Recently the Daily Herald in suburban Chicago ran a front page story exposing “the tactics” of one local candidate who used interns to post positive comments online.  I’m surprised that anyone is surprised.

While I think it is wrong for volunteers to post multiple comments as if they came from more than one person, or to lie in their comments, I don’t have any problem with supporters going online in droves to support their candidate.  The forums exist because the online sites created them.  So why complain when they’re used legitimately? Plus, I’d rather have them posting things than filling my mailbox.

I also think there are plenty of other things wrong with campaigning that makes complaining about this “tactic” seem silly.  Recorded calls come to mind first, but that’s only because if I take the time to get the phone, there better be someone real on the other end.  I don’t even like getting recorded notices that my photos are ready.  Send me an email!  Campaign advertising in general is extremely suspect, simply because they cannot cover all the issues.  Rather than try to clear the murky waters by telling us why the candidate is good, they instead use fear to try to convince us that the other candidate is bad.  They say it works, but I think that’s because no candidate has the guts to stick to a 100% positive campaign (if you’re out there, give us a call because we’d love to represent you!)

Basically, I’m always looking for a good, honest person who will stand by his/her convictions, especially in the face of some hard attacks.  But in today’s world fear seems to be the only clear catalyst for voters.

These online comments mean nothing to me, regardless of their quality or quantity.  Both sides have their supporters, and both sides can put their messages everywhere.  I’m not buying any of it.  After all, how do we know those supporters know anything about any of the issues? Indeed, nearly all of them demonstrate that they’re not like me (hopelessly adrift in the gray middle ground) simply by being such an ardent supporter of one side.  Their passion is a bit disturbing.

But when it comes to promoting businesses, online comments are very powerful.  Readers of those comments are not so jaded, likely because other than a few companies who’ve been caught paying people to promote them online, the comment section is somewhat innocent and often helpful.  Sure, some people are overly supportive while others are overly negative.  As reported in another post, those on the extremes tend to wipe themselves out, lending more credibility to the less passionate reviewers who tend to be specific in their reviews about what they liked or didn’t like.  In fact, if a comment seems helpful (whether positive or negative), the reader might soak it in, accept it, and maybe even spread it.  Plus, business reviews aren’t so complex.  You either like it or you don’t.  The less selling readers see, the more likely they are to accept it.  Maybe our trust of these straight-forward reviewers is based on the idea that they are like us — they were unsure of the product or service as well, took a chance and tried it, and are now telling us about their experience.

So go ahead and ask those satisfied customers to post their opinions online and tell them to be totally honest.  You can even recommend the sites that could help you the most.  I wouldn’t publish a list for all to see (no sense giving disgruntled customers a forum), but I wouldn’t hesitate to ask for help from those who like me.  Heck, I often ask clients to talk with potential clients about my work.  Why not ask them to do it online?  After all, it’s 2010.  Technology and information rule.

More important than having online reviews, however, is adding links back to your site in posts related to what you do.  If there’s a story about prostate cancer screening, why shouldn’t a hospital post a comment promoting their screening facility?  It’s helpful information, right there at the readers’ fingertips.  Don’t forget to track the link and send people to the right page, preferably one with an appointment scheduler.  If you’re writing these comments, be yourself.  There’s no need to be anonymous, nor is there any need to paint yourself as a happy patient — even if you are.  Instead, tell them you work there (it’s the ethical thing to do) and would like to invite them to your facility.  Simple as that.

I can assure you that this works — and it costs nothing compared to buying an ad on the same site or in the print version.  We do this all the time, with much success.  I think the value here is that our posts are directly associated with an unbiased report.  It’s a lot like having an ad for a mosquito repellent on the same page as a story about the upcoming attack of the little blood suckers — except you didn’t pay for the space.  What’s more, although you’re promoting your product or service, you also look helpful to the reader, so long as you’re honest about your intentions and don’t oversell.

So don’t hesitate to comment online to promote your business.  It’s not the bad thing political campaigns are making it out to be, and it is extremely cost effective.

Are anonymous user comments useful? Do they further intelligent discussion? Do they allow people to say what they really feel from behind a veil of secrecy? Anonymous user comments are almost seen as a basic right by some — that the Internet should be a forum that provides the ability for anyone to say what is really on their mind without fear of judgment.

This morning CNN ran an article about how some online news sites are trying to reign in anonymous comments because they often veer into bigoted, spiteful and hate-filled rants such as in the example below from the Buffalo News. The following comment was left by an anonymous user in response to a story about a local shooting:

“I hate what you people, and by that I mean the blacks, are doing to this city. Each area you move too [sic] quickly becomes over run [sic] with crime, loud music [at] all hours, adults swearing and screaming at kids, children playing in the street, porches with beer and garbage thrown all around.”

Now, some newspapers are going to extraordinary lengths to require those who wish to post comments to reveal their true identity, at least to the paper itself. The Buffalo News is asking everyone to register with their real name, address and phone number. Editors may even call to verify their information. The Sun Chronicle in Massachusetts is requiring even more information — including a credit card number. Registrants are charged a one-time fee of 99 cents to activate their account. The website then displays their real name and city (as listed on their credit card statement) beside their comments. So far only 22 people have signed up.

To be clear, in most cases anonymous comments aren’t in the least bit useful. That isn’t to say anonymous user commenting shouldn’t exist. Those who comment on a story anonymously aren’t going to change anyone’s mind with their insightful thoughts left below a blog post. Why? Most intelligent users marginalize and discard anonymous comments. In fact, I think the psychological purpose driving one to leave an offensive or hateful comment isn’t often rooted in a desire to change anyone else’s mind. It is about their desire to have a personal forum for themselves. A safe place for them to get the things they can’t say in public off their chest — in other words it is a function which only gratifies themselves, not others.

Honestly, I don’t believe it’s a question of free speech either.  I’m an ardent believer in free speech in almost all circumstances, including some of the most extreme. Should a vile hate group be allowed to run a website or hold an event? Of course. Should they be allowed to do it anonymously? Of course not. The first amendment of the constitution does not call for free anonymous speech.

The pro side for anonymous commenting usually comes down the point that some may feel that unless an anonymous venue is offered then certain ideas and truths will never see the light of day. I think this may have been true even as little as five years ago. But now the Internet has provided an anonymous venue for all. I think that newspapers and blogs have the right and responsibility to lead discussions, based on their own principles. After all, a blog’s comment section is part of their venue. Let everyone have their own.

Newspapers or blogs who require a credit card number, social security number or a personal phone call to set up an account are acting foolishly and self destructively. Those types of measures are set up by those who don’t understand the dynamic of the Internet. Creating strict barriers to communication will only cause fewer people to become involved. Social involvement is a vital component of any successful online presence.

So what can be done? The simplest thing is to create a written policy that potential commentators must agree to before signing up. The agreement should list out the types of offensive or hateful comments that will be removed. Users must have a valid e-mail address and IP addresses should be recorded. That allows users to still post anonymously but gives the newspaper or blog the ability to moderate comments. Want to go a step further? Use Facebook Connect to handle your login process. While someone can set up a fake account on Facebook it’s much harder to make it seem real. It’s a free way for you and your users to log in without setting up a whole new account and a great way to shine some friendly bright sunlight on the process.

According to the July, 2010 issue of Scientific American, online ratings sites are not exactly fair, with the writer even declaring that their “judgments are inaccurate at best, fraudulent at worst.”  Whoa, that’s a pretty hard slap in the face.

What drives this opinion is some pretty good research combined with some good old common sense.

Eric K. Clemons, Professor of Operations and Systems Management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, says there are quite a few inherent biases in online ranking systems.  The first one is that people who rate a purchase already made the purchase so they already are slanted toward liking the product.  The best example of this is consumer reviews of books.  In general, people who buy a book when it’s first released already have some knowledge of the writer or subject.  They may even be a fan.  So the first consumer reviews to come out are normally positive.  These high ratings lead other people who may never have considered the book to give it a try.  If they end up hating the book, it may be because their expectations were too high.  But instead of leaving well enough alone, these dissatisfied readers might post a negative review just to balance out the positive ones.

Glenn Beck Book Review on Amazon -- Click to Enlarge

Then there’s the point that “people tend not to review things they find merely satisfactory.  They evangelize what they love and trash things they hate.”  That’s why most ratings are not in the middle, despite the fact that true opinions follow a bell curve, where “ratings cluster around three or four, with fewer scores of two and almost no ones and fives.”  So basically, those with the most emotional connectivity to a product tend to do the most reviewing.

But it gets worse.

In a 2009 study of more than 20,000 items on Amazon, researchers “found that a small percentage of users accounted for a huge majority of the reviews.”  They’re called “super reviewers” and they’re even given a “Top Reviewer” badge by Amazon and then pitted against one another to promote even more participation.  But who says this overly enthusiastic crowd is any good at what they are doing?  What credentials do they have, other than a lengthy list of products they reviewed?  And why do consumers see these reviewers’ badges and think they have some sound advice?  In general, 95% of Amazon reviewers have rated fewer than 8 products, yet consumers put less weight in what this majority says.

Fortunately, these “Top Reviewers” are not paid by the companies whose products they review — at least as far as any researchers can tell.  Plus, ratings sites in general use automated filters to search out and purge extremely positive or negative reviews, especially if the reviewer has little on his list of review.  So while the reviews shouldn’t be trusted, it’s not because anyone is tampering with the system.

But the story points out that there are fair review sites out there, it just depends on the products and the audience.  RateBeer.com has 3,000 members who have rated at least 100 beers each, with just about all beers being reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of times.  These reviewers are passionate about their beer, and so are the readers of the site.  In fact, the reviewers tend to post on all beers they try, rather than just those they love or hate.

So what’s a business to do about review sites?  Take them seriously, regardless of how inaccurate they are, and treat review sites as an opportunity to engage readers in your brand.  Because while the system may have flaws, most readers do not know it; thus, they read the reviews and believe what they read.

So treat review sites like a dinner party where the conversation turns negative about your company or product, and respond professionally.

We’d like to welcome Little Company of Mary Hospital and Health Care Centers as a client. We’re excited to be joining them as their web marketing team.

Located in Evergreen Park, IL, little Company of Mary has served the Southwest area of Chicago for 80 years. The Little Company of Mary Hospital Foundation is currently working on an exciting project to modernize and transform the hospital campus, increasing parking facilities and building a West Pavilion tower which will provide new locations for many services. The plans for the new West Pavilion include a Women’s Center for Life and Health, a Family Birth Center, Outpatient Behavioral Health service, a new kitchen and dining areas, and Inpatient dialysis. In addition, they plan to renovate the existing North Pavilion and replace the existing Tower Building with grass and trees.

We will be working with both the Hospital and the Foundation to build relationships with the people of Southwest Chicagoland, helping them to be aware of the Campus Transformation Project, as well as the existing hospital services, healthcare news, classes and events, and more. We currently are working with the Foundation on a blog, supportlcmh.org, that will primarily focus on the Campus Transformation project. Soon, we will launch a blog for the Hospital for information of interest about the entire hospital and healthcare news.

We also have started a few other ways to keep up to date and in touch with the hospital. Follow Little Company of Mary on Twitter for health and hospital news, event information, and notification of blog posts. You can also “Like” the hospital on Facebook, and stay informed about the Campus Transformation Project on the devoted Foundation page. We also will be updating a hospital Flickr account with photos of the hospital, the transformation project, and events. And we’ll be maintaining and updating a YouTube Channel with health news as well as hospital videos.

We are very excited to be working with Little Company of Mary. If you’d like to keep updated on our work with them, follow any of the above and sign up for the Foundation elist for a monthly update.

And as always, if you’d like information about how we can help your business out as a part of your team, contact us.

Big news at Demi & Cooper! We recently launched a mobile website for Sherman Health that was built for the burgeoning smartphone community. The new mobile site allows on-the-go visitors to find a Sherman location, physician or patient room. On top of that, visitors can view floorplans, send an eCard or find things to do in the area. Visit shermanhealth.com on your phone to access it. Or, click on this link to see Sherman Hospital’s mobile website in the DC Interactive Group portfolio.

So what sparked the creation of the mobile site?

This idea began when we examined how visitors accessed shermanhealth.com. Analytics showed that when we compare the last six months (October through March) to the same months the year prior, iPhone browser visits (the most popular smartphone browser to access our site) jumped over 700% from one year to the next.

Starting in November, Google created a separate segment that shows mobile devices that visit a site (which gives you an idea of how important mobile devices are becoming). And even when we compare November, the first available month of data for all smartphone devices, to last month, mobile device users jumped 116%.

Tied into the mobile website launch are new billboard ads that simply state “Smartphone. Meet smart healthcare.” It’s a whole new way to view Sherman Health, providing a wealth of information in the palm of the hand.

I’ve grown very familiar with the U.S. healthcare system due to a variety of reasons, my work with hospitals being one of them. But the biggest reason is that I’m spending increasingly more time in hospitals and around doctors now due to the failing health of two of my relatives. While their situations are very different, the end result is oh so similar and not very pretty.

First, my mother’s situation.

My mother has been dying for the last ten years. But before I dive into this, please don’t feel any sympathy for me or my family — she’s been dying all these years because that is the only thing she has believed, regardless of what any family member or doctor told her to the contrary. For all we know, she could live ten more years which would probably scare her more than us.

It all started in 1996 when my mother’s life began to quickly lose meaning after my father passed away. While that in itself is sad, it has really been her choice. She has four grown children and eight grandchildren along with a good handful of friends, yet she has made little to no effort to be involved in any of our lives. Instead, she lives in the past, talking about how good it was and how happy she was. And she fears the future.

Then ten years ago my mother found out she had emphysema after being admitted to the hospital because she was convinced she was dying of lung cancer. While relieved at first that she was okay, she couldn’t believe she was fine and quickly became obsessed with her health. Each time she spent a week in the hospital, she would leave in a better frame of mind because “she made it”. But within a few weeks, she would be wondering again if that slight cough she just experienced meant she was coming down with something deadly. And after a week or two of working herself into a tizzy, she’d be back in the hospital, getting drugs and attention until she calmed down. Each time she was told she was still fine. After a few years of this cycle (including one lengthy stay in a drug rehab facility to get her off the pain medication she demanded from her doctor), I noticed her outlook for the future became even more dim every time she was discharged.

As time went on, my mother would tell the doctors that each breathing episode was worse than the last, and they would believe her. This frustrated all who knew her well because we could see that some days she was fine and that she certainly wasn’t on death’s doorstep. But our views didn’t jive with my mother’s view, so she grew frustrated with us and instead of improving, made it her mission to convince others that she absolutely was getting worse. She became very good at this game of manipulation. So good, in fact, that in one case her lung doctor told me after visiting with her that she had only six months to live. I replied that she was being fooled by my mother’s exaggerated antics and would certainly live much longer. The doctor told me I was “rude” and “selfish” because I knew nothing of her physical condition. While that was true to some degree, I knew far more about her mental condition and wanted to stress to the doctor that I knew her better than she did. Things got tense between us when I told the doctor that she was the one who was selfish for patronizing her with constant appointments and for feeding my mother all the drugs she requested. “We’ll see who is right” was all I mumbled as I walked away. That was six years ago. Funny, but that doctor is no longer in practice.

My mother’s decade long battle with emphysema has been turned into a long and sad journey for everyone, including her, almost from the beginning, with really no end in sight as far as everyone other than my mother can tell (and she has always thought the end was tomorrow). While her lungs are worse now than before, doctors tell me they aren’t so bad that they should be causing the type of problems that constantly drive her into the hospital. I believe her stress is the cause for her “related, but unrelated” problems, not her lungs.

You see, my mother uses the healthcare system to deal with her fears rather than her health. She says she’s suffering, so our medical professionals do all they can to help by prescribing drugs, running tests, and pursuing all angles to find a solution. Plus, my mother knows well the Medicare system. She knows how many days she gets in a hospital, and how to complain just right to get an extension. And she spends her time at home on the phone complaining to anyone who will listen at Medicare or the doctor’s office about the price of “her drugs” until she gets a reduction in the price or free samples. If she put all this energy to work in a positive way, she could have made a fortune. But this is a woman who, on average, earned about $14,000 per year for ten years. Her contributions to our healthcare system were minimal — yet her expenses are astronomical, and there is no end in sight that I can see. She is costing all of us hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet is still critical of those who try to help. She hates Medicare and Medicaid. She hates “being rushed out of the hospital”. And she hates the cost of everything. For support, she listens to the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and all the rest of the fear mongers who play victim and insist that the government is out to get them. And she thinks they’re right.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’d love for my mother to live a long and happy life. And I would do everything in my power to give her that. But she doesn’t want it.

In the amusement park of life, my mother hasn’t ventured far from the exit. She hasn’t enjoyed one ride, or even enjoyed watching others enjoy the rides for the last ten years. Instead, she stands there, staring at the dark exit day after day fearing that it will call her forward. She even thinks she hears her name being called until someone shows her clearly that the door is locked and nobody is leaving.

It might sound mean for me to say about my mother, but the “problem” isn’t medical. Instead, the problem is in her head, and it’s exacerbated by doctors and hospital staff who wait on her hand and foot when what she really needs is a psychiatrist (yes, I suggested this many times and always got an “absolutely not”). But I don’t blame the doctors at all. They took an oath to do their best to help, and that’s what they do. Plus, the medical wold is now a competitive business, so doctors and hospitals want patients. They want the billings. And they want the satisfaction of helping people get back to normal. But all of this has a cost. And that cost is being paid by all of us.

Now I’m fine with paying my share to help those who want to live. But why pay for those who don’t? I know my mother would rather not be alive. She knows it too, and has even told me. But she fears death more. So she stands on guard, analyzing every ailment and every breath just waiting for “the one” to take her away. And as I wrote, she wants a physical solution, not a mental one.

It’s not fair that anyone lives a life that is lifeless. But that’s her choice. The only way that I, and all of us, are affected by her choice is that we’re forced to pay for it in time, dollars, responsibilities and heartache. And I don’t think that’s fair to anyone.

Then there’s my father-in-law. He too is dying, although for very different reasons. He’s 86 years old and has been struggling the past few months with his health. Until these recent setbacks, he was the ideal patient because he always got his checkups, always followed doctors orders, and always knew he’d improve. His struggles the past few weeks though changed all that. As if in disgust with his health and his seemingly impossible chances of recovering to a normal life, he gave up on dialysis in the middle of this past week. From what I’ve learned, he has a week or two left. And that’s sad, not just for him, but for all who love him.

You see, he never wanted to live in an Assisted Living Facility, or be a burden, or be resuscitated if God called him. But when he was brought into the hospital with some life threatening problems (yes, more than one) that had him almost, but not quite unconscious, the doctors saved the day. And that was great — kind of.

While recovering a few weeks ago, the doctors asked him if he wanted to go on dialysis to prolong his life. “What other option is there?”, he asked. “You can just let nature take its course, and you’ll pass peacefully” is what he was told. Being a dedicated, life-long Catholic, my father-in-law saw this second option as suicide. At 86, he feared this choice would get him booted from heaven. So he opted for dialysis.

While all of his children understood it was his choice, they also knew that dialysis was really not what he wanted. They warned him as tactfully as they could about the difficulties he faced by making such a decision, but at the time his mind was too clouded by drugs and too tired from the whole ordeal to understand the path he started on. His fear of committing suicide was far stronger than his ability to know what he was doing.

It surprised no one that my father-in-law wanted to keep trying, simply because he had no idea what he was really trying to accomplish other than to not kill himself. Yes, he could talk and yes, his words made sense. However, if you talked to him, then left the room for five minutes and returned, he would act as if you just got there. Even worse, he had no concept what the “future” was, much less how dire his situation was at the time. He really had no clue what he was getting into.

So why did the doctors ask him to make a choice and not his family? First, it’s their oath to do all they can. Second, doctors fear lawsuits, and rightfully so. Too many people claim too often that doctors made the “wrong” decision, so they are always going to do what the patient wants — even if it’s futile. This isn’t a slap at our doctors. Hardly. They are committed to extending lives, not ending them; therefore, they should not be put in the conflicting position of recommending death over life, especially when the patient is coherent.

But I think somebody should. And that’s where a so-called death panel comes in (on a side note, I must admit I despise that name. How about “Life Panel”?).

In my mother’s case, a Life Panel could ultimately help relieve her of a decade long bought with severe depression as well as clear all who care for her of the guilt and burden that comes with trying to satisfy her insatiable appetite for an elusive, if not altogether impossible happiness. In my father-in-law’s case, a Life Panel would have relieved him of the burden of committing suicide, while relieving his family of the guilt and burden that comes with caring for someone who doesn’t know what he is doing here and really needs to end his misery in a respectable way.

I know all of this might sound harsh, especially to those who haven’t come close to finding themselves in similar situations. But I also know others who have been or are in my spot, and most are of similar mind. I’m not saying anyone should be given a death sentence if there’s still hope, or if anyone close to the patient wants to keep their hopes alive. I’m not a fan of Dr. Kevorkian (those people could still live and function). All I’m saying is that the idea of a Death Panel should not be seen as taboo.

So could a Death Panel/Life Panel be an answer to these unusual situations? Wow, tough question, and I really don’t have an answer. Everyone’s situation is different, so I know there isn’t one answer. All I know is that the subject shouldn’t be taboo. Healthcare is so complex, we must be open to all ideas — even when they’re not pretty.

So I say “start the discussion” and don’t fear. We cannot live forever, and unfortunately too many people are living long after they have died.

We are pleased to be joining forces with Silver Cross Hospital, a 100 Top Hospitals National Award winner from Thomson Reuters six years in a row. Silver Cross is a 304-bed hospital serving Will County, with eight satellite offices in southwest suburban Illinois. They are currently building a state-of-the-art replacement hospital in 2012 in New Lenox, Illinois.

We will be joining them acting as Web Marketing Coordinator to promote the Silver Cross Center for Women’s Health. We’ll work with them on a blog focusing on the Center, with information on classes, events, mammogram and heart screening information, and their unique “I Matter” program, which offers discounts at local businesses. We will be sending eblasts a few times a month to connect to those interested in Women’s Health.

Through our specialized Sparking program we will also will help build their Twitter account , YouTube Channel , Facebook Page , and Flickr account . Their talented and capable team will be working on some of the above, and we will set up, assist, as well as consult on all aspects of the process. As usual, we will offer direction and new recommendations based on a thorough analysis every month.

We’re very excited to be working with this well established and growing hospital. If you’d like information about how we can help your business out as a part of your team, contact us.

People don’t really care that much about your opinion anymore. But there is hope.

The 10th annual edition of the Edelman Trust Barometer 2010 — a survey of opinions on business credibility conducted across 22 countries — has found that trust in businesses rose an incredible 18 points to 54%. But before we all throw a big party we need to pause a moment. What’s the reason for this increase? The study attributes that steep rise in trust to the mea culpas and palliative reactions companies have been forced to respond with to the poor economy. In other words there’s no future business plan here. This rise is fragile and while it worked this year I don’t feel you should count on what is basically sympathy to carry feelings of public trust in business into next year.

So what’s a business to do? Let’s take a look at another part of the study.

People don’t trust any one, single source of information anymore.

Walter Cronkite was once, famously, the most trusted man in America. But prior to 1981, when Cronkite stepped down from the CBS Evening News, options for information were limited. I think people today are smarter and more globally conscious than they ever have been before.

People have come to realize that news agencies — and companies alike — have agendas. Radio, TV and newspapers have become less trusted sources of information. This seachange has been rapid and unexpected for many. As with any major event there is no single cause. This lack of trust is partially due to practical economic reasons, such as a newspaper purging seasoned, more expensive staff and allowing younger writers to publish less quality content. It may also be a result of the increase in opinion journalism instead of Cronkite’s unbiased version. Whatever the cause, over the past several years the public has learned to consume news through multiple channels. And that goes for information consumers use to learn about products and services too.

Friends and peers are also substantially less trusted.

In the last two years the value your friends or peers place on what you say has plummeted by 20 percent. Now only 25% trust what you say. That’s exactly in-line with the staggeringly low trust in traditional media. This decrease in trust in peers is important because it has been the driving factor behind social media, online comments, reviews and recommendations. What should business learn from this? A well-run and engaging social media program that sparks interest is extremely important, and it will become increasingly more important in the near future. In fact, just participating in social media without a well thought-out strategy may even have a diminishing effect. But putting all of your marketing budget into social media isn’t a bright idea either. Businesses need to use multiple channels if they want to influence purchasing decisions.

Traditional media is down, but business magazines are up.

Edelman smartly did not lump all media together as traditional media. According to their in-depth studies over the past 10 years, business magazines have consistently been ranked high. In fact, this year it saw a slight rise in the perception and consumption of information coming from business magazines. Consumers value expert opinion and reviews above all others.

It comes down to this, and it really should be no surprise to anyone: you can’t rely on any one single medium to tell your story. And unless your friend is an expert, his or her opinion matters just about as much (or as little) as any other source. In order to influence someone you need reach them at least 3-5 times with the same message. That means marketing plans for the future need to incorporate radio, TV, outdoor, print, social media and, if possible, expert reviews and endorsements.

A few weeks back, I wrote that I was embarrassed to be a part of the advertising industry because of the silly strike that agencies overseas organized to limit the number of agencies that clients invited to pitches.  My industry has now redeemed itself, and of course it is through the work.

I saw the new TV campaign for Gonai-f fertility drug and was amazed not only by the spots, but by the fact that the advertiser isn’t even mentioned in the spots.  Instead, the spots drive you to a branded website (www.increaseyourchances.org) that can help couples who suffer from infertility problems find a fertility specialist through an online directory that provides results based on the zip code you enter.  On that site is where you’ll find information about Gonai-f.  It’s subtle, but it’s there.  In fact, the site really works hard to NOT sell and instead seeks to inform and help.  Plus, there’s a “share” button included with each spot so friends of those who suffer can forward them the spots quickly, easily and privately.

This unusual way to sell a product is matched by the unusual way they make their pitch.  Normally pharmaceutical ads, like most hospital ads, start with people who are concerned about something, then introduce the product and explain how it works to solve their problem, and then ends with happy people whose problems have been solved.  Blah, blah, blah.  Sure, if you have the problem, you might listen.  And if you are one of the people who is frustrated with your inability to conceive, then you might just respond to any basic message that offers hope.

But “typical” drug advertising (and hospital advertising) typically does nothing to separate the product from its competitors.  Indeed, that distinction is hard to make, particularly when drugs (and hospitals) really do the same things.

So this campaign separates itself not by claims of superiority, but rather by resonating in funny (if not odd) human ways with the frustration and embarrassment couples face when in this predicament.

The spots feature an extremely “normal” couple that could be friends with anyone, except that he is in a bee costume and she is in a bird costume.  The thing is, they don’t seem to know it.  They are discussing their problem like anyone else would, talking about how often they make love (or, “have sex” as she puts it often), how many different tips they have followed from the various friends who try to help them, how unfair it is that a couple in love like them cannot conceive, etc.  And they do it all with a straight face.

Fortunately, I have three kids (yes, they’re mine) so I’ve never experienced this problem.  Despite that, I couldn’t help but watch the spots.  If I knew someone who was suffering from this, I would tell them about the site — not because I’m in advertising, but because it’s very memorable and should, at the least, put a smile on that person’s face.  At least, I think so.

I’m very interested to know how couples suffering from fertility issues will react to the campaign.  I hope it’s favorable, because the effort and the guts of the advertiser deserve some success here.

Which brings me to my point about healthcare advertising in general.

Advertising is supposed to stand out.  It’s not just presenting a message so people know you exist; rather, it’s about carving out a spot in the brains of your audience so that your company, products, and/or services are top of mind when the time comes for you to satisfy a need they may have.  To do this, we must take chances.  We must find unique ways to stand out.  And we must be memorable.

While it’s sad to me that most of my industry’s work (including some work from my own agency) is designed to simply toss our clients’ hats into the ring of competitors (often on the insistence of client-side advertising managers who don’t want to rock the boat with their superiors in an economy where jobs are hard to find), it’s refreshing to see an agency take some pretty major chances.

Rather than throwing their client’s hat in the infertility drug ring, this agency created a whole new ring.  Bravo.

So go ahead and push the envelope.  Push your agencies to present your story in a memorable way.  And have no fear.  As this campaign demonstrates, there are others out there with much larger problems than a boss who thinks your ads are too different.

Image Credit: Retrevo

I love social media.
At Demi & Cooper we live and breathe it. I’ve been known to check Facebook—much to the annoyance of my wife—while out to dinner. I’ve even (as a joke) live-Tweeted my daughter’s 6th birthday party. But It turns out social media may even be a new addiction, according to a new Retrevo Gadgetology study. Salaciously enough, 11 percent of those under 25 say they would let a social media message interrupt sex. I’m not here to judge. I’m more interested in the rising level of engagement people have with social media. After all, it can be a fulfilling and productive use of time personally, professionally and fiscally.

All night long
27 percent of those under 25 and 20 percent of those over 25 admit to checking social media when they wake up in the middle of the night. And a growing number of people are using it as a replacement for other ways of getting the “news” in the morning. Not surprisingly, iPhone users are leading the pack simply because their devices are far simpler to use than others. As Andriod and other smartphones gain market share it is easy to see how that number will grow.

Is it healthy?
I’m reminded of how before the invention of the train there were well-regarded experts who thought the human body could not withstand the strain of traveling at speeds over 30mph. Television, which is usually thought of as harmful, is now being heralded as an powerful tool that helps developing nations gain access to information, thoughts and ideas. Studies are constantly published that debunk all sorts of conventional wisdom from caffeine, alcohol and more. It comes down to that one old trite but true piece of advice your parents gave you: everything in moderation.

What does this mean for business?
A year ago social media was synonymously referred to as “emerging media.” Some people still refer to it that way—but I have news for them—it has emerged. It may help to look at it this way: social media is so remarkably pervasive that Facebook recently out-trafficked Google. It means companies and organizations need to start taking social media more seriously. That means planning. And reporting. And adapting. And conversing. It means that there’s an enormous segment of the population that is highly engaged in social media. If you want their attention, you need to be too.