A friend of mine is a HUGE Seth Godin guy.  He sent me this recent post by the marketing guru.  If you don't read it carefully, you miss the point.

Seth talks about the myth of "launch PR."  Successful brands don't need a huge PR push, he says. 

I agree.

In fact, per Godin, a new brand doesn't need PR at all.  As proof, he points to Starbucks, Apple, Nike, Harry Potter, Google, William Morris, The DaVinci Code, Wikipedia, Snapple, Geico, Linux, Firefox and Microsoft.

According to Godin, these mega brands had "no launch at all."

Not exactly true. 

These brands didn't have huge PR launches like you see for established brands today.  I would argue that's because the entrepreneurs running the fledgling companies couldn't afford toothpaste at the time.

Each of these brands had a tremendous story to tell.  They didn't need to rely on a some flash-in-the-pan splash because their product was so good, to begin with.

In other words, they went about doing their business, slowly becoming popular because of what they did and NOT what they said.

That's an important point in PR.  It's about what you DO, not what you SAY.

But, here's what really annoyed me.  He closes with the following: "The relentless quest for media validation doesn't really pay. If you get it, congratulations. If you don't, that's just fine."

Wrong again.

Publicity pays.  Potential customers read trade journals, business publications, web sites and blogs because they need information.  Dollar for dollar, publicity wins over every other form of marketing because it's so effective.  Every one of the companies listed above is so huge, in part, because journalists took the time to research and cover the brands.  Without the media coverage, the companies would not have gotten where they are today.

Need help telling your story?  Let me know.

John McCain stunned almost everyone with his running mate pick.  This is not news.

What amazes me is that people think he is now pandering to women.  If you think about it, that assumption is offensive to women.

What about issues?  Do women only care about the gender of the candidate?

Gov. Palin is a member of the NRA.  She also opposes abortion.  NOW opposes Palin as a candidate, saying she is not supportive of "Women's Issues."

Even so, a recent survey shows that for the vast majority of women who plan to vote in 2008 (40%), the Number One "issue" is the economy.  Outranking abortion rights (3%) were healthcare, the war in Iraq and security.  Perhaps today's Women's Issues aren't your mother's.

This also makes me wonder: should the presidential race be reduced to a single issue?  Does it make sense to hire a CEO or EVP because he or she has one skill that, although valuable, won't necessarily inform all - or even most - of his or her decisions?

It will boil down to balance and substance.  Palin has a tough road ahead.  She will get hammered on foreign policy.  She will get killed on lack of experience. 

But so will Obama, and he's at the top of the ticket.

In watching the Olympics over the past few days, I've been seeing an ad for the new Chevy Traverse.  The spot features a good-looking guy who is ironing as he is making dinner reservations in celebration of his "six month anniversary."

The voiceover then tells me something about the car and how it's good looking and useful.  Or something like that.

I must have seen the ad a half-dozen times and, I hate to admit, I didn't "get it."  That was until I was sitting with my wife who, after the spot ran, couldn't stop laughing.

When I pointed out that I didn't see what was so funny, she just rolled her eyes and said, "Good looking and useful.  Just like that guy ironing."

Oh.

So, the ad didn't speak to me.  Does that matter? Not at all, because the person the ad was talking to was sitting next to me on the couch.

What about your messaging?  Does it speak to the people you need to reach?  I'm not saying that you have to speak only to your target audience, but your messages better be spot-on to the right people.  If other people "get it" that's fine too.  But it's not necessary.

This may seem obvious to you now, but I can tell you from experience that far too often, companies get caught up in the trap of trying to be all things to all people.  Doing that gets you nowhere fast.

When you sit down to figure out your key messages, think about whom you need to reach and what it is that drives them.  What are their concerns and how do you address them?

Do that, and you're halfway there.

I had the opportunity to fly on Jet Blue yesterday.  Coincidentally, the airline had just implemented a new $7 charge for a blanket and pillow.

Much was made of the airline's decision to save some money - or better yet uncover a new revenue source - and the publicity was all bad.

Frankly, I didn't care all that much.  I paid the (established) $1 charge to buy a pair of headsets and sat down to watch television with more choices than I get at home.  In the couple of hours in the air, I caught up on some CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Channel (Read: "Comedy Central, VH1 and MTV.").  The seats were so comfortable, the lack of a questionably clean pillow and blanket mostly went unnoticed.  The cabin crew still smiled and the pilot greeted everyone as they exited.

What's the lesson? The news you have to deliver may be bad, but the way you deliver it makes all the difference.

If you live in Las Vegas and watch the morning show on Fox' KVVU affiliate, you may find yourself hankering for an iced coffee from McDonald's.

That's an odd correlation, you may say to yourself.

Well, it turns out the wild world of product placement has made its way onto the morning show set.  According to The New York Times and the Las Vegas Sun, the anchors will seemingly be sipping McDonald's iced coffee during certain less-than-hard-news segments of the show. (I say "seemingly" because the cups will sometimes be just props.)

Perhaps not surprisingly, it's a Fox station paving the way down this path.  Statements from the other three broadcast network all claimed such product placement is against their policies.  But, you have to wonder, how much longer into this recession will other stations resist the urge?

Will such product placement help either the advertiser or station?  Likely neither.  The astute viewer will realize what's going on and just build up even more resistance to placement that is paid for and not earned.

In recent weeks, the activities at kosher meat producer Agriprocessors has been headline news.  The company was busted for employing illegal workers.  Then came reports of abusive working conditions.

Calls for ethical supervision that goes beyond the letter of the laws of kosher were made; PR firms were hired; and, now, there are allegations of online impersonations by that same firm.

Whether or not it was an intern or senior staffer who posted the obviously fraudulent comments on at least two web sites, the firm in question can't claim the postings were done without the knowledge of the company's senior-most officers.  I've worked in firms that same size, with the same dynamic, and can say with nearly 100% certainty that nothing happens without the boss' OK.  It's just not the way these firms work.

If Agriprocessors is smart, management will dismiss the firm in question (or the firm should resign the account).  Regardless of whether or not fraudulent posts were made by the firm, the firm's account managers are no longer in the position to offer counsel; they are now part of the story.

Lest you think I'm saying this because "I want the business," let me be clear: I do not.  I want to play no part in a story that pits Jews against one another; I'd rather see Agriprocessors hire a competent executive team that will ensure it is acting according to Jewish and American law.

Senator Ted Kennedy made an appearance on the Senate floor yesterday, to cast the one vote needed to break a Republican filibuster on a Medicare bill.

The Boston Globe covered the story.  After reading the piece, I was looking forward to watching the video linked to the article.  How disappointing!

The "coverage" reminded me of what's become of most local news.  How often do we see reporters, on-camera, reporting from a location, where something happened a while ago, but all you see now is essentially B-roll that could pass as background for any story on the subject?

What could have been an emotional video piece was reduced to an image of nothing really and two voice-overs saying not much of anything.

The results are in.  More registered voters would rather have Obama over for a barbecue, than McCain.

According to a poll conducted by AP and Yahoo!, 52% said they'd rather host Barack, with 45% saying they'd invite John.

While there were predictable differences among races, sexes and political party affiliations, there was an interesting hitch: one in six McCain voters said they'd prefer Obama at the meal, while only one in 20 Obama supporters would elect to have McCain over.

Could it be the presidential election is actually more than just a popularity contest?

First, a clarification.

My prediction that McCain will win was NOT an endorsement.  I was surprised at the reaction to my last posting...(as did my dislike of Rachel Ray!)

Anyway, the debate about the debates is underway and it looks like there's been an agreement.  The candidates will be sitting for two of three debates.  Steven Thomma of McClatchy Newspapers says this is a win for McCain because Obama won't be able to use his height advantage.

I'd argue there's another McCain advantage.  He has trouble moving his arms and, as such, when giving speeches he looks much less expressive than Obama.  Being seated greatly reduces one's ability to use arm gestures and movement, without looking like a lunatic.  I'm sure McCain's people are breathing a sigh of relief.

One of the services we offer is communications and media training, where we address not only the substance of delivery, but style, as well.  Even if you're not running for president, you may be able to benefit from our expertise in this area.

I remember watching a Daily Show episode where they "called the election" months and months before election day.  I'm ready to do the same: McCain will be our next president. 

CNN had an interesting op-ed yesterday about Obama's massive war chest.  Leslie Sanchez makes a great case about how Obama can outspend his opponent by at least six-to-one.  She lays out a fantastic - and enviable - media buying plan designed to, as she says, "buy the election."

At the end of the day, though, money isn't everything.  Obama need not look any further than his contest with Hillary Clinton in states where he outspent her and still lost.  Other points and predictions to keep in mind:

• Money can buy ad time, but there still has to be substance to the message. 
• Obama is more exciting to listen to, but McCain has the street cred to have his finger on The Button.
• The Republican fundraising effort will kick into high gear shortly.
• The fact that most voters are ill-informed and vote with their gut may actually work in McCain's favor, even though Obama is more appealing to listen to and watch.  Said another way: race will be a (or the?) major factor.

It will ceratinly be interesting to see how the Obama team will relentlessly play up McCain's age and how McCain will not let us forget the Democrat's lack of experience.

Nonetheless, barring some crazy revelation of McCain being outed as Client #10, I feel confident saying McCain will be sworn in.