• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • getgood.com
  • Privacy & Disclosure
  • GDPR/CCPA Compliance
  • Contact

Marketing Roadmaps

Marketing

Public Company PR: The issue of material disclosure

January 28, 2006 by Susan Getgood

One of the things that happens when you have a time-sensitive project like the HP Sundance blog …. You end up blogging there a lot, and “at home” not at all. And a lot of interesting stuff has been piling up in my bloglines for “when I get around to it.”

So here’s the first issue that caught my attention when I wasn’t perusing WireImage for pictures of Jennifer Aniston, Wilmer Valderrama, Amber Tamblyn and Josh Hartnett for posts about the stars in the celebrity auction.

Todd at Topaz Partners and Amy Gahran of Contentious have been discussing whether press releases (and the newswires) are really required to meet SEC disclosure requirements for public companies.

The Topaz post that indexes a series of posts on the topic: Blog series: Press releases, public companies and blogs .

Amy’s post on same: Disclosure, Press Releases, and Life Support: Can We Pull that Plug After All?

So far, their conclusion is that yes, the wires are still probably the safest bet for a public company to guarantee compliance for material disclosures, but they seem to be moving to an argument that the form of the press release could change and the company would still be in compliance.

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject.

  • Navigating the material versus non-material question is not easy, especially for smaller public companies. Sure, the financials and major corporate changes are easy. Material. New reseller. Not material. Unless it’s a major new channel for you and then it might be.  New product. Probably material. Product upgrade. Not material. Or maybe it is….if it is likely to affect your results materially. And so forth.

    There are a lot of gray lines when you get going and that’s why corporate communication directors at public companies (a job I have had more than a few times) have a tendency to treat everything with the same process as material news. It is safer, and in the total scheme of things, the fee for a release on pr newswire or business wire is WAY cheaper than the fines and damage to reputation of the firm if you’re wrong. 

    So, in order to really explore new methods for the dissemination of non-material news, we need a bit more clarity here. Until then, public companies are a bit stuck.

  • I notice they are going to touch on audience in later posts. This is key, because one of the principal audiences for public company news is the financial markets. Financial analysts are trained, and I mean trained, to watch the wire. You have to go where the audience is, and deliver the info to them in a way they will understand. And they want to go to one place for every firm – not lots of different places for different companies. So, even though RSS delivers the info to them, if everyone isn’t using the same method, it’s more work for them.
  • The press release. Anyone who does corporate communications for more than two minutes learns that the press release is almost irrelevant to the ultimate dissemination of the news. It satisfies disclosure requirements, and as I’ve written before, it has a form that we can easily decipher.

    It is important that it be well written but as far as reaching the media, the word gets out because you contact the right people with the information with the right “pitch.” And because you provide access to newsmakers, fact sheets, photos and other back-up materials that flesh out the story.

    I think we are asking an awful lot if we jettison the press release, and begin subjecting media to multiple different formats that make it harder to understand what is going on. And for some things (financials), the format is pretty well defined. For good reason. Creative approaches are generally frowned upon when it comes to financial results.

    Bottom line: we need a standard format for organizing the news. The press release works okay for me so I am in no hurry to replace it. But that doesn’t mean that it is the only thing I do to reach media (and other audiences) for clients.

  • In this context, I look at the new media as simply another way to get the word out.  A blog can be very effective, but you still need your PR person, for a variety of reasons, not just to reach out to MSM. And you need your sales force or channel partners to reach out to end user customers. And so on.

    When an announcement is definitely NOT material, it makes sense to use a blog to start getting the word out. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing with the stars in the HP charity auction I’m working on right now.  A press release about the auction went out before Sundance started, and a PR person is doing her magic at Sundance. But we’re officially announcing each participant on the blog. Another press release won’t go out until the very end of the festival summarizing everything we’ve already announced on Backstage at Sundance.

    But the blog is not sufficient in and of itself. We’re still using regular PR outreach. And we still have to reach out to fans, which is a process of online research and individual emails to fan sites and blogs to let them know that their favorite celebrity’s signed photo is in the auction. And of course, remember when you reach out to bloggers and Web sites, you had better target your audience. Know that they’ll likely be interested in what you are sending, or it’s just spam.

    It is the sum of the activity, not any one activity, no matter how cool, that gets the result.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to more of their discussion. Check it out, and join in.

Tags: Blogs, Blogging, Charity, Sundance, PR, Public Relations, Marketing

Filed Under: Blogging, Charity, Marketing, PR Tagged With: Sundance

Humourous Web 2.0 link

January 18, 2006 by Susan Getgood

A new friend sent me a very very funny Web 2.0 link… but before you click, please read the warning:

I think this is funny. BUT: It also has strong language and descriptive imagery. Some may find it offensive. It is probably not work-safe and my former employer’s software likely would have blocked it. If you take this Web 2.0 stuff really seriously, you definitely won’t like it.

You have been warned.

Web 2.0 link

Filed Under: Web Marketing

More Web 2.0

January 16, 2006 by Susan Getgood

I’m glad to know that I’m not the only one confused/concerned (previous posts 1 and 2) about the term Web 2.0.

Tris Hussey points to an exchange between Jeneane Sessum (for) and Halley Suitt (against), and comes down on the for side.

If I have to pick, I’m still against. And not so much against the ideas as I am the hype potential.

It’s not that I don’t understand the concepts that are being included under the Web 2.0 term. Or even disagree that many of the changes in the online world that have and are occuring as a result of "social media" are as revolutionary as they are evolutionary.

I just have an inherent dislike of labels. I also see too much old-style jockeying for position, influence and prestige (A-list anyone?) to believe that companies won’t use this label to hype products that really aren’t revolutionary or even evolutionary. Things have changed, but not as much as (yes) the hype would have us believe.

Filed Under: Marketing, Web Marketing

More on polls and surveys

January 16, 2006 by Susan Getgood

Shel Holtz reports on another blogging survey you can dismiss, an online poll about business blogging done by Write2Market.

This isn’t statistically sound marketing research — it’s an online poll using SurveyMonkey. Their press release trumpeting the results is exactly the sort of thing I warned against last week.

By all means, do online polls to entertain your audience. But don’t use them to "prove" a point. If you want to use quantitative measures to convince your target market of the need for your product or services, please pony up the cash to do a real piece of research.

Filed Under: Marketing

The difference between an online poll and a statistically valid survey

January 12, 2006 by Susan Getgood

Earlier this week, SciFi Wire (part of SciFi.com) launched an online poll asking fans what they though writer-director Joss Whedon’s next project should be: another Serenity movie, a movie featuring Buffy/Angel character Spike, or WonderWoman. Much as I love the Serenity/Firefly ‘verse, I voted for Spike. Not because I had any illusions that the poll was scientific, or prescriptive for Whedon. Just for fun, and because I know he does listen to fans. Why not let him know that fans still love Spike?

Occasionally during the week I checked the poll. At some point the various Whedon fandoms mobilized to get out the vote, and to my knowledge at least one group of fans figured out how to "beat" the poll. And of course if one group knew (and posted it), they all knew. Instantly.

Apparently it was not that hard to figure out how to vote more than once – just delete the cookie. And with pretty motivated Whedon fans, not hard to imagine that more than one fan voted more than once.

Well, SciFi.com didn’t like it and replaced the poll with a new question. They had a brief explanation (no longer on the site) that the Whedon poll was pulled down because fans manipulated the vote.

Really…. isn’t that taking everything just a bit too seriously? Personally, I think voting more than once is silly, but these sorts of online polls are just for fun, aren’t they? So who cares? They aren’t statistically valid at all. And if you really wanted to make sure that people could only vote once, wouldn’t you make it a bit harder to "vote early and often." For more on this specific incident, check out this post on Whedonesque.

Okay, I hear you saying – we know you’re a Whedon fan. What does this have to do with marketing?

Statistically valid surveys and polls have methodology and technology behind them to ensure accurate, valid results. Objective questions. Random samples that represent the target population. Answers that mean something. If they are conducted online, the technology prevents multiple voting. Sure, the person conducting the survey has an objective, even an agenda, but the scientific methodology prevents total bias from coloring the result.

But quickie polls on Web sites, whether about Whedon or wikis or Windows, are entertainment. Giving them any other interpretation or taking them seriously is just silly.

The marketing lesson: Don’t confuse the two. If you want to do a quick poll on your Web site or blog to entertain the audience, by all means do it. But don’t use it to prove anything. If you want quantifiable "proof," spend the money to do the survey right.

And the relative importance of Joss Whedon’s next project and whether Patrick Stewart is too old for the next Star Trek movie (the current poll question)? Not going to end world hunger or bring world peace. Who cares if the fans fooled with the poll. As one of the commenters on Whedonesque pointed out, the traffic on SciFi Wire and the number of ad impressions probably increased exponentially by getting the Whedon fandoms riled up.

Which in my opinion is what they wanted in the first place, so they shouldn’t have gotten their knickers in a twist when they succeeded.

Filed Under: Marketing, Mathom Room, Serenity / Firefly

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 29
  • Go to page 30
  • Go to page 31
  • Go to page 32
  • Go to page 33
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 52
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

 

“If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.” – Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Recent Posts

  • Merging onto the Metaverse – the Creator Economy and Web 2.5
  • Getting ready for the paradigm shift from Web2 to Web3
  • The changing nature of influence – from Lil Miquela to Fashion Ambitionist

Speaking Engagements

An up-to-date-ish list of speaking engagements and a link to my most recent headshot.

My Book



genconnectU course: Influencer Marketing for Brands

Download the course.
Use code Susan10 for 10% off.

genconnectU course: Influencer Marketing for Influencers

Download the course.
Use code Susan10 for 10% off.
Susan Getgood
Tweets by @sgetgood

Subscribe to Posts via Email

Marketing Roadmaps posts

Categories

BlogWithIntegrity.com

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Lifestyle Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}