for story placements or obssesive arts and crafts projects that result in massive, three-ring binders full of clips.  I attended a presentation once where a senior PR person said “all we do is generate oceans of ink for our clients.” 

Yuk.

PR is more than that.  PR is about helping clients get their “story” right so it accurately conveys the essential qualities of their brand in a meaningful and engaging way.  And that story has to be told to several “publics” (hence the name Public Relations) which include employees, customers, shareholders, communities and other groups of vital interest to the client in addition to the press.

Second, the process of pitching stories has got to change.  I don’t disagree with that at all.  But the focus shouldn’t be on the pitching process (the number of calls made or the tools used) but rather on the quality and relevance of the story itself.  Not only are PR pro’s often guilty of being lazy and not finding the best angle to present to a reporter, blogger or editor – those same journalists are often unable or unwilling to consider well-crafted stories from brands they’ve never heard of or PR’s they don’t know.

If there’s a reason to take a closer look at the impact of social media, this is it.  Social media can put a journalist in direct contact with a source and eliminate the PR “filter” – there’s no arguing that.  But that same media channel can put the brand in direct contact with the consumer and eliminate the need for the journalist.

It’s already happening.  They’re called “bloggers” – maybe you’ve heard of them.

Many bloggers wear dual hats of journalistic hack and PR flack.  The debate of exactly who or what social media is killing should probably be expanded.

This gets me to the third point about the need for a social media “expert” or “professional” to effectively use the channel.  I don’t get this.  It seems that “social media” by its very definition should be usable by “society” – right?  Having to hire a social media expert seems a bit like having to hire a professional cocktail party gadfly to flit about telling people what needs to be told.

But who decides what needs to be told?  That’s where the value in the profesional relationship is, isn’t it.  Whether that’s the domain of a public relations professional, a marketing consultant, a wise dutch uncle or your consigliere – that’s a call made by the business, not by some professional standards board or association.

Which leads into our next item – and PR folks are famous for this – when all else fails, make a call for more professional standards training and pseudo-academic credentials.  Whether it’s an IABC credential or certification from PRSA, the only thing that establishes credibility is performance.  CPA, JD, MD, PhD after a name may mean something to some people.  But when your accountant, lawyer, doctor or professor screw up, you find another one and make the change.  Your opinion of that one “bad apple” doesn’t spoil the reputation of the entire profession.  Unless, of course, he’s a lawyer.

The fifth point is part of the age-old pity party PR folks throw for themselves when it comes to their relationship with journalists.  Social media (or its absence) won’t change that.  If PR folks do their real job (not just pitch stories willy-nilly), they’ll quickly realize their value with their client exists before they ever pick up a phone or send an e-mail to a journalist.  That self-confidence (and a well-crafted pitch) make the roller coaster ride of rejection and eventual acceptance by journalists easier to take.

PR flacks are going to get told “no” a lot.  They’ll get lied to frequently.  They won’t get their messages returned and they’ll occassionally get a scolding.  Deal with it.  It’s the job.

And finally, some companies don’t need a PR person or firm to help them.  A lot more think they don’t need a PR person or firm to help them.  Whether they’re right or wrong, it doesn’t matter.  You see, they’re the client and it’s their money and their problem.

PR people should work with clients who want to work with them.  This doesn’t mean these clients will understand what PR is, how it works for their business or what a PR person does.  But if the interest is there, that’s something you can work with.

And it won’t kill you.

For decades, advertising agencies and the media have operated under a shared myth about what they do. The canard runs something like this: “Create brilliant advertising that gets people’s attention, run it in enough places the consumers can’t get away from it and eventually you’ll see your share of market increase as a result.”

When it came to generating measurable performance, agencies and the media gave lip-service to “Return on Marketing Investment” and other things that sounded very measurable and analytical; but the hard truth of the matter was that advertising has always been a fairly imprecise endeavor – and everybody was fine with the smoke and mirrors of it all.

That was until the Internet and attendant technologies made measurement of every customer interaction with a commercial message a measurable event. Clients, sitting along side their agencies and the media reps who sold them the space, could see exactly what was working and what wasn’t.

And not much was.

Not all of the conventional marketing and advertising wisdom had to be thrown out the window – but a lot of things had to change in order to make sense of the new realities of an interactive and completely measurable medium. The marketing profession – both on the client side and on the agency/media side – has been scrambling to find ways to produce results from online campaigns that meet reasonable expectations of management.

Traditional display advertising, like print ads in newspapers and magazines, seem to take up plenty of real estate on the web page, but no matter how many impressions the web site is able to guarantee, there has not been a reliable methodology in place for associating the media inventory purchased with the customer transactions that result.

PR efforts – attempts to tell the client’s story in the form of editorial content – are helpful in forming opinion but usually lack a significant or engaging call to action. Consumers may be educated, but the ability to act on that education is an issue.

There are a lot of possible solutions out there. And one of them debuted this last Spring (on April 20th) at ad:Tech in San Francisco. Hydra, one of the largest CPA ad services in the country announced its partnership with OnDialog, Inc. Leveraging the combined resources of OnDialog (and its partnership with landing page optimization company, Site Tuners), Hydra now claims an ability to increase conversion rates of online ad campaigns by as much as 80%.

But first, a little background on Hydra. Hydra is the largest and fastest-growing, pure performance-based, CPA affiliate network. For those of you not familiar with Internet ad-speak, that means that Hydra produces and manages online ad campaigns for clients and gets paid only when a customer is captured by the campaign. This is the same premise as the old “per inquiry” television ads that allowed television stations running the ads (usually late at night) to receive a fee for each sale made as a result of the broadcast of the ad.  Similar campaigns in magazines required the advertiser paid the magazine a percentage of the orders received using the order form from the magazine.

As a performance-based, CPA network, it’s in Hydra’s best interest to make sure the landing pages customers click-through to are effective and hard-working.

Enter OnDialog/Site Tuners.

The Site Tuners engine allows OnDialog to create customized landing pages from a set of variable elements. As customers click and interact with the landing pages, OnDialog learns what elements perform the best and serve the most effective content accordingly. At any given point in a campaign, the OnDialog/Site Tuners system can test up to 10,000 different combinations of elements sewn together in various combinations to create a myriad of landing pages.

As time goes on, the effectiveness of the landing pages continues to improve and additional customer data is fed back to the creative team for the on-going development of more and more effective page elements. For a company like Hydra, shortening the “learning curve” of what makes a landing page effective is paramount. The partnership with OnDialog/Site Tuners does that in a big way.

In my conversation with Mason Wiley, SVP of Marketing at Hydra, he explained why the OnDialog/Site Tuners relationship is so important to Hydra:

“We have a lot of entrepreneurial clients who need to make sure every dollar they spend online is working as hard as possible for them. Our model offers clients an opportunity to run a high-impact, online campaign with no upfront expense because clients pay on the back-end.”

“Only the biggest companies could run campaigns like this before – now anybody can. Our CPA model helps make things accessible.”

The technology can also be used in the creation of display ads to be placed in web sites as part of a larger campaign. Those ads, like the landing pages, can be built on the fly from a database of elements hosted by OnDialog/Site Tuners and placed via Hydra. The more successful ads (and elements) are then used and enhanced for future placements over the duration of the campaign.

Hydra’s partnership with OnDialog positions the ad network as one of the first adopters of this kind of technology. “We’re thrilled to be working with OnDialog as this partnership further builds on Hydra’s suite of services for maximizing campaign performance,” said Zac Brandenberg, CEO of Hydra.

So, what does all this mean for marketers? Well, it looks like it could be a significant breakthrough in the world of online advertising. The ability to test literally thousands of variations of your landing pages and ads and then review the data and make creative decisions as a result is significant. The thought that this kind of service would be offered on a “use it first, pay us when we perform” basis is outstanding.

One word of caution, though. Companies that provide marketing services on a “per inquiry” basis don’t do it out of the goodness of their heart. They’re experts at what it takes to make things work and they expect to be compensated appropriately for it. This caveat is issued in two, primary areas:

• Creative ownership of campaigns and landing pages is too often given to people who don’t understand how or why things work in the world of advertising or web development. Hydra, for example, has their own creative team who understand how to get customers to engage, where links and buttons should go, etc. Let them do their job!
• From a cost standpoint, remember that nothing is ever, really free. The back-end fees for a CPA campaign like this may appear large when compared to other ad options – but remember, you’re paying for results here. Be prepared to provide some money into an escrow account (in some cases) to reassure the service provider (no matter who it is) that you have the funds to make payment in the event of success.
• Also, I’ve run “per inquiry” campaigns where a “minimum fee” was expected in the event the campaign under-performed. Realize that there are fixed costs to any campaign and some providers may require it.As a special note – I did not discuss either of these financial points with the folks from Hydra, so please don’t misconstrue my observations as a reflection of their policies or practices.
   
• And finally, if you’re considering using a service like Hydra or any other kind of “per inquiry” marketing program, it’s vitally important you understand what the “lifetime value” is of a customer relationship.

Do you know what a customer is really worth to you?

If you don’t know how to figure that out then it looks like I’ve got more blogging to do, doesn’t it. We’ll cover that later on next week.

Most businesses employ a direct marketing strategy of one type or another … but the success of a direct marketing program depends on more than just creative execution.  More than almost any marketing discipline, direct marketing is as scientific and statistics-driven as any.

That’s why knowing where to go for help is so important.

One of the Listservs I belong to posted this list of DM resources (special kudo’s to Andy Russell on the SmallShopNetwork Listserv (smallshopnetwork@yahoogroups.com).  Of course the list is incomplete, so any additions you can make to it is welcome.  Hopefully, you’ll find this list to be a useful resource in the future:

Trade Associations:
  USA:  The Direct Marketing Association
              The American Marketing Association 
 Australia: Australian Direct Marketing Association
 Canada:  The Canadian Marketing Association   
 UK:   The Direct Marketing Association of the UK   
 India:  The Direct Marketing Association of India  
 
Related/Specialized Disciplines:
 Email Experience Council
 Mobile Marketing Association 
 Direct Mail Fund Raising
 
State/Local Clubs:
 Chicago: http://www.cadm.org/
 Dallas/Ft. Worth: http://www.dmadfw.com/
 Florida: http://www.fdma.org/
 NYC: http://www.dmcny.org/
 Long Island: http://www.dmali.org/events.html
 LA: http://www.dmasc.org/
 New England: http://www.nedma.com/
 Northern Cal: http://www.dmanc.org/
 Philly: http://www.the-pdma.org/
 San Diego: http://www.sddma.org/
 San Fran: http://www.sfama.org/resources/dm
 Toronto:  http://www.dmatoronto.org/  and http://www.ama-toronto.com/
 Washington: http://www.dmaw.org/

Direct Marketing Media:
 Direct: http://directmag.com/contact/
 DM News: http://www.dmnews.com/Contact-Us/section/239/
 iMarketing News Daily (newsletter): http://www.dmnews.com/newsletter/item/4582/
 Inside Direct Mail: http://www.insidedirectmail.com/
 Incentive: http://www.managesmarter.com
 Marketing Management (an AMA pub): http://tinyurl.com/8du6pu
 Multichannel Merchant: http://multichannelmerchant.com/contact/
Brandweek: http://tinyurl.com/nbgfu4
Mediapost.com: http://tinyurl.com/ppf28d

Certainly there will be some companies, somewhere, who will step in and take up the available inventory … but as the New York Times reported on Friday, some of the larger brand advertisers have found the heat in Glenn Beck’s kitchen a little too hot and have pulled their advertising following the right-wing commentator’s comments about President Obama late last month.

Con Agra, Geico, Progressive and Proctor & Gamble all pulled ads – or shifted ad spending on FOX following the controversial remarks.  Con Agra went as far as to issue a statement on Beck’s statements:

“We are firmly committed to diversity, and we would like to prevent the potential perception that advertising during this program was an endorsement of the viewpoints shared.”

Other advertisers kept their buys on FOX but distanced themselves from Mr. Beck’s show in particular.  According to the article in the Times:

Other companies also said their spots had been scheduled during “Glenn Beck” by mistake. Ads for Procter & Gamble and S.C. Johnson appeared on a weekend repeat of Mr. Beck’s program by mistake, Fox acknowledged. Progressive said that its advertising order had specified “no Glenn Beck,” but Fox said it had bought a block of time with the channel that included Mr. Beck.

One of the issues raised by the article in the Times, however, centers on exactly how the attention of these advertisers – and their resulting media spending decisions – were brought to bear.  Some credit has to go to ad mogul Donny Deutsch who also serves as a talk show host on FOX’s rival, MSNBC.  Deutsch named names of brands who advertised on Beck’s show and rightly pointed out that corporate leaders often don’t know exactly where every ad dollar is going, so if angry consumer reached out to the companies who advertise on shows like Beck, those advertisers are likely to respond.

I found it more than just mildly humorous that Duetsch’s co-host couldn’t believe that the CEO’s of company’s like Chrysler and Campbell’s Soup don’t watch Beck’s show or have any idea where their ad dollars are spent.  Deutsch, plowed on – condeming neither FOX or the sponsors but urging consumers to action.

An advocacy group, ColorofChange.org took the matter one step further, generating over 100,000 electronic signatures on an online petition in just two days following Beck’s comments.  And while FOX remained adamant that neither the re-allocation of ad dollars or the e-petition had any effect, the actions did succeed in getting the attention of right-wing supporters of Beck.

Conservative bloggers of Beck are now mounting a campaign of their own to gin up support and, presumably, influence advertisers to return to Beck’s show.

It makes one wonder how far into the commercial world the divisive nature of politics can travel.  Outside its own echo chamber, I’m not so sure political extremism can overcome the pragmatic middle.  After all, politics is one thing – but what brand of cereal I eat or car insurance I buy is MY business.

It will be interesting to watch, in the very least.

(Company press release)
 Drink Me magazine launches its first issue this month in San Francisco. Published by Open Content, Drink Me is the only lifestyle and entertainment publication about drinking and bar culture created for enthusiasts.

“Thirty months in the making, we’re finally here,” says Daniel Yaffe, president of Open Content. “It’s been a long and exciting road. We hope our readers take time to explore and enjoy as we offer up all the alcohol culture one could ever ask for, bottled up and ready to drink with a little tag that reads, ‘Drink Me.’ Welcome to our world…”

The first issue spotlights a number of drinking and cultural phenomena both locally and abroad, including Relax, It’s only Wine, an article that captures the digressions of a sommelier, Mixologistas, an in depth analysis of the trend of women bartenders, as well as Does this Count as Overtime? a look into corporate Japanese drinking culture.

Drink Me magazine will not only be offered in bars, clubs, cafes, and alcohol retailers around town, readers can also find the magazine online.  The publication’s online component creates a community of artists and writers from around the globe to share their unique and diverse social and epicurean alcohol traditions. In addition to its global social networking element, the site is a hub for posting alcohol-related events, entertainment, and cultural education.

“We’re looking forward to interacting with everyone online,” says Daniel Yaffe, president of Open Content, “And what better way to launch, than with a launch party with everyone who has given tremendous support to Drink Me.”

The official Drink Me magazine launch party took place on March 31, 2009 with many more events to come.

Who is Susan Boyle?  Not many of us in the US watch ITV’s “Britain’s Got Talent” television show on a regular basis.  But nearly 20 million of us have caught Susan Boyle’s performance on YouTube.

Susan is a frumpy, 47 year-old spinster who has never married and has spent the last two years of her life taking care of her ailing mother (who has since passed away).  When she walked out on stage as a contestant last week, everyone in the audience – from the judges to the fans – expected to watch a classic “reality TV moment” when an unattractive, somewhat abrasive boob goes down in flames in front of the entire country on live television.

Ms. Boyle told Simon Cowell (yes, the same obnoxious know-it-all from American Idol) that she wanted to be a singer but had never had a chance to perform in front of a big audience until that night.  She was obviously flummoxed by the size of the 4,000-strong crowd and had problems recalling details about her home town (Blackburn, West Lothian in Scotland).

There were sniggers and eye-rolls and nervous coughs.  The music started and we all (even those of us watching at home or on-line) were ready for disaster.

Boy, were we all wrong.

Ms. Boyle’s performance of “I Dreamed a Dream” from Les Miserable wasn’t just good.  It was astounding.

Watch it now and I dare you not to be impressed.  Read the comments on YouTube or on various blogs and you realize you weren’t the only one to sit slack-jawed with tears welling up in your eyes.

But I maintain the reaction we all share when we listen to Ms. Boyle’s performance isn’t because of her technically superior performance.  In fact, there’s always room for improvement.  (Low notes could have used better breath support.  Diction issues, etc.)  That’s not the point.

The point is that everyone expected this woman to fail – and fail miserably.  Because of the way she talked, her physical state, her complexion, her bad hair, her bushy eyebrows, her “cheeky” attitude on stage.  We all judged her ability before she sang a note because that’s what we all do.

And then when she opened her mouth, everything changed.  And with it, Susan Boyle made us all realize that we don’t have to be what we appear to be.  

We can be something much better.

Susan Boyle, this spinster and (formerly) unemployed caregiver of her elderly mother, now has a recording contract with, of all people, Simon Cowell.  It’s the apogee of an unlikely dream that started when she was twelve years old and bullied by classmates for her learning disability and speech impediment.  It’s a dream that was supported by her mother and developed in her local church choir.  It’s a dream that was almost lost after her mother died and Susan Boyle stopped singing.

Stopped singing until she went on stage and blew away the competition, the judges, the audience and the world.

Read the comments on the blogs and on YouTube and you start to get the idea that in Susan Boyle, people see the possibility of picking up on their lost dreams and pursuing them again.  It’s a great story.  And there probably won’t ever be another example quite as extreme or as heart-wrenching as Susan Boyle.  But it’s a story I hope gets told again and again as more people pursue and achieve the things they only dreamed possible.

There is a potential dark side to all of this, however. 

Let’s hope that Susan Boyle’s story continues and that someone – Cowell or another professional who knows better – makes sure she is surrounded with handlers who can help Ms. Boyle stay focused on her dream and not get swept away in the media frenzy that has already started to feed on her dream.

After all, she’s the one who’s taken 47+ years to be an overnight sensation.  She deserves some time to enjoy it.

Good luck, Susan Boyle.  We’re all behind you.