Case studies (aka customer stories) are one of the most powerful tools in an organization’s marketing arsenal. And for good reason.
If you are an unknown or little-known company, a great case study that names the customer can provide you with instant credibility. Many (most?) organizations are fairly risk-averse, which means they’re reluctant to take a chance on a new solution no matter how much promise it holds. A case study often gives them the confidence to overcome those fears.
If you are an industry leader, case studies are a great way to demonstrate that your reputation is not just a product of marketing hype. You are a substantial company that continues to work hard to deliver value to your customers.
Of course, all of this assumes one key factor: you have actual results to show.
What do I mean by that? Of course you have results! You created all these materials, delivered all these widgets, documented all these exchanges, etc.
Nope, sorry. Those aren’t results. Those are activities.
So while all of those things are good and necessary, they’re just the table stakes. What your readers will really be interested in is what impact all those activities had on your customers, or their customers.
Here’s a quick healthcare example. If you produced a program to help a hospital’s patients with diabetes gain control over their HbA1c levels that’s great. The fact that you produced four YouTube videos, six pamphlets and three infographics gives the reader a sense of the scope of the program.
But those aren’t results. Results would be something like 60% of those who enrolled in the program got their HbA1c levels under 7.0 and 85% lowered their rates by at least two points in the first six months.
What’s the difference? In the first example you did something that was necessary to success but it didn’t cause anything to change.
Had all those same materials been produced but not distributed there would have been no way of knowing whether they would be effective or not because they weren’t yet in the hands of the people who needed them. You might as well have blown up balloons with pictures of clowns on them.
In the second example, the materials you produced were distributed and produced outcomes among those to whom they were targeted. THAT is what your prospects want to know.
They’re not interested in your ability to produce slick materials in a variety of formats. They’re interested in whether the program achieved the intended goals.
This distinction between activities and results becomes particularly important when the case study is repurposed for a speaker application – especially a complex application for an event such as HIMSS.
While all the background and steps that were taken are important, having real results to speak to is critical. I’ve never been in the room where it happens, but I imagine that when HIMSS applications are received the reviewers immediately go to the results section. If all you have to show is activities, the application immediately gets sent to the discard folder.
I understand that securing customers to participate in case studies can be difficult, and often beggars can’t be choosers. If your only option is a customer that either isn’t tracking results (unthinkable in today’s digital world but apparently it happens) or doesn’t have quantifiable results to speak of yet, so be it.
But if that’s the case you need to recognize that the effectiveness of your case study (or speaker application) will be diminished. Prospects will leave a bit disappointed, the media will be reluctant to write their own stories about it, and event organizers will be likely to pass on your speaker application. Expectations for success should be set accordingly.
Case studies are wonderful tools, but their effectiveness is closely tied to the results you have to tout. Understanding the difference between activities and outcomes will help ensure you do all you can to deliver the best – and most effective – case studies to help your PR and marketing efforts.
Whenever I get award entries (or PR proposals for that matter) to review, I am always struck at how much confusion there is between what constitutes a strategy versus a tactic.
Generally what I will find is that the strategies and tactics are mixed together in some sort of strange PR stew that is like covering seasoned beef with strawberry jam. Both are tasty on their own, but together they just don’t quite work.
This confusion becomes more evident on entry forms that ask for deeper details. If all the competition is asking for is some company details and 300-word description of why whatever you did is award-worthy you don’t have to spend a lot of time separating strategy and tactics.
If, however, the entry form asks for 500 words on strategies around the objectives, then another 500 words on the tactics/execution you used to achieve the objectives, well, you’re going to need to understand the difference. Or find someone who does. Or hope the judges don’t understand it any better than you do.
Basically, the strategy is the overall plan of action – the big picture of what you intend to do. The tactics are the actions you take to get it done.
In baseball, for example, the strategy in a close game might be to advance a runner on first into scoring position (i.e., second or third base for those not familiar with baseball lingo). Doing so will give you a heightened opportunity to add a run to your total (at least in theory; SABRmetrics has shattered a lot of those beliefs in recent years).
HOW you advance that runner is where the tactics come in. You could lay down a sacrifice bunt. You could have the hitter try to bunt for a hit. You could do a hit-and-run, where the runner on first takes off for second and the hitter tries to hit the ball behind him to the right side. You could have the runner on first steal second while the hitter covers him with a swing and miss.
All of those are valid tactics or ways of getting the runner to second. Which you use depends on your personnel and a whole bunch of other factors.
Now let’s talk about PR award entries and why it seems so difficult to tell the two apart. Let’s say one objective of the program is:
“Company A was losing sales to larger competitors, so it needed to create a larger-than-life image to overcome this hurdle.”
How did they plan to do that? The strategy was to use PR to increase its visibility in the marketplace without the huge investment advertising would require. But here’s where it starts to go wrong.
The next sentence in the “strategy” section will talk about how Company A started issuing press releases and thought leadership pieces on a regular basis.
No, those are tactics. They required specific actions from Company A or its agency. The same is true with launching a media relations or analyst relations program. Those, again, are actions the company took.
Again, strategy defines what needs to be done on a broad scale – in other words a business issue. Tactics describe the steps you will take/are taking/have taken to accomplish the strategy.
Here are a few more quick examples that will help stratify the three areas – goals/objectives, strategy and tactics – in your award entries and other materials:
Goals/Objectives
Increase share of voice
Improve company reputation
Establish new market
Attract funding
Position for sale
Strategies
Create a thought leadership program
Engage subject matter experts (SMEs) in developing content
Improve understanding of what media outlets clients/prospects rely on
Gain a better understanding of what product features/benefits are important to customers/prospects
Make messaging more concise/easier to understand
Tactics
Issue X number of press releases for the year
Write byline articles on these specific topics
Develop a media list
Media-train SMEs and other company spokespeople
Apply for awards/speaker opportunities
The beauty of understanding the differences is that award entries then practically write themselves. They tell the story of how you started broadly, then worked your way through the process to achieve the results.
Taking that little bit of extra time to think through what is a strategy versus a tactic isn’t always easy. But it’s worth the effort – especially when you receive that happy notification that you’ve won the award you were targeting.
It sounds like a simple request: we’re going to be at such-and-such conference or event and we want to secure some media interviews while we’re there. It makes sense, since trade show media interviews have been a staple of public relations pretty much since Glogg launched the wheel at the first Prehistoric Transportation Expo.
The problem is the business and media worlds have changed quite a bit in the last 10 years, particularly in healthcare. Major trade shows such the HIMSS Global Health Conference and Exhibition have grown tremendously. In fact, before it was cancelled due to COVID-19 concerns, HIMSS20 was touting that it would have more than 1,300 exhibitors covering 1.2 million square feet of floor space. And they are not the only ones to experience this proportional growth.
In the meantime, the media world has been shrinking. Overall there are fewer reporters and fewer publications. Budget considerations mean that the remaining publications will be sending fewer reporters to cover conferences, and some may not send any at all – even for large conferences such as HIMSS.
You can probably see where I’m headed. With so much competition for so few “prizes” the odds are really stacked against you. That’s why it’s important to be on top of your pitching game.
Here are a few suggestions to help you rise to the top of reporters’ must-see lists and secure more trade show media interviews once in-person conferences are a thing again.
First, be realistic
Back when I started at Amendola Communications, it was not unusual for us to target 7-9 media and analyst appointments for our clients at a major trade show such as HIMSS. That is no longer feasible.
The entire media list at a conference that size may have between 100 and 200 names on it. Of those, only a small percentage are likely to cover your company’s segment, and some of the people within that subset will be publishers who aren’t interested in what you’re selling but instead want to sell you on advertising or marketing with their publications.
If you’re lucky, maybe there are 10 names on that list that are appropriate and valuable for media interviews. It’s unlikely those 10 people only cover your niche, however, so there could be dozens of companies competing for their time.
They are also going to want to attend some of the educational sessions, or take part in other activities, so the time they have to devote to booth or media room interviews is actually fairly limited.
You are unlikely to capture the attention of all 10, so expecting a number even close to that range is simply unrealistic. A more practical number is 2-3. If you secure that many interviews with the right people these days you’re doing well.
At a smaller conference, there may only be 10 reporters (or fewer) attending, no matter what the advance media list says. If you can get even one of those 10 to interview your subject matter experts you’re doing well. That’s just the realities and economics of the media world today.
Building the pitch
Now that you know what you’re up against, and how competitive it really is, it’s time to start building the pitch.
If you’re going to be successful in rising to the top of the must-see list, you need to capture reporters attention. The easiest way NOT to do that is to talk about yourself.
If your pitch starts out “(OUR AWESOME COMPANY) has been in healthcare for 20 years. In that time we have helped dozens of hospitals and health systems (DO SOMETHING GENERIC, LIKE IMPROVE OUTCOMES AND LOWER COSTS) you’re going to wind up with a hard pass. No matter how many follow-up calls you make or how much you beat up your agency to get appointments.
There is nothing in that generic pitch that is interesting or urgent to the reporter. Remember that the first three letters in “news” are “new.”
To secure those trade show media interviews you have to present something rare and valuable, right up-front.
Offer a customer
The absolute gold is customer stories. Reporters always, always, always want to talk to customers. Did I say they ALWAYS want to do that?
If you have a customer to speak with, lead with that. Make it the major part of your pitch. You can also offer to hook them up with your SME while they’re there, but telling them they can speak to a customer who has used your product and produced quantifiable results with it moves you to the head of the class.
Talk about a new product or service
If you don’t have a customer to offer, second in line is the introduction of a new product or service. Not just an upgrade of your existing offering but a true innovation. If you can talk about an industry issue and explain how your solution addresses it in a way that has never been done before, you’re bound to capture some interest.
Lead with industry issues
What if you’re just going to be there with no customers and nothing new? Honestly, it’s going to be tough to secure any trade show media interviews. But you never know a reporter might have a hole or two to fill, or may already be a fan of your organization.
In that case, the best you can do is again start with an industry issue and then go into how you solve it versus starting with your company’s boilerplate or “About Us” from the website and then getting around to the problem you solve.
One other thing to keep in mind: although you may love and admire your CEO, unless he/she has an Elon Musk or Bill Gates level of celebrity is probably not that interesting to a reporter. Talk about an issue, then offer up the CEO as someone who can address the solution.
Try working relationships
One other thing you can try is working good, existing relationships with reporters. If you’ve worked with someone a few times in the past that person may be willing to at least do a “drive-by” an unscheduled stop when he/she has a few free moments.
While not as reliable as confirmed trade show media interviews you never know. The reporter may stumble across something interesting and spend some time checking it out.
Of course, if you don’t have any relationships already it might be a good time to speak with a PR agency that does. I can think of one in particular that has an outstanding reputation with reporters and editors in healthcare and health IT.
An agency with a large client roster will sometimes get opportunities not available to the general public, such as a reporter asking for a list of clients attending the conference so he/she can pick and choose the ones he/she wants to visit. That’s the fast track to a trade show media interviews because the reporter is depending on his/her relationship with the agency to lead him/her to the right clients.
No guarantees
Even with all of those tips there is still no guarantee you’ll get the trade show media interviews you desire. There’s a lot of hard work, and not a small amount of luck, that goes into it.
Still, these tips can help you increase your odds and make your own luck. And if you’d like that agency help, give us a call.
Probably the greatest single piece of advice I’ve ever heard about content creation didn’t come from a college class/professional course, or a boss/mentor, or any other supposed expert source. Instead, it came from the movie “Planes, Trains and Automobiles.” Here it is:
Yes, it’s said in anger and frustration as part of a much longer rant. The whole piece is brutally painful as well as brutally funny.
But within the comedy is a true pearl of wisdom: Try having a point.
Death of a story
We see this all the time. Someone at an organization recognizes that they need to produce content to demonstrate the organization’s expertise so they can gain a competitive advantage.
The organization’s subject matter experts (SMEs), who are very knowledgeable and have strong views on the topics in their wheelhouses, share their ideas and experience with the marketing team and PR agency. They have the makings of a great story that will capture attention and position the organization as a leader in the market.
The content is produced, and it captures the passion and expertise of the SMEs. Then the review rounds start, and by the time the organization is done scrubbing the content what was once a fat, juicy steak has been sanitized until it is reduced to a piece of limp broccoli that will be of interest to exactly no one including an editor.
Sometimes it takes the form of genericizing the content until it sounds like something a high school senior would turn in for a composition class after the grades have already been posted. It’s serviceable, grammatically correct and decently organized, but it no longer conveys the fire that the SME felt for the topic.
Basically, any sense of personality has been removed. That’s bad enough.
Worse are the reviews that take an interesting, informative piece and convert it into a blatant marketing piece for the organization. That might work on the organization’s website, but it won’t fly if you’re trying to get it past an editor for earned (read: non-paid) media.
Of course, even if you could make it past that gatekeeper, there’s really nothing in it for the reader. If they wanted to read marketing-speak they would have gone to your website.
Healthcare’s special challenge
Healthcare organizations have a special challenge because our industry loves us some jargon. It seems like healthcare as a whole never met a technical term or three-letter acronym (TLA) it didn’t like.
It’s almost as if the goal is to make the content as difficult to read as possible, like it requires some sort of book cipher to read it. Which of course goes against the most basic rules of successful selling, where you want to convey information in the easiest-to-understand language to reach the broadest audience possible.
Making content effective
The most effective content is the content that has a point to make and makes it convincingly. It doesn’t just convey information. It grabs the reader or viewer by the lapels and says, “Sit down and listen, because I’m going to tell you something you need to know.”
It then does just that: focuses on what the reader/viewer needs to hear rather than only on what the produce of the content wants to say. But it does it in a way, as Steve Martin’s character says, that is much more interesting for the listener.
In many cases, that means telling a story that has a beginning, middle and end. As humans we are wired to understand information presented in story form. It’s part of our survival mechanism.
The Vanishing Hitchhiker approach
Take urban legends. The point of an urban legend isn’t to get you to believe in the legend itself (although social media may have changed that intention). The point is to warn you that something bad could happen if you’re not careful about certain behaviors, like teenagers parking in a remote area to do the things teenagers do.
But even when we’re not warning about the dangers of parking near insane asylums when a resident with a hook for a hand escapes, stories help give us context we can use to process information and ultimately take an action. For marketing that means becoming interested in our product or service.
That doesn’t mean every piece of content must tell a story. But unless it’s a data or spec sheet, it needs to be interesting enough to capture and keep our attention, especially when so much else is competing for it these days.
The point is…
If you make your content bland, or plain vanilla, it’s true you’re unlikely to offend anyone. But you’re also unlikely to persuade anyone either.
If your goal is to capture hearts, minds and ultimately sales leads, be sure your content has a point. It’s so much more interesting for the listener/reader/viewer.
It may not quite be Lincoln and Douglas, or even great taste/less filling. But the debate about which is more important to a brand’s online presence great content or search engine optimization (SEO) continues to rage on.
On one side you have the writers. Especially the “old school” writers (like me) who launched their careers long before Al Gore invented the Internet.
When I started writing we used typewriters electric ones. I’m not that old. The total focus was on the quality of the content. Clever, attention-grabbing headlines that led into powerful, motivating body copy that carried the message in an interesting way was “all” that was required.
Then came the Internet, and with it the omnipotent search engines. No longer was it enough for headlines and copy to be creative and interesting. The data wonks said it also had to include certain keywords that would tell the search engines a particular page or document was relevant to the search the user was conducting.
In other words, if the user is searching on the term “crazy bunnies” it was important for those keywords to appear in the headline, and in the little words that came after. Especially the first paragraph.
While that makes sense from a data point of view, it definitely created a dilemma for writers. Having a brilliant headline was no longer enough, because you weren’t just trying to capture the attention of humans. You also had to capture the attention of the machines.
That situation set up a sort of chicken-and-egg dilemma. You could write the best website, or article, or other content in the world, but if no one could find it in a marketing world that increasingly relied on search what was the point?
On the other hand, if your document was easy to find due to liberal use of keywords but not very interesting or engaging, again what was the point? You’d lose the audience you’d worked so hard to capture.
It also led to practices such as keyword stuffing (including keywords out of context for the sole purpose of raising searching rankings) and a host of other tricks such as putting keywords on a page in the same color as the background so they couldn’t be seen by humans but would be read by web crawlers. Didn’t take long for the search engines to figure that one out.
Keeping the balance
Fortunately, Google (and other search engines no one really cares about) have continually updated their algorithms to go beyond simple keywords. They are getting better and better at determining the context of the content to ensure it’s actually relevant.
Still, keywords are important to success. So how do you reconcile the desire to write content that reaches people on a deep, human level with the need to tell the machines yes, this is the information they’ve been looking for?
Here is a process I’ve found to be effective.
Start by knowing which keywords are ranking for the topic you want to promote. If you don’t already have a list, you can use Google AdWords, a free service, to plug in some terms that are relevant to your product/service. Then see which ones have relatively high search volumes with low competition. That will tell you what terms your audience is likely to be searching on, and how difficult it will be to rank high for them. The goal, of course, is page one above the fold. Be sure to check Google’s suggested substitutions too. There may be a more effective word or phrase lurking in there somewhere. Of course, if you have an agency (such as, oh, I dunno, Amendola Communications) you can hand that work off to them.
Once you have your list, set it aside. Then develop the content in a way that is the most interesting and speaks to your audience(s). Don’t worry about keywords right now. Just make sure you’re telling a good story that demonstrates your knowledge and/or experience and convinces your target audience that you would be the best choice. In other words, write as though the Internet doesn’t exist.
After you have great content, go back and look for places to plug in your keywords. Start with the headline and the first paragraph. Is there a way to work in your most important keyword? Then sprinkle in others throughout the rest of the content. In some cases it may require a bit of rewriting, but often you’ll be surprised at how easily a keyword can be substituted for another word or phrase. Writing in this fashion, rather than trying to write to the keywords initially, will help the keywords fit more organically, and will keep you from writing dull and, well, robotic content.
Finally, when you think it’s ready to go have someone who hasn’t been involved in the process read it to ensure those keywords are fitting in as well as you think they are. Taking this extra step doesn’t just help with human readers, by the way. With the sophisticated machine learning many search engines are applying these days it will also help minimize any appearance that you’re trying to “game” the system. Instead, your keywords will fit in the context of your content, and you will be rewarded by Google, the Great and Powerful.
Walk the line
Great content and SEO don’t have to be treated as opposing forces. In fact, they can (and should) work very well together.
By focusing first on what you want to say, and then bringing in the flags that will help that great content get seen, you can bring customers and prospects to your website and make sure they’re delighted once they get there.
