[Today's post is by Laura Schmidt of the R+K's Public Relations practice]

I posted a couple of days ago (here) about the Diet Pepsi and Burger King ads (here) that are gaining a lot of publicity for their somewhat taboo approach to marketing. At the time, I promised to offer more insight into R+K’s point of view. Three points regarding publicity and PR – good and bad – for your consideration:

1. PR is not publicity. Publicity, which generates consumer awareness, is only one function of public relations. A public relations campaign might include media relations, yes, but it also might solely be about public affairs, crisis communications, internal relations, events or message development and delivery.
2. Publicity is about getting attention. PR is about influencing opinion. While a straight publicity stunt might gain public attention of a product, person, service, cause or organization, PR is meant to change public opinions and behaviors. At R+K, we dig deeper to identify credible insights and uncommon solutions to challenges that resonate with consumers, ultimately inspiring them to take action.
3. Bad PR is bad PR. It’s a blessing and a curse, I suppose, that PR offers third-party credibility that other marketing approaches don’t. Why? It’s great for your brand or organization when you generate legitimate exposure among important, influential audiences. But your PR efforts can easily backfire when those same credible sources question, discount or attack you.

Need more food for thought? Check out our consumer education and advocacy Web site at www.rkconnect.com/cae

[Just in time for Black Friday, today's posting is by Patsy Comella, Director of R+K's Media Department]

Wondering what to get for that special person for the holidays? Tired of all those old paperback books around the house? Voila the Kindle.

I was recently at a conference and at the end of a session we were asked to send a text for a chance to win a Kindle. What is a Kindle I wondered? But because I like to win stuff I complied. Low and behold I was the proud winner of a Kindle.

The Kindle, marketed by Amazon, is an electronic book. It is the size of a book and the screen reads like a book. However, being a voracious reader, I had doubts. “Give me the feel of a book, turning pages, bending down the page to mark my place” I thought. Never the less, I thought I would give it a try. And now I am a believer!

The good:

• The format is super. The screen is easy to read and is so like reading ink on paper.
• Buying books online via the Kindle is simple and fast using their “whisper net”. I was at the airport and accessed the Kindle store without having to pay for internet access. The download was fast and I didn’t have to go to the book store and carry extra stuff on the plane. One can also subscribe to newspapers for the Kindle but I wonder why one would want to do so when they are free online.
• The cost of the books range between $6 and $10 so not a huge bargain but not out of line with the printed versions.
• Love the quick charging and overall battery life.

The bad:

• The toggles on the side for next page, previous page and back (yes there is a difference between the two) are on the sides and run from the top down 2/3’s of the sides. Meaning it is easy to lose your place in the book. I have been known to hit the side buttons accidentally and lose my place in the book. Bottom line, getting back to the right spot somewhat challenging.
  

• There really aren’t page numbers only these cryptic numbers I have yet to figure out at the bottom.
• Although the Kindle store has most popular books, the number of titles is limited if one is looking for a specific title that isn’t broadly circulated. I was looking for When Christ and His Saints Slept: A Novel by Sharon Penman to no avail.
• The keyboard is challenging but maybe I just have fat fingers.

The ugly

• The case is a disaster. The device doesn’t fit securely and serves no practical purpose. It would have been better to just supply a bag to protect the screen.
• The cost. At the new reduced price of $350 (down from $400) it is still expensive which will limit widespread acceptance. This device would be great for schools (think about all those text books) but is priced out of the market. Maybe when Amazon comes out with the next generation, the current generation will be priced low enough to have mass appeal.

I would be interested to hear others thoughts on the Amazon Kindle.

[Today's posting is from Laura Schmidt of R+K's PR practice]

So Google and Procter & Gamble announced last week that they’ve been swapping staff to better understand the advertising market. While reading the coverage (here for Wall Street Journal article online), I noticed most of it focused on the partnership’s long-term goal of superior online strategies for both companies.

Around the water cooler at R+K, however, talk of this unlikely union is about the partnership itself. It’s reminded us of how beneficial it is when clients see us as their integrated marketing partner versus just a vendor.

I mean, could a ‘Googler’ or ‘Proctoid’ completely grasp the other’s know-how—and develop plans to benefit from it—without overcoming (or, perhaps at times, overlooking) personality and cultural differences?

True partners get close enough to one another to understand the entirety of the business and its marketing opportunities more fully...not something many vendors get to do. Maybe that’s a key take away from this exchange…something to noodle.

Yes, “clicking” with your marketing agency is important, but maybe you click when you approach the relationship with your marketing agency as a true I’ll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine partnership that requires trust, transparency and a common goal of marketing success.

For those who would like their mobile devices to be a little more, um, human, there is Handsolo:

If you've ever implemented a formula in a spreadsheet like Excel, you've probably experienced the Circular Reference Warning at some time or another. That's the one that tells you your formula relies on the value of itself to calculate itself...a self-referencing system of sorts.

I was reminded of the self-referencing nature of some market research when participating in an online survey panel recently. The survey contained many questions with four-box response options. For example:

How likely would you be to invest in a company whose reputation is environmentally friendly?

1. Highly unlikely
2. Somewhat unlikely
3. Somewhat likely
4. Highly likely

Overlooking the construct of the question itself, the challenge with this response format is that it forces the respondent to have an opinion..What if I am neither? Certainly a four box response provides a neat and tidy interpretation for the researchers...no ambiguity, no fence sitting. But does it capture any truth?

What's wrong with discovering that your survey audience has no opinion? Isn't that an opportunity for marketing? Or would we rather that the survey force the issue? Requiring that the audience declare themselves as conforming to one side or the other of a binary world view?

If the opposite of love is apathy how does a four-box, love-hate response provide a reference point we don't already possess?

How do I get my website at the top of the organic (non paid) search results on Google?

Google has compiled and released a best practices starter guide sheet. Mostly it aggregates information already available and provides some detail beyond previous releases of information.

The organic results question has spawned an entire industry of Search Engine Optimization (SEO) professionals who, to varying degrees, implement practices that they claim will optimize your site for top organic results. As we've previously posted, some of these SEO specialists are selling snake oil...most are legitimately trying to set the stage for success.

Google's techniques are pretty redundant for anyone whose explored this area in detail, but the techniques are a good overview for anyone new to search/web development and include narrative on:

1. Page titles, tags and meta tags (make 'em accurate descriptions of the content)
2. URL structure (simplifying URL's and directories to reflect words and content when possible)
   
3. Navigation (employing naturally flowing hierarchies and breadcrumb navigation)
4. Content (using language relevant to the topic and informative anchor text)

Most importantly, Google's guide reminds one of the importance of promoting sites in a manner that generates relevance: Simply building a site and expecting traffic will lead to less than optimal results...from both an organic positioning and traffic volume perspective.

SEO success according to Google it seems is in doing the the things that clearly identify your site as relevant to someone seeking something it supports. In that way, the big secret--and challenge--of SEO is simply getting the thing done.

MySpace, the oft-maligned, drab older cousin to Facebook's freaky fashionability is taking the growing up seriously. Ever since their acquisition by Fox Interactive Media, they've pursued a revenue generation strategy around advertising innovation. 

Bill Band, Vice President, Forrester