Ever wonder why every marketing project comes together at the last minute?

It never ceases to amaze me how many companies scramble to get their marketing projects finished at the last minute, sacrificing quality on a program because they're constantly in panic mode. Sometimes it seems like companies are needlessly throwing their marketing dollars down the drain, just because they can't plan ahead effectively. They pay for something, dedicate resources toward that project, then squander opportunities because they miss deadlines or don't do as much with the project as they should have.

Now I can't claim to be the most proactive person in the world. I miss plenty of little opportunities with my own projects -- for doing an extra round of testing on an email, for building a new feature that's going to impress a client, etc. -- because I didn't have enough time or give enough thought to the project in advance. There are plenty of times when I look back and say to myself, "Wow, I missed an opportunity there. I could've done that better." But I can't remember blowing a huge amount of money and effort on a project that went out the door half-done and way late -- which is something I see pretty frequently (way more often than I should!) in this business.

I always thought this stuff was common sense, but I guess it isn't. I'm not writing anything groundbreaking here, just a gentle reminder:

• Build a project plan and stick to it.
• Get buy-in from the key people in your organization who need to be involved, to make sure they understand how important the project is. If you don't sell the project's importance to them, they won't cooperate in a timely manner and you'll miss deadlines.
• Communicate effectively. Keep other people in the loop. If you're going to miss a deadline, at least let the interested parties know why, and let them know what you'll do to rectify the situation.
• Brainstorm with your team. Just give a few minutes' worth of thought to each project from a wider view. Am I missing anything here? Are there any opportunities for cross-promotion, or to use assets that have already been created?

If you're able to do all these things, you'll be a step ahead of most other people in this industry. (It's sad but true.)

Webcasts: What's more important -- leads or thought leadership?

The April 7 issue of BtoB magazine has a graph with results from an online poll they conducted about webcasts. The question was "What's your top webinar objective?" and the two choices were leads or thought leadership. Interestingly enough, 69% said their top objective was thought leadership and only 31% picked leads.

These results really surprised me. I'm sure this wasn't a scientific poll, so perhaps I should take this data with a grain of salt. But in my many years of experience conducting webcasts, I'm accustomed to most sponsors being obsessed with leads. That's how sponsors usually evaluate success -- based on number of registrants and number of attendees, plus the quality of those people. It's just the way many companies are set up right now...they're dependent upon leads.

But after thinking about this poll, I realize just how difficult of a question "thought leadership or leads" is. A webcast needs to do both to be effective, so it's silly to say that one or the other is the primary goal.

If a webcast doesn't generate leads, it's going to be difficult for the sponsor to quantify results. How will sales and marketing turn that thought leadership into action without leads? But on the other hand, if the webcast doesn't provide thought leadership, the leads are actionable but they're not nearly as valuable. After all, there are a lot of easier and less expensive ways to get leads. But the thought leadership conveyed during a well-executed webcast, combined with the fact that the person just sat through an hour-long presentation about a topic, makes for a very qualified lead.

This is exactly why I believe webcasts are so popular in B2B markets right now. It's not about the lead -- nor is it about the thought leadership. It's an inseparable combination of the two.

EST or EDT? Get your time zones right in your marketing communications

This is one of my pet peeves, but it's also something that should be important to marketers of all types. I can't even tell you how many marketing communications I've seen (webcast announcements, event emails, direct mail pieces, etc.) where companies get this wrong. And it should be pretty simple.

Whenever you're writing a time on a communication that's going to anyone outside your immediate geographic area, you should specify a time zone. That's obvious. But getting it right is a challenge for many marketers.

It's the second week of April. Let's say you're in New York right now. You're on Eastern Standard Time, right? Wrong. You're really on Eastern Daylight Time.

Back to Time Zone 101 class: The second word in the the time zone phrase is meant to express whether or not you're on Daylight Saving Time. So in the U.S., from roughly November through March (the dates vary each year), you'd say "Eastern Standard Time." But during the summer months you'd say "Eastern Daylight Time."

So many businesses get it wrong on their voicemail greetings, on the hours posted on their website, and many other places. They'll just say "We're open 9am-5pm Eastern Standard Time" and they leave that message active all year round. So what are you saying, your company doesn't observe Daylight Saving Time? Their message is wrong more than half the year.

Don't want to think about it? Here's the amazingly simple workaround. If you're only communicating with a U.S. audience, just say "Eastern Time." If you don't use that middle word, you'll be less precise but you'll always be correct. People should always know what you mean. (The only place that might backfire is in a couple exceptions like Arizona and Hawaii, the only two states where Daylight Saving Time isn't observed. A few U.S. territories also don't observe DST. But unless you're communicating specifically with one of those groups, the general rule applies.)

Now if you're communicating with a potentially global audience -- let's say a webcast -- you should make sure you're specifying Standard or Daylight. Alongside that, you should also list your offset from Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), the standard upon which all time zones are based and most people outside the U.S. should be able to calculate from.

So if I'm holding a webcast today (in April) in New York at 2pm Eastern Daylight Time, here's how I'd write the time:

2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (GMT -4, New York); or
2:00 p.m. EDT (GMT -4, New York)

Note what I've done here. I've told them the time zone (Eastern Daylight Time or EDT), I've also given them an offset from GMT (4 hours behind GMT), and I've told them the major city of the time zone (New York). With this info, just about everyone should be able to figure out when the webcast starts.

Of course be careful when you're doing this, because the offset changes from Standard to Daylight time. If it was December and Daylight Saving Time wasn't in effect, the offset changes to (GMT -5, New York). Remember, GMT never changes.

Once you get the hang of it, it's pretty simple. And I'm amazed schools don't teach this stuff -- or at least many people didn't learn it. You might look at all this and say, "But Michael, is anyone really going to get confused if I get EST and EDT mixed up? Won't they know what I mean?" If you're dealing with a U.S. audience, they'll probably figure it out and you won't have much confusion. But some people will notice your error. Why make a simple mistake like this when it's easily avoidable? You don't want to seem dumb in your marketing communications, do you?

The Stupid Filter and social media

This Wall Street Journal blog post discusses a gentleman named Gabriel Ortiz who has invented a "stupid filter" for online message boards:

Specifically, Mr. Ortiz wants Internet users to be able to block out stupid comments in much the same way they use spam filters to sift useless email from their inboxes.

After months of fine-tuning, Mr. Ortiz has begun sharing his software code with others and says he hopes to turn the idea into a business.

As social media becomes more important to marketers, and as marketers are increasingly trying to position themselves as content providers and experts, a technology like the Stupid Filter could come into play quite prominently. Many companies are successfully using forums, blogs, and other user-generated content elements to further their brands and even increase sales...and I suspect the trend will continue.

A cynical marketer might say, "If I applied this to my target audience and filtered out all the stupid people, I wouldn't have any customers left!"

But I think the question is: Will technologies like the Stupid Filter squelch the discussion in these social media vehicles, when people know their posts are being scrutinized by a filter? Here's an interesting thing to ask yourself: How many times would your posts need to be blocked before you stopped leaving comments in forums and on blogs? For me, that number would probably be pretty low.

One could argue this whole filtering process would naturally elevate the conversation and scare away the stupid people. But just like spam filters, the technology won't ever be perfect -- so how many "non-stupid" people will be discouraged from adding to conversations? Could the Stupid Filter be a stumbling block for social media -- or is it a saving grace, much the way spam filters have saved email from becoming a completely unusable morass of junk?

Don't blast your customers!

Here's an interesting blog entry on MediaPost about softening the language we use as marketers.

"Maybe we need to stop calling them consumers, target audience and viewers … and just think about them as people."

An interesting concept, and one I largely agree with. What we call a product/service can often affect the way it's used.

A few years ago I stopped saying the words "email blast" to customers, and instead I'll use "direct email invitation" or something of the like. A subtle difference? Perhaps. But "blast" sounds so...violent and uncontrolled. Do we really want to blast our customers? I hope not...

Getting Generation Y's attention

"We came up with Safety Stuffers that convey safety messages in exciting, compelling (and brief!) ways geared toward younger workers. Folks interested in that concept can read about it at this page of the Quad-City Times website."

-- Mark McLaughlin of Nehlsen Communications, on how his firm altered its communications medium to get the attention of Generation Y. (Original post on the IndustryWeek Forums)