Take a closer look at the numbers and break down exactly what this means.

GM spends about $40 million on Facebook (each year????), with just $10 million of that going to Facebook ads and roughly one half of one percent of the company’s $1.8 billion annual ad budget according to Kantor Media.

You’re probably thinking, “WOW, GM spends $1.8 billion on advertising? Why does Facebook even matter?”

Well, you’re on the right track. It doesn’t, if we’re actually talking about GM’s total advertising spend.

What does matter is headline news, and Facebook is in the headlines. What better time to stir up a little (media) controversy: the largest U.S. auto maker to pull back such an ‘insignificant’ amount of advertising funds just days before the big Facebook IPO. Well played GM – you’re in the top stories.

Otherwise, who else sends out news releases that they are shifting .55 percent of their marketing budget? Or who sites a statistic that 53 percent of users don’t click on ads as a main reason? I’d be willing to bet 53% of users skip their ads on Tivo, or 53 percent of readers skip over their print ads (I could go on and on here).

But you don’t see national headline news that GM is suspending billboard placements because 53 percent of drivers don’t pay attention to the boards.

And then, there’s the infamous POLL. No, no, not the Gallup poll that found the majority of Americans still oppose the auto bailouts. We refer to the AP-CNBC Facebook IPO poll that found 59 percent of the respondents said that they had little to no trust in Facebook to keep their information private and that (here’s the good part) Americans who have seen “The Social Network” have a more favorable impression of Mark Zuckerberg than those who haven’t seen it.

C’mon – Really?

Really. And now the media jumps to “trust.” But is that really at issue? Sure trust matters, but it needs to be based on facts, not feeling. And based on “The Social Network” poll, we’re betting that feelings are trumping facts right now. Especially when fueled by an insignificant fact like shifting .55% of your budget.

Will we see a mass exodus of major brands from Facebook advertising? Doubt it. Can we ‘trust’ Facebook? Probably no more or less than anyone else, but on the plus side, Facebook certainly doesn’t have the poor track record of the U.S. auto industry. At least not yet.

What I don’t typically think of is public relations gaffes and backroom corporate arm wrangling exercises, with CMOs saying one thing about a much-anticipated new game offering only to have his comments essentially retracted by the CEO with no transparent explanation as to why.

But so it goes in the world of well planned out major product launches gone awry, and such was the case last week when uber-hot Finnish game maker Rovio rolled out “Angry Birds Space” (not to be confused with the Muppets skit “Pigs In Space!”).

Let’s revisit.

For those who aren’t gamers, “Angry Birds” is HUGE. Originally developed for Apple‘s iOS in December 2009, more than 12 million copies of the game have been purchased from Apple’s App Store, ultimately prompting Rovio to design Android and other versions.

Last week, they launched the eagerly awaited “Angry Birds Space.” Boo-ya baby!

And with any major product launch or announcements, companies go through a pretty simple exercise: messaging. The corporate communications group would normally develop a message platform that guides every aspect of communications. From press release to potential questions and answers to news conference scripts to executive quotes to partner quotes to investor communications, et al.

It’s an important process and smart companies will go through training to ensure the company spokespeople who are chosen to articulate the message do so with great precision.

Which brings us back to Rovio and its “ Angry Birds Space” launch, and the company spokesperson, Rovio’s hoodie-wearing CMO, Peter Vesterbacka.

“We’re not available on Windows Phone and and right now we don’t have any plans for Windows Phone when it comes to ‘Angry Birds Space,’” he told Bloomberg. “If you look at activations, Apple’s iOS and Android are clearly bigger than any other platform. We want to be on all screens, but we have to consider the cost of supplying the smaller platforms. With Windows Phone it’s a lot of work to technically support it.”

Seems pretty clear-cut. We have a plan and it does not include Windows Phone because there’s simply not enough users to justify the value proposition. Now let’s flash forward one day later.

“We are working towards getting Angry Birds Space to WP7,” Rovio CEO Mikael Hed told Reuters.

For the uninitiated, “WP7″ means Windows Phone 7…..Ummmm.

With no definitive insight into what actually caused the 180 degree change, one can only assume that one or both of two contributing factors most likely were in play after Vesterbacka beat on his chest about the no-go for the Window Phone.

One, Rovio’s fellow-Finnish company Nokia jumped ugly with Hed, the CEO, as Nokia just brought its first Windows Phone 7 handsets to the U.S. Two, regardless of how mainstream Apple becomes, don’t ever discount the muscle of Microsoft as it bulls its way into the smartphone space and with the new Windows 8 operating system due out later this year.

“We are working closely together with Nokia to bring our games to their platforms,” Hed added to Reuters. “Our mutual goal is to bring the best possible experience to our fans, including all fans using Windows Phone devices.”

Here’s the rub with all of this: There are times when spokespeople — from PR guy to CEO — go off script, screw up, and ultimately get thrown under the bus as press statements can be costly and have a direct ROI, as we saw when Nokia’s shares rose .06% based on Hed’s capitulating comments to Reuters.

The message behind Rovio’s messaging escapade is that despite being valued by some at $9 billion is still essentially a “start-up,” Rovio seems like it had no intention of developing its hot new game for the Windows Phone. The CMO didn’t screw up. He was just articulating what was probably a very well-planned product launch the way he should have.

What’s the takeaway here?

First, be flexible and ready to adjust your message platform when necessary. Rovio did this flawlessly and without pointing fingers at the CMO as can often be the case.

Second, if you do make a significant change in what you’re communicating, be transparent as to why. Rovio failed miserably here. Yes, it would seem in reading between the lines that Nokia, and possibly Microsoft, were key factors. But who really knows? Onlookers are simply left to question the company’s strategic vision and independence.

Hed would have been better served to issue a statement to the degree of, “Since our announcement yesterday we’ve had discussions with Nokia, one of our trusted business partners, and chosen to ensure that the ‘Angry Birds Space’ will in fact be available for WP7 in the short term.”

Either way, “Angry Birds Space” is off to a hot start, and Rovio will be just fine as long as they can continue to produce gaming products that my kids can’t get enough of.

Through it I’ve created a number of media-worthy campaigns for the sake of battling what I’ve found to be is a very true-to-life pattern of discrimination against people with mustaches, as well as parodying silly things — most recently “America’s Most Mustache Friendly City.” And with that, AMI has gradually building an audience of 100,000+ monthly unique visitors, 20,000 members, an active Facebook page of more than 10,000 people, and an international press following.

Enter Scott Gulbransen, the facial hair-challenged director of social media at H&R Block, the iconic brand with the large green block founded by Henry and Richard Bloch.

As successful as the H&R Block may be, the company doesn’t scream: “HEY, YOU 22-YEAR-OLD DUDE WHO LIKES HUMOR! LET’S PARTY AND AFTERWARD WE’LL GO ROCK OUT AND DO YOUR TAXES AND GET YOU A FREAKING NARLY RETURN!!!”

And so I broached an offbeat idea with Scott:  Create a humor-based social media campaign shaped around seeking a tax break for the “people of Mustached American descent” that AMI represents.

We asked a tax policy professor to write a relatively cogent argument for a $250 annual refund for Mustached Americans based on the notion that people with facial hair were doing America a service by enhancing good looks, as well as providing an environmental benefit by saving water through less shaving. This, in turn, had a cost for Mustached Americans in purchasing U.S.-made grooming accoutrements that stimulated the economy.

Payback was due damn it!  Enter the Stache Act.

On Feb. 20, President’s Day 2012, as AMI chairman, I stood behind a podium with the tax policy professor, Dr. John Yeutter from Northeastern State University.

Together, we introduced The Million Mustache March for the Stache Act (see the news conference here) — a two month campaign seeking adoption of the Stache Act through two principle vehicles:

• StacheAct.com, which redirects to an application on H&R Block’s Facebook page where consumers can ‘stache their photo with a past presidential mustache;
• A physical march on April 1 in Washington D.C. from the U.S. Capitol to the White House (white paper and details on the march here).

And here’s the hook that gives it some broader validity: For everyone who participates, H&R Block makes a contribution of up to $10,000 to Millions From One, which delivers clean drinking water to those who cannot obtain it themselves. It’s why celebrities like of “The Office” star Ellie Kemper (her PSA here), veteran musician John Oates (his PSA), and a host of professional athletes have been willing to shoot gratis Public Service Announcements.

Much like my colleague Scott Goodson of StrawberryFrog often reminds us, this is about creating a “movement.” Thus the effort is, in fact, very real.

The Act was brought to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, the Cato Institute, North Dakota Senator John Hoeven, and Maryland Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, who’s office then referred it to the House Ways & Means Committee.

And as a result of these wide-ranging efforts, early results have been promising. News stories covering the announcement have come from Yahoo Politics, ABC News and FOX News, as well as Capitol Hill media like Roll Call and The Hill. But they’ve also all covered it with the relative good humor and silliness that accompanies the effort.

Where will this all end, besides, of course, with one million Mustached Americans and interested third parties parading through the Nation’s Capitol on April Fools Day?  That’s a good question.

H&R Block hopes it will be with more young people thinking about it when they get ready to file taxes.

The only thing that is for certain — right now at least — is that H&R Block is leveraging its social media clout and taking the brand in new directions. The company took a very hairy (ahem), strategic risk, stepped out of its comfort zone, and ultimately should engender some goodwill from a budding constituency that represents the future of its tax service business: 18-35-year-olds who research has demonstrated enjoy humor in marketing and care about philanthropy.

So, I ask you, be more American than any American has ever been. Participate in the most important movement in the history of movements.

Vote Stache Act! America is counting on you!

In a pill: I don’t like news releases as a vehicle, and while I think they are sometimes necessary, more often than not releases are abused by public relations practitioners.

I received a tremendous amount of feedback on the piece, both in the comments, in personal correspondences and by carrier pigeon. Some were supportive; others were immensely dismissive and angry. It’s a healthy debate and I’m good with criticism as long as it’s constructive.

But what has amazed me more than anything are the flacks who continue to pitch me by simply sending releases through e-mail, with no explanation and again, more often than not, the news is not news at all.

Just this week, one of the 12.3 releases I received was from an advertising agency called INK about their navigation of some challenging media waters on behalf of client Quest Software.

They point out how tech blogger Brian Madden called out Quest for what he thought was an outdated logo on SearchVirtualDesktop.com. The negative buzz spread. Enter INK!

Goodness gracious! Stop the presses! News release alert! This is worthy!

In its self congratulatory release, INK explains how it “jumped on the opportunity to have a little fun with Brian and his fans, while telling their side of the story at the same time.”

And–drumroll please–within a week of Madden’s criticism, Quest had a video response from CEO Doug Garn about a chance to debut a new animated logo.

Madden posted the video response and word quickly spread. I’ll spare you INK’s metrics of how well the effort worked.

Here’s the thing–I’m writing about this not because I wanted to punish a colleague who violated what I believe constitutes good use of a press release.

On the contrary, I think this is actually a relatively interesting story about good work by INK, and by mentioning it, I’m helping the agency more than anything else. In fact, I’d guess some who read this will even think I’m unfairly bullying INK.

But was it worthy of a news release? Did it announce a new product, venture, a major purchase or anything of value?

Of course not.

What the flack should have done was develop a relationship with me, as well as other marketing writers who were sent the release.  Then, read some of my prior posts, learn that I hate news releases, engage me via Twitter about a topic, learn that I love bacon and mustaches, send me an autographed picture of Mr. T, and so on.

And then, once there was some trust and mutual respect, and I’ve framed my new Mr. T photo — pitch me the story in a concise manner that’s not simply about how great you are, but how the story fits into a broader trend of agencies providing measurable value to their clients, in the same manner that melted cheese improves nearly all other foods by 38 percent.

So please, fellow flacks, I beg of you–stop using news releases irresponsibly, get to know some of the reporters you target, and stop making my case for me day after day.

I recently started a feature there called “Two On Two” with my friend Jason Falls of Social Media Explorer.

Twice monthly, we debate two topics from the worlds of marketing communications or related technologies. And in our first installment, we debate whether Google has peaked and who’s winning the war for the social media landscape — advertising or public relations agencies.

Art imitates life, as Elasticity client Lanworth, which provides satellite-based independent crop production intelligence to the finance, consumer food product, and agri-business industries — often driving commodities markets — was recently featured on CNBC.

Whether it’s ESPN, Fox Sports, Twitter, Deadspin, Facebook, JoeSportsFan, or HallofTheVeryGood — the full spectrum of sports watchers are chronicling every moment, fans are paying attention, and reputations are often damaged by poorly calculated missteps. Indeed, that’s why many public relations agencies have burgeoning (albeit not very profitable) sports business practices.

With this in mind, today I began a new series for JoeSportsFan.com — where I’ve been a longtime contributor writing about various sports topics and other dumb stuff — to examine PR challenges in the sports world.

You can see my first post about a feud this week between the star player and manager of Major League Baseball’s Florida Marlins, and suggest how the situation could have been handled more professionally so as to limit the reputation damage to those involved, as well as the team during a time when they are trying to build momentum for the opening of their new ballpark next season.

I hope you enjoy the series and appreciate your feedback — good or bad — so that it doesn’t suck so much.

Carry on.

My comment to each, in separate conversations, was that Forbes has done an enviable job of opening a hearty can of whoop-ass on many of its competitors and hanging in there with the solely online publications that have excelled, as you can see in this comparison between Forbes.com, Businessweek.com, and HuffPost.

Why do I think Forbes has done it right?

In a pill, they got over themselves, realizing that it’s not about Forbes, but the people reading Forbes — a demographic that has evolved. It’s about consumers and what they want in their daily media diet. And what we are seeing from consumers is that they want variety, they want the ugly blood and guts served with a side of fun and games.  Tax policy with a side of fart jokes.

There’s a reason why an Indiana University study found “The Daily Show” to be as substantive as network news, and a Rasmussen Report showed 32 percent of adults ages 30-39 believe that “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” are capable of replacing traditional news outlets.

There’s also a reason why instead of reading a morning newspaper when we get to work, we come in, grab a cup of coffee, and flip to our Live News Feed on Facebook and scroll through news items that our Facebook Friends have posted — ranging from genocide in a third world nation to leprechauns in Mobile, Alabama (no, really, you should click on the leprechaun link).

And as Forbes and HuffPost excel in online news, you see similarities in companies who are excelling in social media.

Zappos employees talk about anything and everything in social forums — not just shoes. Vegetarian (Communist) products brand Morningstar Farms does  a nice job with content on Facebook. And we counsel our client Charter Communications to place content in their social media channels that does not solely revolve around them.

So whether it be in traditional media circles, or in the online social realm — mediums that aggregate information should never forget that the content isn’t for you. It’s for the consumer.

Saturday Night Live has 30+ years of background in this.  They’ve poked fun at everything from presidents to popular culture and their Weekend Update has been the satirical news of record.  The Onion took a further step at creating new humorous antidotes, stories and otherwise and placing them out as a news media outlet (print, video, online, blog) like any other.

Then came the popularity of shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.  The Daily Show taking what was started with Weekend Update and expanding to new audiences and The Colbert Report taking on the political blow-hard pundits who are gaining in popularity as of late.

But the traditional news media continued to stand firm.  They did not even acknowledge the other avenues existed.  The news was paramount.  And important.  Important enough that humor, parody and satire had no place.  And those that delivered the news?  Just as important.  There were no humorous angles to Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow.

And thus, public relations as an industry followed suit.

But things are changing now.  I’m sure there is no one instance that was the tipping point, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it was the Daily Show.  An IU study found the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to be as substantive as network news.  A Rasmussen Report showed 32% of adults ages 30-39 believe that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are capable of replacing traditional new outlets.  And nearly one-third of younger Americans see Colbert and Stewart as true alternatives to traditional news outlets.

That’s a big impact.  So how did traditional news outlets respond?  They started slowly.  They played clips on their shows (well, the cable news guys did–they have a lot of time to fill) to get a laugh, to prove a point that fit their political agenda, or attacked the satirical shows in retribution.

But then Brian Williams from ‘NBC Nightly News’ started showing up as a repeat guest on The Daily Show.  It was humorous, genuine, and a reach to cross into the audiences that watch the program.

But last night was a new milestone in my opinion.  If you haven’t seen the piece on Chatroulette, you must go now and watch it. (I’ll wait). Did you count the media personalities in that piece?  At least 5.  All 3 major new network anchorpersons (ABC,CBS, NBC) as well as some cable news for good measure– MSNBC and Fox Business.  And they weren’t just mocking the video roulette site.  They were poking fun of themselves.  They were poking fun of their industry.  And they were doing it on The Daily Show’s terms.

They showed that the news doesn’t have to always take itself so seriously.

Why?  Well, for one, to get viewers.  But it’s more than that.  It’s an attempt to show that they are human.  They are endearing themselves to their audience, or better yet, a new potential one.

And they did it through humor and self-deprecation.

So, if you made it with me this far into a long blog post, my question is this: why hasn’t the Public Relations Industry followed suit?  Why have they continued to act as if they are above the fray?  Why have they insisted that the news is more important than any humor based program you can think up.  (And by news, I mean EVERY press release ever written for any client need–big or small)  Why would they not follow the actual media they are working with?

This is not an indemnification of the industry as a whole, only to say this: lighten up, you may just actually be more effective as an agency/industry if you do.

We have found at Elasticity that humor, parody, and the lighter side of human nature have phenomenal appeal.  Stories are placed more frequently.  Programs take off and go “viral” with greater frequency, and we’re able to break through the clutter.  We’re able to endear our clients to their audiences.

Another example we talked about this week.  Ole’ Miss is replacing their beloved Col. Reb with a new mascot.  The story is that Admiral Ackbar is a leading contender.  We all heard this story and it took off like wildfire.  Do you think you would have heard about this story had they been thinking about replacing their mascot with a bear, or an eagle?  (though it may have been picked up by Colbert since he hates bears)

This is a highly controversial topic right now, and those who practice this type of communications are not taken serious.  But it is catching on.  There are more and more every day that see this.  And in time, the larger agencies may just play ball on our terms, much like the major news networks participated in Chatroulette.

Now, this is not to say that the news is all humorous, nor to say that no news is actually legitimate.  Only to say that humor often times breaks through clutter and the news media is starting to catch on.  You don’t have to be 100% serious 100% of the time.  Having a “human” face often times endears you to your audience.

And isn’t that what “public relations” is all about?  Endearing yourself to your audience?

]]> http://goelastic.com/theblog/index.php/2010/03/does-humor-belong-in-pr/feed/ 1