I'm a member of eWomen Network (www.ewomennetwork.com) -- and yes, I'm a man.
Last week I got a note from them. Every month, they automatically ping one of my cards for the monthly dues. Seems they had a hiccup, and accidentally almost charged everyone twice. Fortunately, they caught the error -- and they could have stayed quiet and hoped nobody noticed.
The note was to apologize and explain what happened, in case anyone did notice. I think if more people and organizations would step up and admit to any mistakes they happen to make, and apologize, the level of discourse in the country and the world would improve dramatically.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Event promotion challenges
The local business publication, Northern Colorado Business Report , ran their annual Bixpo event over the last couple of days.
I went to the combined business after hours that three of the local chambers put together as part of the festivities. It seemed to be reasonably well attended, and there were lots of booths filled with exhibitors. Some were new, some old standbys I had seen there before were missing, and most of the folks I talked to said the foot traffic on the day had not been overwhelming.
The event has evolved from year to year -- the first year they tried to sell out a big arena with big speakers like Donald Trump and Rudi Juliani, at a big ticket price. The crowd was embarassingly thin. The next year they brought in smaller names, cut the ticket price, still did not get great attendance. This year they actually charged local vendors for the speaking/workshop spots -- and one speaker I talked to said he had no -- zero -- attendees for his scheduled spots.
I've recently run into the challenge of trying to promote an event, get people to make a time and money commitment to attend and learn something -- and at times I've been successful, and other times taken my lumps.
Is there a secret or trick? Is this just an impossible task given the demands of people's schedule today? I know of high-priced to free events, promoted with a big budget or small, that have struggled.
I went to the combined business after hours that three of the local chambers put together as part of the festivities. It seemed to be reasonably well attended, and there were lots of booths filled with exhibitors. Some were new, some old standbys I had seen there before were missing, and most of the folks I talked to said the foot traffic on the day had not been overwhelming.
The event has evolved from year to year -- the first year they tried to sell out a big arena with big speakers like Donald Trump and Rudi Juliani, at a big ticket price. The crowd was embarassingly thin. The next year they brought in smaller names, cut the ticket price, still did not get great attendance. This year they actually charged local vendors for the speaking/workshop spots -- and one speaker I talked to said he had no -- zero -- attendees for his scheduled spots.
I've recently run into the challenge of trying to promote an event, get people to make a time and money commitment to attend and learn something -- and at times I've been successful, and other times taken my lumps.
Is there a secret or trick? Is this just an impossible task given the demands of people's schedule today? I know of high-priced to free events, promoted with a big budget or small, that have struggled.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Reffing, mistakes and manning up
As a soccer referee, I often have some interesting experiences -- as a coach, too.
If I make a mistake, I try to be aware of it, and admit it and apologize; and I've made some pretty big blunders, and try to learn from them and not make that mistake again. Hey, I'm human, and perception is an individual thing. I may get it right or wrong, and I will make mistakes.
But it's amazing to me how unsympathetic people are, ranting and raving from the sideline as if they know -- and could do -- better. In almost every case, I'm sure they do not and could not. On top of that, most of what they are venting about has no impact on the outcome of the game.
So I felt for NFL official Ed Hochuli, who blew a call in the Broncos/Chargers game last Sunday that had a pretty direct impact on the outcome of the game.
I was not surprised that the refs association came to his defense, and that the league announced he would be graded down. I was surprised, though, that it came out that he not only admitted the mistake and apologized, but that he's responding to hate email -- hundreds of them -- that he's receiving from fans.
Good for him. One step in humanizing officials to people who seem to forget that we're people, too.
I also love one of his comments on the matter: "nothing anyone can say can make me feel worse than I already feel about my mistake" -- perfectly put.
There's no need for you to abuse and beat up most officials -- we're harder on ourselves than you could ever be. Most of the time, your rants just show your bias and ignorance of the rules, and highlight the fact that you have no clue.
He also avoided the excuse that the Chargers had the opportunity to stop the Broncos and preserve their lead and win the game -- which is true.
If I make a mistake, I try to be aware of it, and admit it and apologize; and I've made some pretty big blunders, and try to learn from them and not make that mistake again. Hey, I'm human, and perception is an individual thing. I may get it right or wrong, and I will make mistakes.
But it's amazing to me how unsympathetic people are, ranting and raving from the sideline as if they know -- and could do -- better. In almost every case, I'm sure they do not and could not. On top of that, most of what they are venting about has no impact on the outcome of the game.
So I felt for NFL official Ed Hochuli, who blew a call in the Broncos/Chargers game last Sunday that had a pretty direct impact on the outcome of the game.
I was not surprised that the refs association came to his defense, and that the league announced he would be graded down. I was surprised, though, that it came out that he not only admitted the mistake and apologized, but that he's responding to hate email -- hundreds of them -- that he's receiving from fans.
Good for him. One step in humanizing officials to people who seem to forget that we're people, too.
I also love one of his comments on the matter: "nothing anyone can say can make me feel worse than I already feel about my mistake" -- perfectly put.
There's no need for you to abuse and beat up most officials -- we're harder on ourselves than you could ever be. Most of the time, your rants just show your bias and ignorance of the rules, and highlight the fact that you have no clue.
He also avoided the excuse that the Chargers had the opportunity to stop the Broncos and preserve their lead and win the game -- which is true.
Microsoft, Seinfeld and looking good
Microsoft has pulled its quirky but completely ineffective ads featuring Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates -- a comic who no longer has a TV show and an executive who no longer works for the company.
But instead of just admitting it was a bad campaign and a waste of money ($10 million), MS PR folk are saying they are going to phase two of the campaign, and that the plan was always to drop Jerry.
You know, you're a huge company, an industry founder and leader. You do computers, not ads -- and you make mistakes at both. This was a big one, but it happens. Don't spin -- or, more accurately, lie -- to try and polish this turd.
I actually liked seeing the more human side of Gates, and his move to focus on his philanthropy takes some of the ego, aloofness and nerdiness -- and the "we know better, just use our stuff" aura -- away and makes him more of a real person in my eyes -- something someone should have done a long time ago.
And, echoing the thoughts of The Denver Egotist, pretty amazing the power that feedback has to influence -- and kill -- a campaign today.
But instead of just admitting it was a bad campaign and a waste of money ($10 million), MS PR folk are saying they are going to phase two of the campaign, and that the plan was always to drop Jerry.
You know, you're a huge company, an industry founder and leader. You do computers, not ads -- and you make mistakes at both. This was a big one, but it happens. Don't spin -- or, more accurately, lie -- to try and polish this turd.
I actually liked seeing the more human side of Gates, and his move to focus on his philanthropy takes some of the ego, aloofness and nerdiness -- and the "we know better, just use our stuff" aura -- away and makes him more of a real person in my eyes -- something someone should have done a long time ago.
And, echoing the thoughts of The Denver Egotist, pretty amazing the power that feedback has to influence -- and kill -- a campaign today.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Corn Syrup and You
I was intrigued to read in my local paper that the Corn Refiners Association <http://www.corn.org/> has launched an effort to promote high-fructose corn syrup as healthy -- or at least not healthy -- if consumed in moderation.
I have not yet sussed out if this a purely in-house CRA effort, or they've retained a PR firm (most likely) to create this campaign for them <http://www.hfcsfacts.com/>.
The spots tout the syrup as "natural" -- but it does not exist in the natural world, and is created through chemical processes.
That said, it contains the same calories as sugar, but, because it is cheaper than sugar, it is in a ton of products -- so it can be difficult to know how much you are consuming, and thus a challenge to consume it in moderation.
I have to wonder, with concern about diverting corn as a food source to produce ethanol fuel, where this is all headed -- which faction, ethanol subsidies or corn syrup subsidies, will win?
The campaign, basically straightforward, provokes viewers to think about the large gray area between the poles of classifying it as nearly toxic and viewing it as inert and innocuous. One of the main reasons we PR folk seem to have work in many industries is to tell all the in-betweens of a story when two polar opposite views are easy to latch onto and trumpet to the world. A black and white issue is much easier to blast out to the public than a more nuanced one.
What are your thoughts?
I have not yet sussed out if this a purely in-house CRA effort, or they've retained a PR firm (most likely) to create this campaign for them <http://www.hfcsfacts.com/>.
The spots tout the syrup as "natural" -- but it does not exist in the natural world, and is created through chemical processes.
That said, it contains the same calories as sugar, but, because it is cheaper than sugar, it is in a ton of products -- so it can be difficult to know how much you are consuming, and thus a challenge to consume it in moderation.
I have to wonder, with concern about diverting corn as a food source to produce ethanol fuel, where this is all headed -- which faction, ethanol subsidies or corn syrup subsidies, will win?
The campaign, basically straightforward, provokes viewers to think about the large gray area between the poles of classifying it as nearly toxic and viewing it as inert and innocuous. One of the main reasons we PR folk seem to have work in many industries is to tell all the in-betweens of a story when two polar opposite views are easy to latch onto and trumpet to the world. A black and white issue is much easier to blast out to the public than a more nuanced one.
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
