by Brandon Glenn | Feb 5, 2025 | Blog
Case studies represent an opportunity for companies to present potential customers with a real-world story of how their products and services helped an actual customer solve a common industry-wide problem.
Whether the customer’s positive outcome involved greater revenue, lower costs, or happier clinicians and patients, a case study enables companies to move beyond talk with prospects to action – as in, “If you take the same action as our customer did, you, too, can overcome the barriers that have been holding you back from accomplishing your objectives.”
Potential customers want to be reassured that they are hiring a vendor that has experience helping companies like them surmount obstacles like those that they currently face. A well-written case study will accomplish just that.
At its most basic level, a case study follows the familiar story arc of “problem – solution – results,” but there’s more to it than that. Here are three must-haves to build better case studies:
Quantified results: The surest way to kill the potential of a strong case study is to include unimpressive or vaguely worded results that fail to clearly illustrate the value of adopting a new solution. Solid case studies require data to demonstrate the improvement of key metrics. While some customers may be understandably reluctant to publicly share hard dollar amounts, many will be more comfortable stating percentage increases or decreases, such as, “reduced costs 10% in the first year of implementation.”
What’s next: It’s easy to remember that a case study highlights what a customer accomplished after adopting new technology, but one less obvious element to include involves next steps. Now that the customer has taken care of its most pressing issues, what are their plans for the future? While it may seem like a small point, including next steps can help potential customers envision a long-term strategy around your product.
The customer’s own words: A customer’s own description of a solution’s impact will always carry more weight than what a vendor says about its own products. Interview some end-users to obtain quotes and insights that detail the difference your product made for them – once again with an eye toward obtaining quantifiable measures.
Case studies can be effective tools for nudging prospects and customers along the next steps of the buyer journey. To maximize their value, be sure to include quantified results, what’s next, and the customer’s own words.
by Brandon Glenn | Sep 18, 2024 | Blog
You’ve done the hard work of crafting a public relations strategy, researching the right media targets, and pitching the story to journalists.
Reporters have responded positively to your pitches and are interested in setting up interviews to learn more about your company and executives’ viewpoints. Now what?
For most companies, and in particular startups, media interviews represent a valuable opportunity to introduce their stories, value propositions, and reasons for existence to a broader audience of potential customers, investors, employees, stakeholders, and other industry participants.
However, executives are sometimes hesitant to engage in interviews because they are reluctant to put in the time to mentally prepare or are fearful that reporters will ask them difficult or confusing questions.
The good news for health IT leaders is that there is little to fear. By doing a little homework and preparation prior to a media interview, executives can approach the event with calmness and confidence.
The following are four preparation tips to ensure media interview success:
Turnabout is fair play: Once the interview starts, the reporter will ask many questions of you. Before the interview, take advantage of the opportunity to gain clarity about reporters’ intentions by turning the tables and asking them a few questions. Who is the publication’s audience? What is the reporter interested in talking about? Will she share a list of questions prior to the interview? Do your diligence to make sure the opportunity is worth the time.
Get to know the reporter: Take some time to perform a little pre-interview research about the reporter, browsing through her bio or LinkedIn profile. Read through some of the articles she’s previously written. By getting a feel for the reporter’s background and interests, executives gain fodder for rapport-building pre- and post-interview small talk, demonstrate that they value the reporter’s time and work, and set the stage for follow-up coverage.
Craft talking points: As the one asking the questions, the reporter is generally in control of the interview, but that doesn’t mean that the interview subject is merely along for the ride and must go wherever the reporter steers the conversation. Executives should come prepared with a few basic talking points that expound upon the problems they solve, the negative consequences of those problems for their customers, and why their solution is the right choice to solve these problems. Talking points should be quick, straightforward, and conversational. Repetition of key points is encouraged.
Follow-up and promotion: During interviews, executives often make points or cite statistics that require further clarification or verification by reporters. Be sure to follow up to see if the reporter needs any further information. After the article goes live, promote it through all available channels, including social media, company blog, website, and email to customers and prospects.
Unless your company is an industry giant or a household name, opportunities for media interviews don’t come along that often. When they do, set yourself up for success by investing the necessary time and effort into interview preparation.
For more media interview preparation tips, check out this post from my colleague Philip Anast.
by Brandon Glenn | Aug 7, 2024 | Blog
We all understand that the role of a corporate marketing department, among other things, is to promote its company, educate potential customers, and strengthen the company’s brand image – with the ultimate goal of driving higher sales.
Most marketers know how to articulate the benefits and value proposition of their company’s products, and, generally, they do a solid job of it.
What fewer marketers understand is when NOT to talk about their companies – particularly on social media. (For the purposes of this article, we’ll focus on LinkedIn because it’s the most valuable social site for business users.)
It’s important for marketers to remember that social media platforms are intended to encourage two-way communication, as opposed to functioning like a megaphone used to blast messages.
Accordingly, corporate social media must focus on providing value to followers. Indeed, corporate social media success requires putting followers’ wants and needs above the company’s own objectives.
The 80/20 rule for social media success
The 80/20 rule is the answer for keeping marketers focused on delivering value to their audiences. This cardinal rule for social media simply holds that 80% of the content posted to a social account should deliver value to the audience (think general industry news, opinions, and observations) while it’s ok for the other 20% to be blatantly promotional.
In my experience, most corporate marketing departments have mastered the 20% aspect of the rule but tend to struggle with the 80% part. Admittedly, it can be a little daunting in the beginning to understand and figure out how to fulfill this goal.
First, start with a list of keywords that pertain to your company’s niche in the industry. For example, if the company works in the virtual care space, create news alerts and perform searches for keywords like “telehealth,” “virtual care,” “virtual nursing,” “value-based care,” “healthcare staffing shortages,” and “healthcare burnout,” for example. Relevant hash tags can also help to surface third-party articles that discuss industry trends.
These articles make up the 80% of non-promotional content, while the other 20% can consist of product and technology-related information specific to the company.
Professionals go to LinkedIn when they need information, making it a great place to demonstrate thought leadership by sharing insights, stats, and case studies. These users want to discuss topics in their industry, cultivate professional connections, and better themselves as professionals along their career trajectory.
By adhering to the 80/20 rule, brands can help LinkedIn users accomplish these objectives. Just keep in mind the cardinal rule of social media: It’s not all about you.
by Brandon Glenn | Apr 17, 2024 | Blog
As a dutiful student and practitioner of public relations, corporate communications, and journalism, I have become intimately familiar with AP style – like it or not.
For example, I know that “Wi-Fi” is for some reason capitalized at all times and hyphenated regardless of where it’s used in a sentence.
I know that the word “unique” should never be used with a qualifier. Unique means “one-of-a-kind,” so what is the difference between something that is “very” or “rather” one-of-a-kind vs. something that is simply one-of-a-kind?
I know that Oxford commas are an affront to humanity and must be relegated to the ash heap of history.
Unfortunately, I’ve spent enough time learning, studying, and practicing these rules to wish for several years of my life back. Yet there is one AP style rule I keep coming back to mentally and have never been able to get out of my head since I learned it many years ago.
Who vs. that: Who is it that actually spent time thinking about this?
The best rule in the AP style pertains to the answer to a question that few people have ever dared to ask, and even fewer could bear the weight of fully contemplating: When we are referring to animals, is the appropriate relative pronoun “who” or “that”?
In other words, which is the right choice: “The dog who chased after the car” or “the dog that chased after the car”? “The rhinoceros who is bathing in the river” or “the rhinoceros that is bathing in the river”? (Side note: If I’m interpreting AP style correctly, the question marks in the previous paragraphs should be outside the quotation marks.)
Leave it to those visionary and imaginative AP style editors to come up with an answer that sheds much-needed clarity on an issue that most of us would find too trivial to even ponder: “It depends.”
Yes, it’s true. When confronted with a monumental, mind-blowing question that would affect the course of countless lives and have far-reaching implications for the future of humanity over decades to come, the AP style editors opted to hedge by choosing an answer with a little from column A, and a little from column B.
So, here’s the rule: Animals with names should be referred to as “who,” while animals without names should be referred to as “that” or “which.”
I’m not making this up. People were actually (presumably) paid real, legitimate money to sit around discussing this pressing and contentious issue, and this is what they thought was the best outcome. Alas, how we should refer to animals that/who may or may not have names, such as a stray cat that/who once had a name and guardian but now lives anonymously on the streets, remains frustratingly unclear.
I can’t help but fantasize about being a fly on the wall for the discussions that led to the creation of this rule. I can only hope it was an intense, hours-long discussion in the glass-walled conference room of a sleek urban high rise, with advocates of both sides of the debate having prepared long and detailed slide decks that present their sides of the case in agonizing detail.
I imagine that passions became so heated and rivalries grew so fierce between the “who” side and the “that” side that a couple of the editors nearly came to violent blows as they had to be separated by shocked, fearful colleagues who had underestimated the near-religious fervor such a debate would inspire.
I have a difficult time believing that AP style has ever given us a more unnecessary and largely pointless distinction than the “who” vs. “that” named-animal-rule controversy, but I hold out hope that there are even more obscure, dumber rules to discover as I continue my lifelong AP style learning pursuit.
by Brandon Glenn | Jan 3, 2024 | Blog
The sad state of local news in the U.S. is hardly news to anyone who has spent time in public relations and journalism.
News outlets across the nation are continually going out of business, creating “news deserts” where communities are largely devoid of any reliable sources of credible information.
Though often overlooked, local news outlets can be valuable resources for public relations professionals and their clients. Whether they are general interest dailies, weeklies, or business publications, these media outlets are often interested in milestone topics that don’t necessarily appeal to trade or national media, such as hiring plans, headquarters’ expansions, acquisitions, and other factors that may affect the local economy.
Over the last 15 years, ”the local news crisis has metastasized like a slow-moving cancer coursing through the bloodstream of enclaves from suburbia to rural America,” as a recent report on the state of local news from Northwestern University’s Medill School so eloquently phrased it.
The report is full of stark and sobering numbers and facts. For example:
- The nation has lost one-third of its newspapers and two-thirds of its newspaper journalists since 2005
- An average of 2.5 newspapers closed each week in 2023
- Roughly half of all U.S. counties are now only served with one remaining local news source — typically a weekly newspaper
- Most communities that lose a local newspaper typically do not get a replacement, even online
The decline of local news should be concerning for anyone who cares about democracy, good governance, and public accountability. Why? Studies have shown that the decline in local news has increased political polarization, led to more political corruption, and let outlets that spread misinformation fill the void, the AP reported.
Indeed, this dearth of reliable, community-level information “poses a far-reaching crisis for our democracy as it simultaneously struggles with political polarization, a lack of civic engagement, and the proliferation of misinformation and information online,” the Northwestern report states.
Wealthy corporations to the rescue? What could go wrong?
Against the backdrop of this escalating existential crisis for local news, I was interested to read a proposal by marketing thought leader extraordinaire Joe Pulizzi, founder of the Content Marketing Institute, who suggests that newspapers should follow the model of sports teams selling stadium naming rights to private companies.
Pulizzi throws out the example of his hometown Cleveland Plain Dealer, struggling with a barely there print product and less-than-attractive website, selling its naming rights to local megacorporation Progressive Insurance. Pulizzi notes that Progressive pays $3.6 million a year for the naming rights for the Cleveland Guardians’ stadium, while it spent $1.37 billion on advertising in 2022, so another $3 million to sponsor a newspaper represents the equivalent of loose pocket change for the insurance giant.
It’s an intriguing idea and one that we could see experimented with around the country, though as Pulizzi correctly notes, “A key challenge in making this concept a reality is ensuring mutual expectations are met for the businesses receiving such subsidies.”
Ahh, yes, there’s the potential problem. In other words, what kind of deference might Progressive’s executive suite and board of directors expect from The Progressive Plain Dealer when they object to the tone of its editorial coverage?
Corporate sponsorship would create a minefield of ethical challenges for journalists, the communities that rely on them for information, and corporate executives. If the past is any indication, this will not end well for journalists and their communities.
In my decade or so of experience as a business journalist one thing became abundantly clear: People who have accumulated a substantial amount of wealth, power, and influence will virtually always use that wealth, power, and influence to further their own interests. In a sense, they can’t help themselves. What’s the point of rising to power if you can’t use that power?
So, returning to the Progressive Plain Dealer example, what happens to the outlet’s news coverage when Progressive suffers an embarrassing public relations gaffe? What if the CEO’s country club buddy gets popped for a DUI? What if a political candidate the CEO is personally backing is shown to have used campaign funds to pay hush money to a porn star?
In all these scenarios, and countless others we could imagine if we took the time, I would virtually guarantee you that Progressive would use its funding, and the threat of revoking it, to try to slant the news outlet’s coverage in a way that is more favorable to Progressive’s viewpoint and business interests. The community would sense and suspect this, damaging the Progressive Plain Dealer’s credibility with its readers, and potentially plunging us back into the local news crisis all over again. Alas, cash rules everything around me, as some wise philosophers once reminded us.
Nonetheless, I applaud the creativity in seeking out solutions to the local news dilemma and may soon have little choice but to welcome our new corporate news overlords.
