Preface: The marketing industry for asbestos and similar terms is a very secretive society. There are a number of non-disclosures, waivers and confidentiality agreements that prevent and dissuade people from talking about their experiences.
Over the last year however our industry has come under fire as tort reform and bloggers have launched some rather vitriolic assaults on lawyers and subsequently their marketers. The criticism takes away from our collective professional identity and I think its time for someone to at least stand up and give a response. I think the fact that this is the only serious entry on my personal blog should give an idea of how upset I am.
-------------------------------------------------
Recently an article was published about a deceptive marketing practice used by some of our competitors. The article, written by Roger Parloff, exposed a network of sites that were modeled in such a way that they could confuse visitors into believing they had reach an official VA medical site and not a site aimed at generating leads / cases.
Parloff previously published an article a few years ago about industry practices that had similar tones but the issues raised in that piece were rather mundane compared to this article. When I got a Google Alert mentioning the article I was interested to find out what prompted him to write a second article.
While the sites in the newest article were decidedly about mesothelioma, the screenshots show that the creators referred to the site as the VA Medical Center for a particular area. Many sites in our industry use titles like "information center" or "cancer center" but we know the boundaries and that you can't cross the line and start implying that your site is a legitimate treatment facility much less a VA medical center.
The author contacted the site's sponsors and thankfully someone did get back to him. Christopher Seeger of Steeger Weiss responded to the accusations about the sites by saying he wasn't aware of the problem and that "I don't want my name on a Website that purports to be a government site." Seeger's response is legitimate, often legal marketers and their companies aren't in sync with their clients and that leads to these kinds of situations.
While the sites were later removed I was disappointed that the other firms involved (Flood, Hellbock, SEF) and EJustice, the creator of the sites, did not feel compelled to at least talk to the author and offer their side of the story. It certainly doesn't help our collective professional identity when something like this happens and save for one person, the result is deafening silence.
The asbestos litigation industry is constantly mentioned as the reason we need tort reform in this country and terms like asbestos litigation and asbestos lawyer can have decidedly negative connotations. To make matters worse, over the last year our industry has been harassed by an on again / off again blogger named 'sleazeothelioma' who blogged about what they felt were other deceptive practices.
Mesothelioma, the cancer caused by asbestos exposure, is a horrible and painful disease that I would not wish upon anyone. As a marketer I like to imagine that if I helped someone reach a settlement ... perhaps the little comfort it provides will validate my purpose and the reason why I work for this industry.
But all of that is lost when I see this kind of conduct. It hurts on a personal and professional level because it takes away from my work. Maybe I need a change of scenery?
I unsubscribed from an email list today. I know what you're thinking, big deal who cares.
But the reason why is pretty funny.
Last year I subscribed to the mailing list for a local sports and recreation company that offers products / services I enjoy. No big deal and I had no problem with it until they sent out an email inviting me to a talk about health and wellness.
The speaker wasn't talking about eating right or exercising or any of the normal stuff that health and wellness speakers focus on. Instead the woman was giving a speech about a recent book she wrote detailing how vaccines are a government ploy to enslave the masses and remove people with genetic defects to further the agenda of eugenics. (This makes perfect sense according to Spencer Pratt)
And I was being invited to share in this conspiracy orgy by a sports and recreation company. No thanks.
Gaining the trust of the consumer is difficult enough, don't lose it by throwing out points of contention among your audience.
Musician, author, lecturer and man of 10+ skills, Martin Atkins gave a presentation tonight on modern music promotion. Here are some highlights:
Free is the New Black
Use free music to generate revenue in other ways. He briefly mentioned Radiohead's pay what you feel campaign for In Rainbows but stated that was now antiquated (amazing how fast the industry has changed). Rather he used the example of Prince giving away a free copy of his new album in a UK tabloid that resulted in a string of sold out shows at London's O2 arena. Another analogy could be Nine Inch Nails giving away their Ghosts album for free but providing a premium package that netted Reznor 750k in a day.
Have a Strategy
You should always have a strategy in anything that you do. One example that he used to bring the point home was a map of the United States and on it were the locations of the top 100 markets in the United States. If you draw a line roughly between Minneapolis and Austin, 85 of those markets are to the east where 15 are to the west. The idea behind it was that bands can make irrational touring decisions by failing to plan a tour that is both economical and reaches burgeoning fan bases. (see analytics below)
Brick by Brick
Everything you do to promote and improve yourself as an artist adds allows you to build your brand and eventually brick by brick you will be able to build something great. He mentioned looking at the Great Wall and marveling at its construction but then realizing it was built one brick at a time. Martin emphasized constantly working and making connections even if its only one or two people per show because over time it adds up. Having 10,000 fans is only a multiple of interacting with small groups and individuals.
Be Original
This wasn't really about creating original music as it was creating original ways to sell and promote it. He used some of the following examples:
Moldover's circuit board theremin cd case
Shogun Kunitoki's strobe light kit and (video)
Use Analytics
Martin demoed YouTube's analytics capabilities by showing visitor locations and level of attention. He argued that you should use analytics tools that give geographical data in order to find out where your fans are located and that you should use YouTube's hot spot feature to see where attention drops off during your videos and edit content appropriately.
Music is ...
"A 28 hour a day, 9 nine day a week, 58 weeks per year commitment"
Oh and there's an asterisk
"If your songs suck, you don't practice and your live show sucks, forget any of the above."
What I wanted to hear:
I thought it was a great lecture but the only thing that was missing was any discussion of online promotion. He alluded to the demise of Myspace but he didn't really mention alternative online promotion strategies. For a while there every band had a Myspace and you had to be on there for better or worse but with Facebook stealing users, bands have to find new ways develop fans and Facebook's page application is useful (aka analytics) but doesn't compare to Myspace. He did mention he had 60+ slides he didn't cover and I could have probably gotten into a long winded discussion with him if I wasn't so pre-occupied with who was winning Game 6.
More on Martin Atkins:
Wikipedia
Twitter
Tour Smart
Disappointing Competitor Conduct
Preface: The marketing industry for asbestos and similar terms is a very secretive society. There are a number of non-disclosures, waivers and confidentiality agreements that prevent and dissuade people from talking about their experiences.
Over the last year however our industry has come under fire as tort reform and bloggers have launched some rather vitriolic assaults on lawyers and subsequently their marketers. The criticism takes away from our collective professional identity and I think its time for someone to at least stand up and give a response. I think the fact that this is the only serious entry on my personal blog should give an idea of how upset I am.
-------------------------------------------------
Recently an article was published about a deceptive marketing practice used by some of our competitors. The article, written by Roger Parloff, exposed a network of sites that were modeled in such a way that they could confuse visitors into believing they had reach an official VA medical site and not a site aimed at generating leads / cases.
Parloff previously published an article a few years ago about industry practices that had similar tones but the issues raised in that piece were rather mundane compared to this article. When I got a Google Alert mentioning the article I was interested to find out what prompted him to write a second article.
While the sites in the newest article were decidedly about mesothelioma, the screenshots show that the creators referred to the site as the VA Medical Center for a particular area. Many sites in our industry use titles like "information center" or "cancer center" but we know the boundaries and that you can't cross the line and start implying that your site is a legitimate treatment facility much less a VA medical center.
The author contacted the site's sponsors and thankfully someone did get back to him. Christopher Seeger of Steeger Weiss responded to the accusations about the sites by saying he wasn't aware of the problem and that "I don't want my name on a Website that purports to be a government site." Seeger's response is legitimate, often legal marketers and their companies aren't in sync with their clients and that leads to these kinds of situations.
While the sites were later removed I was disappointed that the other firms involved (Flood, Hellbock, SEF) and EJustice, the creator of the sites, did not feel compelled to at least talk to the author and offer their side of the story. It certainly doesn't help our collective professional identity when something like this happens and save for one person, the result is deafening silence.
The asbestos litigation industry is constantly mentioned as the reason we need tort reform in this country and terms like asbestos litigation and asbestos lawyer can have decidedly negative connotations. To make matters worse, over the last year our industry has been harassed by an on again / off again blogger named 'sleazeothelioma' who blogged about what they felt were other deceptive practices.
Mesothelioma, the cancer caused by asbestos exposure, is a horrible and painful disease that I would not wish upon anyone. As a marketer I like to imagine that if I helped someone reach a settlement ... perhaps the little comfort it provides will validate my purpose and the reason why I work for this industry.
But all of that is lost when I see this kind of conduct. It hurts on a personal and professional level because it takes away from my work. Maybe I need a change of scenery?