Archive for the 'health care' Category

04
Aug

ChalkBot remembers Mom

Nike’s Chalkbot may be the perfect convergence of technology, social media, and cause marketing.

Essentially a pneumatic chalk-paint sprayer driven by a computer, ChalkBot takes messages from around the world via text messaging, Facebook, Twitter and the LiveSTRONG web site, and sprays them in yellow on the roads of the Tour de France during the event.

According to The Inspiration Room blog, the system includes a text-message interface, web-based queue and approval system for tour officials, onboard machine and nozzle control, spray mechanism, camera and GPS capture system, and Twitter integration. (See how it works below.)

The messages generally support the fight against cancer, encourage survivors, and memorialize loved ones. On the ChalkBot landing page are sample messages submitted by others and a Google map indicating their points of origination.

I gave it a try and submitted a message in memory of my mom who died of cancer in 2000.

On July 19, the Tour entered the Pyrenees during Stage 14. Christophe Riblon, a Fenchman, escaped early on the road between Revel and Ax 3 Domaines and held off the charge of the peloton to win the day. The main contenders, Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador, played cat-and-mouse games with each other during the stage’s two difficult climbs. Schleck retained the yellow jersey.

Meanwhile, a few miles away, the ChalkBot was spraying messages on the Stage 16 route, the roads between Bagnéres-de-Luchon and Pau. One of them was mine.

Recently I received an email message from Nike with a photo of my message painted on the road, along with the date, the time of day, and the GPS coordinates. Great followup. Mom would have been amazed.

06
Jul

Tour de Tweets II

istock_000000723614xsmall

Note: It’s Tour Time! Here’s a post I wrote last year about the nearly seamless integration of social media into the event. In many ways, the 2009 Tour broke new ground for both participants and fans at major sporting events. And, yes, the ChalkBot is back in 2010!

The 2009 Tour de France, highlighted by Lance Armstrong’s return, may be remembered as much for being the first sporting event in history to fully integrate social media into the competition and the coverage.

Nearly every one of the 20 teams blogged and tweeted (e.g., Garmin-Slipstream and Astana).

Numerous riders and team managers tweeted as well (e.g., Levi Leipheimer, Andy Schleck, and Johan Bruyneel. (For examples of Twitter use by riders, see Dara Kerr’s post at CNET News.)

Active.com combined tweets from all of the participating riders and managers into one stream.

Armstrong, a skilled promoter, was most prolific. In Becky Ebenkamp’s post at Brandweek, Richard Rosenblatt, CEO of Demand Media, which owns the Livestrong.com community, said, “(Armstrong) called up and said, ‘I … want to broadcast through Livestrong.com exclusively and use Twitter to make sure people can not only see the tour, but actually feel it and hear it directly from my mouth — unedited.’”

His Twitter and Facebook posts regularly included behind-the-scenes videos and photos. A skilled promoter, he leveraged his celebrity and his celebrity friends to raise awareness for Livestrong, such as a video of Ben Stiller clowning on Lance’s warm-up bike.

Traditional sports media relied on Twitter for leads. The Daily Mail published Lance’s Twitter diary. And while many of the riders’ posts were banal, some provided real insight into the action, such as this comment by multiple-stage winner Mark Cavendish, “Yesterday with 3km to go, Piet Rooijakkers (skil shimano) kidney punched me.”

The official Tour de France site included a fantasy team competition as well as blogs and Twitter.

Versus.com, the site of the TV network which broadcast the race, incorporated a dazzling array of fan-friendly features, including live coverage, mobile alerts, daily blogs including Armstrong’s, a message board, a widget providing updates, podcasts, an ask-the-expert feature, a serialized graphic novel, a sweepstakes, a virtual library of video and photos, trivia quizzes, and games.

One of Armstong’s sponsors, Nike, donates proceeds from the sale of Livestrong products to the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Its tour site provided visitors the opportunity to post their own stories in words or video of hope in the face of cancer.

It also featured an ingenious innovation — the Chalkbot. Messages of encouragement and remembrance, texted by site visitors, were spray-chalked thousands of miles away on the roads of the tour during the event by the Chalkbot. Who could resist memorializing a loved one in this way?

The 2009 Tour was perhaps the most connected athletes, teams, sponsors, charities, media and fans have ever been. Where do you think it will lead?

22
Jun

High-fructose corn syrup: a commodity fights back

istock_000002171359xsmall“The public now puts high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the same category as trans fats: poison.”

So says nutritionist Marion Nestle in a post at her blog, Food Politic.

Wow. That’s a bitter pill for the corn-refining industry, given that every American consumes on average 60-plus pounds of the sweetener per year.

Thanks to governmental subsidies of U.S. corn and an import tariff on foreign sugar, HFCS is a cheap substitute used in the manufacturing of processed foods.

And it is in just about everything — not just the obvious culprits, such as pop, candy, desserts and fast food, but also supposedly healthy foods such as bread, yogurt, salad dressings, and cereal.

Read the label. HFCS is big business.

Lately, however, due to HFCS’s association with obesity, Americans are changing their preferences. Brands such as Heinz, Gatorade, Ocean Spray and Wheat Thins are being reformulated without it. Pepsi and Snapple are introducing HFCS-free versions. In fact, sales of HFCS-free foods are approaching $1 billion.

“Consumer demand for HFCS has dropped 11 percent, says a new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” according to Virginia Sole-Smith in a post at Planet Green’s blog. “HFCS makers will also buy 13 percent less corn syrup this market year than they did at the highest point of corn syrup sales in 2001.”

The Corn Refiners Association is not too happy its product’s image has soured. It maintains HFCS is “just sugar,” and launched a $30 million campaign to “change the conversation.” (Watch the TV spots below.)

Interestingly, Al Ries (who along with Jack Trout, advanced the concept of brand “positioning”) says the problem may be the category name. In a recent article in Advertising Age, he notes that. “Even today, thanks to the objections of the Sugar Association, the FDA is resisting a simple name change from ‘high-fructose corn syrup’ to ‘corn syrup.’” (The Sugar Association, which positions sugar as “natural,” categorizes HFCS as a “man-made sweetener.”)

I’m always fascinated by commodities that run brand positioning campaigns, such as the California Milk Processor Board’s “Got Milk?” and The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s “Beef. It’s what’s for dinner.

Which sugar is truly “natural?” Which is the least unhealthy “in moderation?” Is it corn, cane or beet? Bring on the Sugar Wars.

26
Apr

“We’re number 18!” Do rankings matter?

college-index-badgegr_pr_besthospitals_badge_gray86x86I recently saw an outdoor board in another city touting a local hospital’s heart program as one of the 100 best in the nation. 100? Cleverly, I deduced there are 99 better ones.

When my kids were visiting colleges, I subscribed to the online edition of U.S. News & World Report‘s America’s Best Colleges rankings. It seemed important at the time that whichever schools they chose be somewhere on the list.

But, as with most consideration sets, there is first place and then there is everything else.

Among universities, the best, according to the rankings, are Harvard and Princeton (tie). The best cancer center is University of Texas M.D. Anderson. The best heart center is the Cleveland Clinic. And so on.

However, not being number one hasn’t stopped most of the others from promoting their also-ran standings.

Ads, TV spots and billboards proudly proclaim various institutions as “one of the top 25″ or “one of America’s best.” U.S. News & World Report badges are prominently displayed.

If you were planning to have your kidney removed at University of North Carolina Hospitals in Chapel Hill (#28 in kidney disorders), would you instead drive to Winston-Salem to Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center (#26)? After all, it’s two positions “better.”

A major premise of brand positioning, as explained in Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, by Al Ries and Jack Trout, is that no one remembers more than the top couple of brands in a particular category.

Twenty-fourth best orthopedics program? Forget it.

Rankings may matter to employees, prospects, and referring physicians, but most institutions would be better served to find more unique ways to stand apart in the minds of health care consumers than proclaiming to be “one of America’s best.”

Disclaimer: This post was written by an employee of one of America’s best branding and marketing firms.

07
Apr

How health-care reform will change hospital marketing

istock_000008683429xsmallAfter months of political wrangling, the health-care reform bill is now law.

What does it mean for hospital marketing?

Here are some predictions:

1) It is generally held that prevention and wellness initiatives will reduce health-care costs over time. More and more, hospitals will reach outside of their four walls to address public health issues with new education campaigns on topics such as anti-obesity and hand-washing.

2. Beyond education, actionable public health initiatives such as vaccination programs will increase and require promotion.

3. Patient self-management of chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes also saves health-care money, but will require patient awareness campaigns and education.

4. Hospitals will be required to report outcomes and quality care metrics on their websites and in community reports.

5. Media scrutiny of quality and costs will increase. Relationships with journalists will require special handling.

6. Providers are expecting an influx of new patients. Patient communications will grow in importance, as first-time patients will need help navigating the health-care system. As many previously uninsured patients may be younger, poorer, and more ethnically diverse, communicators will explore new channels to reach those audiences.

7. New patients will likely overwhelm the system in the near term, which will heat up competition to fill new positions. Recruitment advertising and branding aimed at prospective physicians and nurses hires will increase.

8. Staff will require education about the impact of health-care reform on their jobs. With more demands on the system, staff motivation efforts will increase.

9. Philanthropic support will be required to help fund increased capability and resources to meet the additional demand for services.

10. Hospitals which haven’t already done so will open internet portals where patients can access their  personal medical records and test results, as well as manage their accounts.

11. As more collaborative arrangements develop, managing and promoting relationships with payers, government agencies and social-service organizations will increase in importance.

12. Hospitals will promote their quality-improvement and cost-cutting measures. Branding will be based upon the proven success of these initiatives.

Those are my guesses for what the next few years hold in store for health-care communicators. What are yours?

08
Mar

Are running shoes a sham?

istock_000008706988xsmallIf you spend in the neighborhood of $100 per pair of running shoes like I do, you may find the following statement by Dr. Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard University, disconcerting:

“A lot of foot and knee injuries that are currently plaguing us are actually caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to over-pronate, give us knee problems,” says Lieberman in Born To Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen, a book by Christopher McDougall.

“Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented by Nike, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet, and had much lower incidence of knee injuries.”

Lieberman’s study and McDougall’s book are fueling a debate within running circles (and shoe companies). Are running shoes not only not helping us, but actually hurting us? Is running barefoot safer?

“We were born to run, but maybe not with shoes on,” says The Boston Globe. “New research … shows that people who run barefoot or with minimal shoes — as people have done for millions of years — often land on their feet in a way that avoids a jarring impact. That’s very different from most shoe-clad runners, who crash down on their heels with every bound.”

Or as Popular Mechanics asks, “Could shoes — and shoe companies — be part of a $25 billion snake oil industry, covering hundreds of thousands of perfectly able bare feet?”

Lieberman explains on his study’s web site that “runners who forefoot or midfoot strike do not need shoes with elevated cushioned heels to cope with these sudden, high transient forces that occur when you land on the ground.”

McDougall isn’t quite so gentle. One full chapter of his book is an indictment of Nike and other running shoe manufacturers that he believes know their shoes are causing injury and continue to sell them anyway.

At least one shoe company, New Balance, addresses the issue head on: “After hundreds of years of walking with shoes on, is it time we relearn? There’s a movement going on that challenges the very foundation of sneaker wearers (not to mention sneaker companies) everywhere, around running barefoot. This broad grouping of perspectives includes some runners who are finding they prefer to run exclusively barefoot, some who prefer to run with minimally cushioned shoes, and others who like to vary their runs between shod, minimally shod, and shoeless.”

Nike, the inventor of the modern high-tech, highly engineered running shoe, doesn’t miss a trick. Or a marketing niche. It has introduced a new shoe, Nike Free, that for all the world looks like the flat-soled Keds, PF Flyers, and Chuck Taylor All Stars I wore as a kid. The Nike Free slogan? “Run Supernatural.” Back to the future, I guess.

In his book, McDougall builds the case that humans are built — not to run fast — but to run long. He tracks down and studies the mythical Tarahumara Indians who run for extreme distances in lightweight sandals in the remote and deadly Copper Canyons of Mexico.

And he’s a convert. Since running in Vibram FiveFingers, a neoprene sock-like foot covering, he’s seen his running injuries disappear.

Though I’m not quite ready to hit the pavement barefoot, especially in the winter, the idea of lacing up the old Chucks from high school is kind of appealing. As I remember, I was faster back then.

How about you?





Subscribe to the RSS feed

Archives


“9 Criteria for Brand Essence” Deck

The 9 Criteria for Brand Essence



twitter grader

Add to Technorati Favorites
Featured in Alltop

Invesp landing page optimization
Chris Brogan says I'm a Rockstar!

Top 100 Blogs Award
Brand Management featured writer