Care and Feeding of the Watch Press

So it happens like this -

Brand plans a big press event. Brand marketing genius (excuse me while I die laughing) decides that invitations are only going out to the A list. Several A list outlets simply can't be asked, others hint that they could be "enticed" to come, well you know where it goes from here.

Now to a large extent, this is the way it's always been done (at least in recent memory) by small and mid-sized brands, and this is the way it continues to be done.  Needless to say, plenty of bottom-feeding outlets are ready to be there, solemn and sincere interest being feigned at appropriate levels to ensure that the business portion of this transaction is, well, transacted by both sides.  And you know what?  Fair enough.  There will always be confidence men (and women) out there, and there will always be watch brands ready to put something shiny in their hands. 

Now here is where the story takes an even more interesting twist.  Event happens, press release is provided to a select few outlets. And when the rest of the press reaches out to the brand afterward in the hopes of getting the press release, because, you know, that is how the press is supposed to work?  That same Marketing Genius (yes, still laughing) tells said outlets, in essence, to go screw themselves.

Marketing and promoting a watch brand is, contrary to the same self-styled marketing gurus beliefs, nothing that requires some weird Yoda-like approach, is actually pretty simple.  If you are in charge of marketing you have one simple job - make people like you, your brand and the brand's watches.  That's all.  When you treat the press badly?  They are far less inclined to like you, and they are most certainly not going to write about you.

Now I know just what these young sharps are convincing their bosses and themselves of - they are targeting their brand towards the cream of the watch press.  But consider this - when you, as a brand, have to pay (by coin of the realm or by shady gift) to get coverage? You are doing the equivalent of tying a pork-chop around your neck to get the dog to play with you.  And when you tell the press that is willing to cover you for free to go get stuffed?  You're a MORON. 

Ethics

This is one from awhile ago, but the topic has been coming up a lot lately, particularly in light of the post on click farms.  So I thought it might be time to re-heat it, here you go -



I guess this is a bit of an open appeal to the watch brands out there to NOT continue to do business with the online magazines, blogs, and "influencers" that require financial reimbursement for coverage. One of these outlets has at least indicated that a certain news piece or review was "sponsored" but think about that for a minute - a brand is PAYING money to have their watch reviewed by someone who refuses to do the review UNLESS THEY KNOW THEY WILL GET PAID BEFORE THEY EVEN WRITE IT?!?  How in God's name is that even remotely going to be an honest review?  And does this mean that although a brand might have news, if the services weren't paid for, it won't be covered?  It's an interesting question -

"If a brand has a new release but they didn't pay blogger/instagrammer/influencer X, did it really happen?"

Little inside tip for you folks running the brands and making PR/Marketing decisions, most of us who cover you know which blogs, "instagrammers", online magazines, "influencers", etc. CHARGE fees to cover you.  In fact, we even know the amounts because they have been so "professional" as to create pricing sheets.  And most of us find it funny that you continue to not only fund these knuckle-heads, but to listen to you crow about this purchased coverage as if you'd just won some sort of award of excellence.  

In fairness, for better or worse, the watch business is a business.  I got involved out of irrational, uncontrollable, often unrequited love.  And to this day that is what keeps my going.  NOT the all-expense-paid trip to the Hamptons, NOT to learn to surf in Hawaii, NOT to stick it to some young entrepreneur trying to launch his/her watch by charging him/her thousands of dollars that he/she can't easily part with in exchange for just a mention on my blog. 

It is NOT supposed to be this way.  It is deceptive, and it is dishonest.  And you have the power to stop it.

So watch brands both big and small, I've been told that perhaps I have an irrational desire to see things a certain way.  To want people to at least attempt to operate in an honest, and straightforward manner.  And in complete truth - had I been the first puppy at the feeding dish getting fat while the runts died from malnutrition, I might live in that same ethical place that the people you bankroll do, swanning about to your events, demanding payment for "service", playing the game.  But if I'm honest, I think that deep down you are all better than this.  And your brands are better than this.  So may I suggest that just as we say when you visit a national park in the US that you "Please don't feed the bears".  And we change it to:

"Please don't feed the Hipsters"

As I said in a previous post - paying for advertising, the occasional press junket, and goodwill swag? Fair enough.  Brokering coverage in an online magazine, blog, etc.?  That is not real coverage. And like any abusive relationship, the longer you keep giving in to the bully, the longer they will be able to manipulate and bully you.

I would like to leave you with a quote from one of my favorite all-time movies - Millers Crossing.  In this scene, Johnny Casper is complaining about paying to "fix" a boxing match, and having his fixed fight become a losing proposition because another person will "sell" the information to another group regarding the fixed outcome of the fight.  I use this example because I personally feel that it is endemic to the watch business.  And frankly, it shouldn't be.

"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust? For a good return you gotta go bettin' on chance, and then you're back with anarchy. Right back inna jungle. On account of the breakdown of ethics. That's why ethics is important. It's the grease makes us get along, what separates us from the animals, beasts a burden, beasts a prey. Ethics. Whereas (insert person you paid for coverage) is a horse of a different color ethics- wise. As in, he ain't got any." 

The Social Contract of Social Media

This post has been on the shelf for nearly a year, but it seems time to air it out.

For most of us who write about watches in the digital arena, we don't do it for money.  True enough, our blogs might have advertising - such as this one, but by and large that is where it begins and ends.

Blogs, and blogs that have evolved into online magazines started out life as an alternative to magazines that more often than not were constrained by the need to drive advertising revenue.  It opened up a whole new world where people would tune in with the hopes of getting some viewpoints and opinions that were not fueled and channeled directly through the marketing arm of Richemont, LVMH or the SWATCH Group.  And perhaps more importantly, it did not cost the reader anything.  It was free to read, and you didn't have to drive to a book store or news stand.

But then another interesting thing started to happen -
The number of people checking out these alternative watch sites began to far outstrip the number of magazine readers.  And suddenly real analytics were possible!  And even more suddenly what had been a vehicle to promote a decidedly niche product to a clearly more niche market became a mechanism to subvert the role of independent writer and pump favorable content directly in front of this now much larger audience via an electronic delivery system.  In other words, payola arrived.

For those of you not familiar, here is a definition from our friends at Urban Dictionary -

payola

Bribery made to a dj in exchange for promotion of an album or single. Derived from the words 'pay' (give money to) and 'victrola' (a record player).You'd need to offer some serious payola to get your song played.

And that opened up a whole new paradigm.  Wonder how an online magazine or blog with multiple writers can afford to provide for so many people, with no visible ads?  Ever wonder why a brand that has never seen the light of day on that blog suddenly makes multiple appearances?  

And then things took an even darker turn.  The way things are supposed to work for a brand is:

1.  You draft a press release regarding a new brand or product

2.  You spend time and/or money putting together a list of blogs, magazines, etc.

3.  You send it out and, for the most part, the blogs will run it.

Now a quick peek behind the curtain - 

The way that it should work is that the blogger will review what they receive, and if it interests them and they feel it will interest their readers, they will run it.  In some instances, if there are personal or professional differences/ conflicts, etc., with the brand,  then the blogger might not run the release.  In addition, if the blogger has managed to alienate the brand through their writing, then it is entirely possible that the brand's pr/marketing team will pull a Donald Trump and refuse to communicate with them or send them press updates.  This is to be expected and I would say, fair enough.

Now it seems that with the owners of several of the blogs, "horological interest" is measured in terms of payment.  And to be clear by payment I do not mean advertising agreements, a watch received in barter for advertising or marketing or even simple good will.   I mean just what I am saying - payment required and received in exchange for coverage.

So what has now become standard for some of these outlets is that a rate sheet is sent to the brand manager or pr representative, not unlike a take out food menu:  

• To do a review  of your watch will cost you X.
• To announce your new brand will cost you Y.
• To REALLY pump your watch or brand will cost you Z.

Simply put, a fair amount of what you read in some of the bigger blogs and online magazines has been bought and paid for.

Now again, in fairness, if a brand supports a blog or online magazine with advertising, it is not unreasonable to expect coverage - in fact I believe that there is an implied social contract between the blog and the brand that requires a certain amount of coverage. 

Moreover, many bloggers do contract work for brands.  But that is a very separate matter that precludes "air time" on their blog or online magazine beyond the normal coverage.

But, and it's a big but, when a blog or online magazine requires payment in exchange for any sort of coverage, well then it is no longer what can even remotely be thought of as fair and impartial.  

Because there is another contract that is more than merely implied.  It is the social contract with the writer and the reader.