For those marketers and communicators who have yet to consider the U.S. Latino market as an essential audience for products and services, how about this …Latino buying power will skyrocket to $1.2 trillion in 2012, nearly 500 percent from 1990, the largest increase of any racial/ethnic group.

To read more on this new data go to the Selig Center for Economic Growth.

20 minutes. That’s how long we have with a consumer before they max out trying to get a new-fangled electronics gadget to work. Once they’ve hit the 20 minute wall and let out a cathartic profanity or two, consumers simply give up, chuck or return the product and move on.

That’s one observation in a report just released by eMarketer called "Consumer Electronics Online: Converged or Confused?" The conclusion, according to eMarketer analyst Lisa Phillips, is “People love to buy (gadgets), but they can’t get them to work.”

Convoluted technology is certainly at the heart of the problem, but the buck really stops with the communicators who rep these products to consumers.

Rather than making tech accessible and -- big concept here, usable -- many PR and marketing types fall back on the jargon and buzzwords of the tech industry when promoting products.

I’ve written here before about this issue and the need for communicators to build a bridge from techie innovation to consumer ease-of-use. The eMarketer study is just the latest example of tech marketing's inhumanity to man.

There’s a lot at stake, to the tune of $190 *billion* in 2007 in purchases for digital home entertainment products. And yet eMarketer found that two-thirds of the consumers it polled didn’t even know the meaning of the term “digital home.”

Knowing we’re working off that 20-minute clock, PR needs to reset the lexicon of tech marketing and ensure that people find digital gadgets approachable, emphasizing benefits rather than features. That covers everything from the time someone first kicks the tires and samples a product at retail (when you have more like 20 seconds to set the hook) to that moment of truth when they boot, initialize or otherwise flick the ON switch.

The brands that crack the code of speaking to consumers in non-tech terms, through the reference-based channels they trust most, will be sitting in the gadget winner’s circle.

Just imagine how Apple’s wildly popular iTunes would have been received if they positioned that service as an alternative to peer-to-peer file sharing consistent with the constructs of digital rights management and intellectual property protection available over broadband…

Is that the sound of crickets I hear, or just a ticking clock?

Last week, we shared a few top line findings from GolinHarris' initial Trusted Media Index survey.

Today, I read another new study from McKinsey & Company focusing on related themes. It's worth a look. (Available HERE as a free download for registered users.)

In their article titled, "What Consumers Want from Online News," McKinsey's authors compare and contrast how different audience groups consume news from multiple media sources, and in multiple formats.

While McKinsey spends a fair bit of time focusing on digital media, the takeaway isn't myopic: different audiences consume information in very different ways -- not just online or offline.

The implication? Thinking big in communication today is more about thinking small and understanding the subtly nuanced ways micro-groups within your target audience get information. One-size-fits-all consumer targeting and mass marketing is becoming less and less effective.

What McKinsey found -- also echoed in our own Trusted Media Index research -- is that today's audiences gobble up information from scores of different sources. They call it "media promiscuity" -- the idea that there is little loyalty to a particular media outlet, and that audiences increasingly compare and contrast news from a variety of sources. We found exactly the same thing with our research, particularly when we examined media trust of influencer groups. Tastemakers who share frequently with peers are news junkies and rely on a multitude of sources to formulate their opinions.

In McKinsey's study, the majority of survey respondents reported dividing time between 12-16 different news sources each week. These are largely "mediated" sources and don't take into account first-person information sources such as direct experience and word of mouth. Add those into the mix and the number of places most Americans look for counsel and news grows to a remarkably high number.

McKinsey's paper wisely posits that a well-built news aggregation product -- which pulls together information from a variety of sources news seekers choose -- will be highly valued in the future. We're already seeing the underpinnings of this, with great news aggregation services like Google News and Adobe Labs' "MyFeedz" social newspaper already available.

As consumer control over what we watch, listen and read increases, so too must our understanding of how, where, and why audiences ferret out news from different sources. Communicators must become conversant in each of these channels to remain relevant and influential.

The U.S. Government has gone bilingual with the recent launch of its Spanish-language site, GobiernoUSA.gov . It’s a very informative and thorough site with sections dedicated to the general public, newcomers to the U.S., visitors, and businesses.

Not only is this a smart way to tap into a growing constituency, but more importantly it’s a way to be relevant. According to a recent Forrester study, 43% of Hispanics in the U.S. are Spanish dominate, another 35% speak more Spanish than English at home or both equally. The same study found that there are 12 million Hispanic adults online of which 4 million are reliant on Spanish. While the number is small, 80% of this group wishes there was more Spanish-language content on the Internet.

As marketers we should take note for future communications strategies. As the Hispanic population continues to grow in the U.S., online Hispanics will also continue to grow. Depending on the product or service, a Hispanic client base can very well be Spanish-reliant, and /or find Spanish-language content more relevant. Evaluating a Spanish-language strategy for Hispanic audiences is a worthwhile exercise.

While Madonna may have been one of the trendsetters that sparked the world’s obsession with bottled water, it may very well be celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker and Alice Waters of famed Berkeley eatery Chez Panisse, that will help undo it.

An article in July’s issue of Fast Company, “Message in a Bottle,” has been a big topic around the water cooler as it is passed around en masse. Americans spent $15 billion on bottled water last year, with numbers rising in 2007 and projections that consumption will surpass soda in a decade. Further, over 38 billion water bottles a year – more than a $1 billion in plastic – are tossed into landfills. Bottled water is becoming a heated topic. And may become an integral part of the global warming conversation, like hybrid cars and compact florescent lamps (CFLs).

The Fast Company article may just be the tip of the iceberg. Several NGOs, like Food & Water Watch, Corporate Accountability International’s ThinkOutsideTheBottle.org, and Natural Resource Defense Council are moving bottled water to the top of their agendas, urging consumers to contact companies like Nestlé and PepsiCo, or sign pledges not to drink bottled water. In response, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) and the American Beverage Association are fighting back with media campaigns that explain what the industry is doing.

But the momentum may be moving in the other direction. As concern about global warming becomes top of mind with the public, guilty consumers will look for easy ways to reduce their carbon footprint. As suggested by Al Gore, changing light bulbs is something anyone can do. So is drinking tap water. Because, if between songs on her next tour Madonna sips water from a pitcher instead of a plastic bottle, people will notice.

Submitted by Fred Cook

The notion that multiculturalism will become the mainstream is rapidly moving from a trend to a reality. The U.S. Census Bureau reported today that minorities are now the majority in more than 300 counties. As the Census data suggests, our society is increasingly becoming more multicultural. Projections demonstrate that this momentum will only continue.

But how rapidly are communicators and marketers moving to address this shift?

Not fast enough. There are some savvy marketers that have taken the approach of addressing communications from an inclusive, more multicultural perspective. But for the most part we continue to develop “general market” strategies with separate “multicultural” strategies. Traditionally, “multicultural” strategies have been developed after the “general market” strategy has been set … and not simultaneously.

If we want to be relevant, moving forward communications strategies can no longer be “general market” versus “multicultural.” Given the shifts in our population and the increased diversity, communication teams need to really look at a way of bridging the two.

An observation of recent China product recall incidents and its affect within China

You recall China made toys; I forbid the import of American beef. You say quality issue, I say political pressure. You want the Yuan to appreciate; I want you to leave the Yuan alone.

Sounds like a quarrel between couples, but Chinese people think it is all about domination and power. It is an American tactic to portray China as the big bad wolf.

As far as I can remember, there have always been problems with safety and quality control of China-made food and products. This issue is, sadly, a product of rapid development, where demand for goods outruns the speed of proper legislation and control mechanism. Then you add up multilayer of corruptions within the authoritative bodies and the lack of unbiased media and watchdog groups, and you get unsafe toothpaste, poisonous toys, bleached rice, and contaminated cooking oil, dangerous drugs. You have thousands of people die or becoming ill due to what is called “black heart merchants’ products,” but in the old and closeted China, thousand of people amount to nothing when compared to the total population of 1.3billion.

My neighbor once joked that to truly resolve the problem, China needs another SARS like epidemic to really have the government stand up and fix the problem once and for all. But we are now 365 days away from the 2008 Olympics. And that changes the dynamics.

With China gearing up for the Olympics, the ultimate global platform to show its muscle, the country is under more scrutiny. China officials know that to be a global player, you have to meet the global standards, but there is just no time to fix all the problems and meet the standards before August 2008. Thus in a culture where “saving face” is as important as any political maneuvering, China has to “fight” back sometimes, and divert what seems to be a control issue to a political issue.

For my part, I believe things will change for the better. A government which has “A Harmonious Society” as its governing theme will take some actions to pacify its constituents, and at the same time probably discuss the necessity for a global brand campaign to re-establish confidence for “Made in China” products. All of these will be as powerful as the proliferation of the Internet and its role in reshaping the marketplace. With a click away to less bias information, consumers worldwide, and in China, will use their purchasing power to dictate which products will stay and which will fade. Market forces will come to play, only that within China, it will take longer.

It is worth mentioning that 25 years ago, Taiwan went through the same phase, and the government launched the “M.I.T” (Made in Taiwan) campaign to re-brand Taiwan-made goods in the global market place. Although M.I.T has not reached the level of success of “Made in Japan,” maybe the Chinese government should use it as a learning tool and a blueprint for a re-positioning global campaign.

Google News further solidified its position as a major media channel with a recently unveiled feature that could forever change the participation of story makers and timing of when a story has run its course. From Google:

“We'll be trying out a mechanism for publishing comments from a special subset of readers: those people or organizations who were actual participants in the story in question. Our long-term vision is that any participant will be able to send in their comments, and we'll show them next to the articles about the story. Comments will be published in full, without any edits, but marked as "comments" so readers know it's the individual's perspective, rather than part of a journalist's report.”

The feature will showcase comments submitted by a story’s sources in a layout that is more prominent than the general comments featured at the bottom of many online news sites, thus allowing story participants to contribute directly to what consumers read with no editorial influence.

While early reviews of this feature are somewhat mixed no one can deny that this feature could dramatically change the role of PR professionals in shaping and crafting news. This new feature will allow spokespeople, KOLs and other experts to weigh in on a story AFTER it has hit the streets and participate in the ongoing dialogue that a story creates. This also will require a new level of monitoring and follow-up communications around stories (especially during crisis communications) than ever before.

When story makers can continue to shape news after publishing, both agencies and in-house communicators will need to develop faster and smarter response mechanisms. Organizations that take days or even hours to carefully craft messages may miss the opportunity to participate in the conversation around stories as they unfold.

As new technologies allow for more direct dialogue and participatory journalism, communications professionals need to figure out how to stay relevant and influential as new channels emerge and traditional publishing lines blur.

When I arrived to China, there was one thing that struck me as odd and peculiar – giving reporters, who attend a press conference, transportation stipend, or what’s commonly called among PR professionals – “media allowance (usually around USD 25 per reporter).” This is certainly something I have never seen before, and yes, it is common practice in China.

When we try to position this in front of global corporations, who are unfamiliar with Chinese media practices, most of the executives see this as a type of bribe, and challenge the PR agency instead. Whatever you call it, “media allowance” or “bribe,” one has to agree to the fact that the practice is there, and for the near future, it will not go away. So the dilemma here is: “should we follow the customs or should we uphold our principles?”

Actually things shouldn’t be taken that seriously. Why this is a practice lays upon the fact that most reporters earn very little (an entry level reporter might get paid around USD 300 a month), and asking them to travel to press conferences using their own money is just a bit too much to ask (an average Shanghai consumer reporter receives 2-3 press conferences invitations a day). So, a way to encourage them to come is to offer this type of allowance.

What you should know is that this allowance does NOT guarantee coverage. Good and extensive coverage still come from good news angles and meaningful messages; And these cannot be generated from a simple and customary token.

Virtual Goods have taken the internet by storm. People trade, buy and sell electronic images of coins, pets, flowers on the Web for both business and pleasure. Branching out of the Web 2.0 social networks, Virtual Goods have turned into large enough of a phenomenon to merit a summit at the prestigious Stanford University. In fact, just within the last year, Internet users spent $1.5 billion on Virtual Goods.

People on the social networking and dating site HotOrNot.com are paying anywhere from $2 to $15 to have a flower or bouquet delivered. As of February 2007, Facebook users can also send virtual gifts to each other. Facebook friends can select an item from the virtual gift shop, tag a message to the gift, and send it along to friends, who can then share it with others. In doing so, they reveal their interests, connections, sentiments and brands preferences.

Passing along an electronic symbol as such may seem like a simple gesture, but when large groups of people adapt the idea and join the fun, organizations can tap into the power of the masses. For instance, one of the earliest Facebook virtual goods campaigns helped raise money for the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation – a non-profit focusing on breast cancer research. Fifty percent of the proceeds from a Valentine’s Day themed virtual gift exchange were donated to the organization. According to Facebook spokeswoman Brandee D. Barker between February 8th and February 14th, users had already exchanged over 5 million gifts.

The results suggest companies can attain substantial fundraising goals, if they strike the right cord with social networkers. Virtual goods can generate word of mouth, increase brand or issue awareness and extend message lifetime as users proudly display their icons. These electronic icons also signal changes in consumer preferences--opening the door to researchers and digital marketers who can cull information from virtual good collections to predict the next big hit.

This entry was co-authored with Hudson Gaines-Ross.