Declaration of PPT
Does PowerPoint represent a 21st century incarnation of Gresham’s Law, driving to extinction expository writing and good old-fashioned declarative sentences?
I was thinking about this earlier this week when presentation trainer Jim Cameron (jim@mediatrainer.tv) visited my temple of PR mavens to help sharpen their presentation skills. Thanks a million, Jim, for taking the time and volunteering your expertise.
Jim was cautioning younger staffers against using PowerPoint as a presentation crutch (yes, we are all guilty of sometimes just reading the slides instead of using them as a visual aid) and eschewing the river of text that PR people love to pour onto the electo-slides. “Remember, no more than six lines per slide, bullet points, no full sentences.”
It then dawned on me that it’s been several years since I have read a client’s marketing plan, or a public relations proposal that was actually in “Word” format (will Microsoft soon delete Word from its Office suite of applications?). The 20-odd page-marketing plan has given way to the 120 slide “deck.”
So what’s going on here? Not good things, in my opinion. The grim observation from ten ago that college kids, even graduate students, can’t write seems to have been rendered moot, as the perfect antidote to poor writing is simply not to write; rather, slather a verb and a wimpy object onto a slide, preceded by a “*” or “-“. Then add in a chart, graph or picture as the secret sauce and voila, you are a marketing genius.
Of course, what’s missing is the ability to truly tell a story, to add rhythm, detail and the nuances that only come from a written document. So imagine if the Founding Fathers had access to ppt, in lieu of the quill:
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence could be jump-started with one slide:
Reasons to Say Ciao to Britain
• Sometime it is prudent to dissolve the political relationship that unites people
• But it must be done carefully; and with good reasons that must be clearly explained
• (Obviously) Good government must strive to help provide life, liberty and the opportunity to be happy. These are priorities!
• Good Government must achieve the buy-in of the people…or else
• It cannot achieve these goals (see bullet 3), it’s okay to replace management
Hmm...
Me
Better late than never, completed my MS at Boston University
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Thinking About Consumers
Thinking About the Consumer
I have been the public relations consultant to many brand teams whose products—medical devices, antibiotics and other therapies—are only marketed to physicians. In many cases, even recently, the product director nixes outreach to the public or to patients, reasoning that since the patient cannot purchase the therapy, why should scarce marketing dollars be earmarked to reach someone without “MD” behind his or her name.
Public relations practitioners instinctly know that it’s easier reaching the general public than the health care professional and often contort reasoning to justify outreach to patients in addition to medics. In the good old days, when marketing dollars fell like pollen on a spring day, virtually all marketers consented to earmark a few hundred thousand smackers to consumer-oriented public relations; after all, what was the harm?
Traditionally, the uber-PR strategies were to either inform consumers about condition XYZ and to prompt them to see their doctor if they thought they were so afflicted or to encourage diagnosed patients to ask their physician about a new treatment for an existing condition. The basis for this “ask” was often a new clinical trial or the word of a celebrity spokesperson. These are still valid strategies for many products.
But as resources contract and as new-minted MBAs who have not been infected with the PR germ join health care companies, we are continuously being challenged to justify reaching patients or consumers. What if the patient doesn’t care a fig about the treatment? What if all she cares about is getting vaccinated against shingles, HPV or dandruff and doesn’t care if the vaccine is manufactured by Merck, Glaxo or Ford Motors? What if the physician historically has selected the treatment and considers one therapy the same its rival?
Then does it matter?
Patient-centered public relations may not matter for some brands. Nevertheless, the question that always has to be asked is “what if…?” What if we could activate patents to ask doctors about treatment options? What if we could get them to understand unique or subtle differences between therapies? What benefits would the company accrue if doctors saw them as a true partner in patient health education? What if we could convince patients to be more compliant or stay on therapy longer? There are lots of disciplines that claim they can achieve these tasks. But can they? If public relations can, we’d be smoking’.
Even for products that are purely physician oriented, there may be substantial benefits to talking to patients, their caregivers and loved-ones and other consumers. Here’s why—
Studies indicate that doctors have a higher regard for pharmaceutical companies that demonstrate (not just claim) that they are helping patients. I recall one study (I think it was from RCC Research) that indicated that doctors would pay extra if they believed that the company was doing a good job in helping the patient manage expectations and the consequences of the disorder. Public relations isn’t the only way to demonstrate this, but it’s a darn good one.
As health care companies migrate from simply selling products to selling the concept of health itself, this may become even more important.
An ingredient of public relations is a comprehensive understanding of patient behavior. Better understanding of the “patient journey” makes for better marketing period.
Finally, add the abiding value of alliance building. The public relations team is generally the keeper of the keys to relationships with third-party organizations or patient advocates. The National Association of XYZ Disorder is not going to hawk one’s product, and yes, they always ask for money. However, advocates can be invaluable to helping smooth the way towards better relationships with key opinion leaders and with payors. One might not need advocates on sunny days, but wait till the storm clouds drift in.
I have been the public relations consultant to many brand teams whose products—medical devices, antibiotics and other therapies—are only marketed to physicians. In many cases, even recently, the product director nixes outreach to the public or to patients, reasoning that since the patient cannot purchase the therapy, why should scarce marketing dollars be earmarked to reach someone without “MD” behind his or her name.
Public relations practitioners instinctly know that it’s easier reaching the general public than the health care professional and often contort reasoning to justify outreach to patients in addition to medics. In the good old days, when marketing dollars fell like pollen on a spring day, virtually all marketers consented to earmark a few hundred thousand smackers to consumer-oriented public relations; after all, what was the harm?
Traditionally, the uber-PR strategies were to either inform consumers about condition XYZ and to prompt them to see their doctor if they thought they were so afflicted or to encourage diagnosed patients to ask their physician about a new treatment for an existing condition. The basis for this “ask” was often a new clinical trial or the word of a celebrity spokesperson. These are still valid strategies for many products.
But as resources contract and as new-minted MBAs who have not been infected with the PR germ join health care companies, we are continuously being challenged to justify reaching patients or consumers. What if the patient doesn’t care a fig about the treatment? What if all she cares about is getting vaccinated against shingles, HPV or dandruff and doesn’t care if the vaccine is manufactured by Merck, Glaxo or Ford Motors? What if the physician historically has selected the treatment and considers one therapy the same its rival?
Then does it matter?
Patient-centered public relations may not matter for some brands. Nevertheless, the question that always has to be asked is “what if…?” What if we could activate patents to ask doctors about treatment options? What if we could get them to understand unique or subtle differences between therapies? What benefits would the company accrue if doctors saw them as a true partner in patient health education? What if we could convince patients to be more compliant or stay on therapy longer? There are lots of disciplines that claim they can achieve these tasks. But can they? If public relations can, we’d be smoking’.
Even for products that are purely physician oriented, there may be substantial benefits to talking to patients, their caregivers and loved-ones and other consumers. Here’s why—
Studies indicate that doctors have a higher regard for pharmaceutical companies that demonstrate (not just claim) that they are helping patients. I recall one study (I think it was from RCC Research) that indicated that doctors would pay extra if they believed that the company was doing a good job in helping the patient manage expectations and the consequences of the disorder. Public relations isn’t the only way to demonstrate this, but it’s a darn good one.
As health care companies migrate from simply selling products to selling the concept of health itself, this may become even more important.
An ingredient of public relations is a comprehensive understanding of patient behavior. Better understanding of the “patient journey” makes for better marketing period.
Finally, add the abiding value of alliance building. The public relations team is generally the keeper of the keys to relationships with third-party organizations or patient advocates. The National Association of XYZ Disorder is not going to hawk one’s product, and yes, they always ask for money. However, advocates can be invaluable to helping smooth the way towards better relationships with key opinion leaders and with payors. One might not need advocates on sunny days, but wait till the storm clouds drift in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)