Nordstrom Gets Gen Y

Despite the blog boom, most companies aren't catching on

I’ve seen the effect of blogs. I know I’m witnessing a communication breakthrough. This is the next big thing. I get it.

So then why do only 54 of the Fortune 500 companies have business blogs?

The source of the above statistic defines a business blog as one created “by company employees about the company and/or its products.”

Sounds like a good idea to me. As business journalist Stephan Baker assessed over two years ago, corporate blogs are a great alternative to other internal and external communication strategies- “a snap to set up, and cheap to run.”

Maybe this embarrassing statistic is a product of the Baby Boomer v. Generation Y battle taking place in companies across the nation- something I’ll get to in a bit.

But, first, let’s look at one Fortune 500 company that’s headed in the right direction- Nordstrom.

Nordstrom is the only fashion retailer I was able to find using a blog. Making its debut just this past December, the blog hasn’t really cultivated a loyal following, yet, from what I can tell. I had to dig around on the Web site for a good five minutes before I even found the thing.

But it makes sense. The blog gives online customers the same renowned advice and service that in-store shoppers have come to covert for over a century.

Four in-the-know contributors dish out the latest information on new designer lines, trends, etc. It’s an excellent marketing ploy that leaves customers, like myself, feeling enlightened rather than coerced.

Here's what I envision for online retail blogging:

• customers directly communicating with fashion directors and stylists




• posts from featured designers about their new lines




• feedback from customers about what's working and what's not




• information about upcoming promotions and sales available only on the blog

If I had an extra $1,150 just lying around, I'd probably be more open to buying this bag online if I had the opportunity to talk to experts about it, particlarly Marc Jacobs himself.

I think anything that draws customers to the Web site and makes them want to stay longer must be worth a try, right? It certainly couldn’t hurt. Which brings me back to my thoughts on why only 10.8% of Fortune 500 are jumping on the blogosphere bandwagon.

I looked into the differences in the two generations going head-to-head in corporate America:

Baby Boomers (aged roughly between 44 and 62) are the ones running these companies. They are the ones making the big decisions and having the final say on new implementations. They are creatures of habit, preferring once-a-year feedback sessions and traditional methods of communicating.

Generation Y, or Millennials,(aged around 10 to 30) includes the tech-savvy college grads flooding the workforce, eager to have their voices heard but more times than not silenced due to inexperience. They are the ones demanding constant, streaming feedback on their performance. They’re eager to employ new technology in their workplace and everyday life.

What’s the remedy for this? It’s hard to change the mindset of an entire generation, to reprogram them to think in the same pro-technology ways as their younger counterparts. Must we just sit back and wait until the Baby Boomers retire, opening the door for Gen Y to take control?



With time, companies (in particular, their aging leaders) will no longer be able to ignore the influence of blogs, especially if retailers like Nordstrom start to report increased earnings.

Online shopping, once a new technology that many thought would never catch on, is in need of an update. With retailers scrambling to cope with a wavering economy, blogs quite possibly could be the cost-effective way to draw customers back.

Bravo, Nordstrom.

I'm disappointed in you, Dane

I made a huge mistake Saturday night. Dallas was in the middle of a monsoon, so we decided to stay in and watch Good Luck Chuck.

I had refused to see in theaters because it looked miserable, but for an otherwise uneventful Saturday night, how bad could it be, right?

Wrong.

I can say with full confidence that Good Luck Chuck is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. The only reason I watched until the end was because I was mesmerized by its awfulness- it just kept getting worse and worse.

It had potential. A witty guy realizes that everytime a girl sleeps with him, she then finds her true soulmate, leaving him to struggle between his sexual appetite and deep-down desire to find a soulmate of his own. Young, funny, what could go wrong?

Bad jokes (suprising because I usually like Dane Cook), bad acting (expected from Jessica Alba) and a storyline that lasted WAY too long.

What does any of this have to do with PR? Nothing really, but if I have to give it some relevance for this blog, I guess I could throw this situation out there: You're a PR practitioner for the film's studio Lionsgate. You've just prescreened the film, realized how suck-ass it is and now must decide how to promote it. What are you supposed to do? I sure as hell wouldn't know.

And, second, the movie is released and is met with nothing but negative feedback. Critics hate it. The only awards it is nominated for are two Razzies for Worst Actress and Worst Screen Couple. How do you get anyone to buy or rent the film when it's released on DVD? Again, I have no clue.

The real-life PR team for this movie should be fired. The previews for the film were completely misleading. The only good thing they had going for them was the fact that people my age love Dane Cook and think Jessica Alba is hot...and that still couldn't pull the film out of the gutter.

What's an ethical PR practitioner to do?

PR goes cellular

What one evolving technology means to us

Cell phones are old news. I honestly don’t know one person who doesn’t have one. My computer-illiterate, 89-year-old grandfather, left, has one (and he knows how to take pictures on it, too).

Only now are companies really starting to embrace all that a cell could be, though.

Think about it- we carry these things with us everywhere. I have minor panic attacks when I rummage around in my bag and can’t find it, thinking, “But what if someone tries to call me???”

Sure, we have the Internet on our cell phones. We have MP3 players, photos albums and games. But those are all entertainment-based things, many of which are stupid and unnecessary, as seen below.



But what we are seeing now is a business aspect, the possibility of people working from their cellphones instead of just playing.

Publishers in Japan are some of the first to successfully capitalize on the trend, as this article suggests. An entirely new literary genre is emerging in Asia- the cell phone novel- and although I can’t foresee this jumping across the Pacific anytime soon, it is food for thought.

These Japanese novelists are willing to become even closer with their cell phones, willing to squint at the tiny screen and peck away at a nearly non-existent keyboard as they let their creative juices flow.

What does this mean for corporate communications? Cell phones can be yet another way to communicate with our publics. We can move beyond the passé sense of this idea (literally talking on the device) and start to think of research, publicity and marketing via the cell phone.

I’m drawing a blank when it comes to providing concrete examples of how this would actually work (any thoughts???), but I do know that it has to be done tastefully and with our publics in mind. I want to throw my phone across the room every time I get a mass text from T-Mobile saying, “Free Halloween/Valentine’s/St. Patrick’s Day Ringtone!!!! Text asdjasdlajsd to 298293489234”.

This guy seems to be on the right track (it’s an old site, but just scroll down to see the predictions I’m talking about).

Technology like this and this give PR practitioners the ability to learn more about their publics- where they’re going and when, what they’re buying, etc. in a quicker and more effective way than traditional methods like surveys and polls.

Yes, this is a little creepy and no doubt will face many obstacles in terms of privacy laws (I’m not advocating Big Brother), but I think over time the creases will be smoothed out, revealing a completely new way of keeping our finger on the public pulse.

I feel sorry for his PR people...

So, I'm folding laundry and watching a re-run of Larry King Live earlier this evening (not as depressing as it sounds...well, maybe...), and I realize I'm watching a PR person's nightmare.

It's last Monday's episode. Larry is interviewing Bill Maher, host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," about his thoughts on the political elections. I first take notice when Bill starts attacking the credibility of the Bible, or as he likes to call it, "that old book of Jewish fairy tales." God, I love freedom of speech, don't you?

Anyway, so Larry continues proding Bill for good soundbytes, asking him what went wrong with Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani's campaigns, blah blah blah. And then Bill really starts to lay into the Republican Party, saying that a good portion the GOP's leaders are gay but no names are mentioned.

Or, so I thought. After watching, I Googled the program for kicks and learned that the live version of the show had been edited, leaving out the part where Bill implies that Republican National Committee chairman Ken Melhman is a homosexual.

(The Huffington Post does a great job of showing the difference of the two clips.)

Soooo many questions spawn from this broadcast decision. Why did CNN censor Bill's comment? My knowledge of libel and slander is a little rusty (I forgot pretty much everything after I took my media law final...), but would it really have been that bad if CNN left that comment in there? According to CNN's spokesperson, yes.

Also, does the program lose any meaning, any credibility without that comment?

And, lastly, what did Bill's PR people do? I'm guessing that they've learned to just let him go. That's what he's so famous for, after all.

Bill did say one thing in particular, though, that I thought meshed very well with my last post: "In today's day and age, if you're not in the news cycle, you don't exist."

He was referring to Giuliani's lack of campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, but I think his point applies across the board. The media may not tell you what to think, but they certainly tell you what to think about.

And, apparently, not too many people were thinking Giuliani when it came time to vote. Lesson learned.

PR + Media = BFF

How to ensure coverage of your client

Being a journalism major, I have an advantage when it comes to trying to understand what makes it on the media radar and what doesn't. I've been trained to look past most press releases filled with non-newsworthy events and stupid quotes from company execs.

That being said, I also know that journalists love PR people who know the game- the people who create stellar media kits, know how to sell a story and are truly passionate about their client. These people make a journalist's job so much easier. They pretty much spoon feed the media their next big story.

Michael Morton, head of his company’s Strategic Alliances department, gives two excellent tips on his blog for getting your message out there.

First, he says “think stories not pitches.” We journalists are storytellers by nature. We know what a good story looks like, and we know when a PR person is just bullshitting us.

Second, Michael says “base your wording on your target audience.” If you want your client to be covered on a specific TV program, say something on the Style Channel for instance, then by all means use fashion savvy lingo when talking to station execs, writing press releases, etc. But if you’re trying to get ink in a local, daily newspaper, you’re better off using more conversational, widely understood language.

Other than that, just use common sense. Make the most of a media kit- show the media why your client deserves coverage. Endorse your client wholeheartedly and with enthusiasm- if you don’t seem to care about the event, why should anyone else?

Once a PR person has proven him or herself to be a legit source for stories, maintaining that relationship with media contacts is crucial.

Journalists are a vain bunch- we love being praised for our work. So, shooting a quick email every now and then to a journalist complimenting them on a job well done will earn you major points.

I’ll leave you with this video made by the people at PRSA. It’s kind of long (and a little lame), but it does a great job at characterizing the give-and-take relationship between PR and the media. Enjoy!

I watched a political debate...and liked it

Over the weekend, I was flipping through channels and came across a rerun of last week's California Democratic Debate. Normally, I wouldn't have even hesitated before skipping past CNN to watch something more hangover-appropriate like Degrassi or Meerkat Manor.

However, for some reason, I stopped at CNN, put down the remote and actually absorbed what Hillary and Obama were saying. And I must say, I was pleasantly surprised.

I've always been daunted by political debates, thinking I wouldn't have a clue what anyone was talking about, so why waste my time listening?

But this debate was different. Moderators posed interesting and poignant questions. One of my favorites was about the danger of continuing a 20-year dynasty of Bushes and Clintons in the White House, prompting Hillary to say, "It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush."

For the first time during this entire election process, I became interested in the actual issues at hand, the very things that people should be basing their votes on.

Like the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Not going to lie- I didn't even know that was a prominent issue in this election (probably because I've been too busy watching Meerkat Manor...but that's beside the point).

What I'm getting at is this: this debate was open, honest and human. After all the negative media attention the two democrats have received recently for their child-like banter, I'm sure some PR pros stepped in and helped to calm the storm.

There are those who were disappointed with the debate, though. Considering this was the last debate before Super Tuesday, many political junkies thought it would be more of a knock-down, drag-out fight to show which candidate better deserves the Democratic nomination.

And maybe it's because I'm still somewhat naive about politics, but I enjoyed the lack of bickering between the two candidates. I liked seeing Hillary and Obama agree on issues, even complimenting each other at times. As Obama pulled out Hillary's chair for her at the end of the debate and the two embraced in a friendly hug, I felt like they genuinely like each other.

Or maybe I'm just that sucker who fell for a well-devised PR move to show how united the Democratic Party is.

Either way, congratulations to the strategists behind this debate. You held my attention and got me to care. That, in and of itself, is quite the accomplishment.