Recently in Public Relations Category

OK. I knew that Aquent had several offices in Greater China, but, frankly, I get so focused on the things I'm doing right here in my own reality tunnel that it sort of slipped my mind. That is, until the friendly robotic spiders at Google reminded me with an alert announcing that Aquent had appointed a new manager for Beijing.

First of all, congratulations, Douglas MacDonald, whom I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting. Second of all, it's a given that we're going to "act locally," though we are also capable of acting globally (the web is "worldwide" after all), but how are we supposed to "think globally"?

Do you work or have you worked for a global organization? How did you maintain a sense of your globalness? On the other hand, did you need to? If you don't interact with your colleagues in Malaysia or Praque, do you have to keep them in mind?

This post was written by Aquent's Alex "Get Your Damn Re-branding Off of Me" Weaver. This is a picture of him.

Maybe it's the sinking feeling that what we've been doing with our lives up to this point is precisely what got us into this recessed moment in history. Or maybe it's the inverse; maybe it's the feeling that since there's nowhere to go now but up, we want to put our best foot forward by turning over a brand new leaf. Whichever the case may be, one thing has become clear: today's recession is driving the brands of yesterday to rebrand for tomorrow.

America itself, of course, got the ball rolling with its inspirational new look (love it or hate it, this ain't George Washington's Union anymore). Pepsi kept it going with their daring new (burping?) logo. And then Kanye West had to just plain take it over the top with his outlandish new name ("That's Martin Louis the King, Jr, to you"), which, I understand, is some sort of dual homage to the civil rights movement and a new line of Louis Vuitton shoes (read: sellout), though it's probably just his way of increasing the number of things he can rhyme with himself.

The question is, is all this name-changing and logo-altering a good idea? Isn't it possible that, in these turbulent times, the American consumer will end up seeking solace in the comforting familiarity of things that never seem to change? I've said it before (apropos of Joaquin Phoenix' recent experiments in rebranding): if it ain't broken, don't fix it. But what do I know? I'm just a card-carrying member of Generation Y with one hand on my wallet and the other one waving a peace sign.

A random Google search brought me to this Wired article, "The See-Through CEO," from March 2007 (remember 2007?). Though it seems kind of old-hat now, the thrust of the article (is it strange to use "thrust" metaphorically in a corporate blog?) is summed up thusly, "Secrecy is dying. It's probably already dead." That is, trying to be stealthy about the real workings of your business is pointless because, the truth will out (on the interwebs).

The author suggests that the most adequate response to inescapable visibility is transparency:

All of which explains why the cult of transparency has so many high tech converts these days. Transparency is a judo move. Your customers are going to poke around in your business anyway, and your workers are going to blab about internal info - so why not make it work for you by turning everyone into a partner in the process and inviting them to do so?

This kind of got me thinking about transparency at Aquent and in our business more generally. For example, the way our business works is that we pay the talent less than the client pays us (if you didn't know that already, I'm sorry to just spring it on you). We generate the bill rate (what we charge our client) by adding a percentage of the pay rate (what the talent gets) to the pay rate. Now, depending on a number of factors, that percentage can range from 45% to 100%. The money we make comes from that split times the number of hours worked.

I'm assuming that, if you have worked through us or other staffing/temp agencies, you are aware of this set-up. My question is: How frequently have you been told specifically what we (or anyone) is charging the client?

My belief is that we should share this info for the same reason that companies should be transparent: People will find out anyway. (I know I did when I temped through MacTemps.)

What do you think?

About a month ago, I copped to an emerging Twitter addiction. In the meantime, it's gotten worse, but I think it's about to get better.

It got worse when I found myself going on Twitter in the middle of the night (look, I couldn't sleep) and then when I installed TweetDeck, which is definitely a better crack-pipe when it comes to indulging in this insidious place/app/lifestyle/whatchamacallit.

It's been getting better over the last couple days since I realized: a) Twitter is incredibly distracting; b) less Twitter can really be more; and c) it can start to feel like an incestuous, self-referential echo chamber (as @amandachapel colorfully and caustically points out).

Twitter still intrigues me as a "one-dimensional version of Second Life" (in a good way, kind of). That is, it is a virtual space where you can meet and interact with other humans but, thanks to the fact that it is text-based (ie., one-dimensional in a McLuhan sort of way) it is easier to navigate, explore, and enjoy than SL was for me (oh, SL, I loved you....once).

Anyway, if you're on Twitter, let me know. If I'm interested, I'll follow ya. If you like what I'm puttin' down, follow me @aquentminister.

Still, whether we follow one another or not, I strongly encourage you to enjoy Twitter responsibly and in moderation. It can be a killer.

It's always dangerous to advertise something as "humorous" when it's quite possible that no one finds it funny. Here goes anyway.

Two years ago, there was a modicum of hub-bub about the "no A-hole rule" and a lot of discussion around hiring people that you'll actually enjoy working with as well as working productively with people who are "jerks."

Two years later I'm browsing the Mind Hacks blog and come across a post entitled, "Making Sense of Bastards." Intrigued, I follow a link to this paper, "You Bastard: A Narrative Exploration of the Experience of Indignation within Organizations."

I haven't read the paper yet but I love the euphemism-laden abstract: "Our patience with forming interpretations and reinterpretations of others' behavior is not unlimited. The time comes when we lose interest in trying to understand, and conclude that another person is behaving in a way that is simply unacceptable [read: "decide someone is a bastard" - Matt]. This paper explores the narratives that go with immoderate indignation [i.e., "concluding someone is a bastard"], even for those best versed in the idea that they should attempt to understand the perspective of the other...."

I couldn't have said it better, or nicer, myself. Anyway, check it out. Who knows, maybe it will help you avoid "immoderate indignation" when "concluding" that certain relatives "behave unacceptably" this weekend?

Have a happy holiday!

I'm pleased as punch to tell you that the next Aquent-sponsored AMA Webcast, "Social Media Is About Socializing," will feature Harry Gold, founder and CEO of Overdrive Interactive.

I had a chance to see Harry speak at the New Marketing Summit in Boston and was digging on his tales of getting the likes of Harley Davidson into the social media game. I think you will too.

Great speaker whose company has done some great work for some great brands. I implore you in the strongest possible terms to CHECK THIS OUT. It all goes down on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 10:00 am Pacific Time (that's like 1:00 pm Eastern). Please join us.

Image Courtesy of bogenfreund.

As I mentioned towards the end of this post, the French marketing genius Clotaire Rapaille discovered that the brand essence of the "US Presidency" is "cheap entertainment." Ever since I heard that, I have never doubted it, and every subsequent election I've lived through has proven it to be, if not "true," at least "accurate."

Now, some of you may know that there is an election coming up in the US. The question is, based on the findings of this errant Jungian, which ticket will win? Frankly, I think it'll be McCain-Palin, if only because reality isn't flexible enough to tolerate the dream ticket: Obama-Palin.

Let me be perfectly clear. My conclusion here is not based on any assessment of the issues or the relevant positions of the relative candidates. It is instead based on comparing the tickets to bygone television shows. McCain-Palin reminds me of Green Acres, while Obama-Biden is kind of listing towards Dragnet.

Given the choice, which would you rather watch?

Though I can spin things and beat around the bush with the best of them, I tend to prefer "straight talk" (sometimes called "honesty" or "frankness" or "no BS"). For example, while working recently on a survey of our clients, I came across the question, "Are you currently looking for marketing or creative staff?" and I didn't like it.

Since we weren't undertaking a socio-economic study to determine the percentage of businesses currently hiring, it struck me as a disingenuous way of fishing for business. With that in mind, I suggested posing the question this way, "Would you like an Aquent representative to call you right now?" My colleagues passed on that recommendation, but also removed the offending question (as I recall, anyway).

Which brings me to this blog. My "strategy," such as it is, has been to comment on a wide variety of topics in hopes that potential talent and/or clients would find this site, become curious about Aquent, and eventually work with us (or whatever).

Aside from the "wishful thinking" aspect of this approach, am I actually practicing a kind of deception? Is this base, marketing trickery? Dishonesty? Bullshit? Would Aquent, and you, frankly, be better served if the crux of every post here was, "Please work with Aquent. Please tell your friends about Aquent. Please sign up. Please request a client visit. Please, please, please (as James Brown used to say)"?

My gut feeling is that this blog would quickly lose it's value, entertainment or otherwise, if I just dished up the marketing message uncut. It would quickly become boring, kind of annoying, and not a little pathetic (no one likes a beggar, right?).

I'm starting to think that the Godin-one was correct and all marketers ARE liars. But, we're liars because that's what everyone wants - lilies with plenty of gilding.

After all, the truth hurts. Or so I'm told.

Image Courtesy of Cyril Plapied.

A friend of mine had gotten kind of burnt out at his job and had reached the point where he was pretty much phoning it in. Then one day, he up and decided that, if he was going to continue working where he was, he needed a new attitude. To that end, he chose the continual, daily improvement of the company as his primary motivation for coming in to work every day.

Committing oneself to continual improvement is not like accepting a particular task or project, each with its own envisioned state of completeness. It is more akin to assuming an infinite responsibility, a responsibility that involves, first and foremost, maintaining the commitment to continual improvement.

What do you want to improve?

Image Courtesy of juria yoshikawa.

Sally Hogshead is the author of Radical Careering, a book that "helps you visualize your no-compromises future, so you can start to build it, piece by piece." I came across Sally's work via Ad Age where she writes a career-oriented column entitled, "Hogshead On."

I have not read Sally's book, though judging by the reviews on Amazon, people either love it a lot or hate it a lot. I have, however, read her blog and there were two posts that I thought may be of interest to readers of this blog.

First, there's a lengthy post on "translating your skills from traditional to digital media." Her main point is: if you haven't embraced "digital" in your advertising/marketing career, then you should get ready to embrace obsolescence.

The second post I'll point you to concerns the tyranny of THE idea. It's a plea for openness, plurality, and flexibility when it comes to generating and pitching ideas. It struck a nerve with me because, a few weeks ago, a friend asked me for help naming his play. I came up with one name I liked but, when sending it to him, couldn't help adding an alternate in case he didn't like my first choice.

Initially, I thought it a sign of weakness or uncertainty to muddy the water with options. Then, Ms. Hogshead provided me a moment of clarity by pointing out that the true water-muddy-maker was a dogmatic attachment to the notion of a single, best idea.

Presenting several ideas doesn't bespeak a lack of confidence in one's particular vision; instead, it demonstrates respect for the unpredictable and unavoidably social consensus that determines aesthetic value and creative efficacy.

Or something like that.

Thanks, Sally!

Image Courtesy of ninjapoodles.