WOS New: BackBone’s PR Initiative for EAPs with Stories to Tell

Communicating the business value of an EAP to business audiences has always been a challenge. The Workplace Outcome Suite (WOS) was developed by Chestnut Global Partners to change that by making a data-driven business case for investing in EAP and Health/Wellness Coaching. This also makes the WOS, when combined with your anecdotal success stories, the perfect narrative device for telling a quantitative and qualitative story that a general business audience will immediately get.

The WOS EAP PR Initiative helps EAPs cost-effectively promote their outcomes-based work. The “package” includes the writing and targeted media distribution of a press release and/or case study based on EAP outcomes and success stories. The program will be managed by BackBone, Inc., a public relations and marketing agency specializing in EAP, wellness and technology, and a long-time CGP partner.

This initiative provides targeted, affordable communications support for our family of WOS EAPs, while bringing a sustained, data-supported message to market – one that, over time, will make the business value of evidence-based EAP self-evident…and enable purchasers to know exactly what they’re buying.

We’re offering EAPA members and/or WOS users a 20% discount  on standard pricing, including a discount for wire service distribution. For more, visit www.backboneinc.com/WOSEAP or email us at wospr@backboneinc.com.

 

As our long-time PR partner, BackBone has been successful in telling our story to business and specialized audiences. The WOS PR Initiative gives EAPs an effective and affordable way to tell theirs – while underscoring the business value of evidence-based EAP. Dave Sharar, PhD, Director Commercial Science for CGP

 

For more on the WOS EAP PR Initiative, email us at info@backboneinc.com.

The Great Twitter Experiment: Will #Twitter280 Change What’s Unique About Twitter?

Imagine waking up to a world where nets are 11 feet high, zen koans are 75 syllables, amps go to 11, and speed limits are all 85 miles per hour (well, maybe that last one wouldn’t be that bad), or Tweets are longer — doubled, to a full 280 characters. Besides being the length of an ingredients label or a newspaper classified, 280 characters is a huge departure from the character limit that has, until now, made Twitter unique.

This week, Twitter made a controversial announcement — certain users would begin to beta-test 280 character tweets, rather than the traditional 140 characters, which has been in place since the social media platform began. Amidst the jokes and memes and, well, inevitable Tweets about this change, there’s been plenty of talk on both sides of the argument about whether or not this is a good idea in the first place. Should Twitter really be expanding its character limit for most people? Does the typical Twitter user have anything so profound to say that it can’t go in a thread or fit into 280 characters? Is this really a good thing? Is it the way of the future, or a huge step back?

In the “pros” column, there’s the obvious take — 280 characters will cut down on long Twitter threads, allow for full sentences and correct grammar, and perhaps even get rid of horrible abbreviations entirely. 280 characters means you can include apostrophes, which is a welcome sight for grammar nerds cruising through Twitter on a daily basis (ahem, hello). Perhaps 280 characters could lead to more profound revelations, more important thoughts, and longer-form deep dives into politics, the news of the day, and more.

This likely also won’t be quite as radical as some users might think — honestly, what Twitter user’s day to day life will change in any humongous way? Out of habit, most users will probably end up sticking to 140 characters regardless, and a quick, snappy joke won’t come close to overtaking 280 characters, making the entire limit arbitrary anyway. It also may encourage more people to tweet in the first place — people who found the 140 character limit, well, limiting. People with inactive Twitter accounts will be able to share more thoughts, tag more people, include more images, and overall just have more freedom. Could that possibly be a bad thing?

However, there’s another take to this, which is that this fundamental change could ruin what Twitter is about in the first place. One of the best things about Twitter’s 140 character limit is that it encourages brevity, thought, and cleverness (well, amongst most users). 140 characters is always smaller than you think, and even though a longer thought process is always going to require a thread, that’s really not the end of the world, and bite-sized thoughts remain pure and brief.

Only time will tell if this change is for the better or for the worse, but in the meantime, there’s a lot to chew on with this drastic character-doubling Twitter has bestowed upon certain (mostly validated) users. From a business perspective, especially when it comes to news, character limits won’t change what’s most vital about Twitter — immediacy. When a huge news event breaks, Twitter lets that information unfold in real time and is frequently faster than any news site out there, and expanding tweets to 280 characters won’t make this any less valuable. At a certain point, with our modern attention spans, we’ll likely find 280 characters just as limiting as 140, at which point, 280 will simply become the new 140, and the world will keep tweeting, er, turning.

Sponsored Content: Fake News or Savvy Marketing?

Sponsored contentImagine, for a moment, that you’re procrastinating your next big project (likely not hard to imagine) and you’re browsing an article on Buzzfeed, Bustle or GQ. Maybe you’re looking for new pasta recipes; maybe you want to learn more about the five love languages; maybe you want to see what’s happening in men’s fall fashion. The article seems… somewhat pointed, perhaps, and keeps mentioning Amazon, a men’s fashion subscription box, or Barillo pasta. You get curious and scroll to the top of the page, only to realize that the post is what some refer to as “native advertising” but what is, essentially, sponsored content. Which is to say, money changed hands in order for the content to appear.

You’d feel kind of tricked, right? Like you just wanted to read an article and instead, you’re being sold Amazon products or a specific pasta brand just so that the website can rake in a tidy profit from a particularly sneaky form of advertising? Sponsored content is becoming more and more prevalent as more publications — even the most prestigious — accept and even promote sponsored content. This is perfectly understandable, as media companies are under intense economic pressure and are looking for new revenue streams just to stay afloat. But does sponsored content do readers a disservice? And in so doing, are companies making a mistake going in this direction if it risks alienating their customers and potential customers who might feel had?  

When you see an ad on TV, in print, or on a website, you know you’re looking at a paid message. With sponsored content it’s not always obvious that what you are reading or looking at has been sponsored by a third party. Do publishers have to disclose when content is sponsored? Legally speaking, yes. According to Federal Trade Commission, publishers are required by law to disclose any “material connection” to a brand. Even a one sentence Tweet should include the hashtag #sponsored or #ad. The FTC gives publishers detailed guidelines about how, when and where to disclose this info. Unfortunately not everyone follows these laws – indeed, many big publishers hide their disclosures in order to blend their paid content in with their non-paid content, sometimes called native advertising.

Relatively new media companies such as Buzzfeed and Vice offer a diverse amount of “special content” and have been followed by blue chip media companies such as the New Yorker, which has branched into sponsored content in recent years, and the New York Times, which launched a branded content studio a few years ago called T Brand Studio.

Sponsored content has a place in the “marketing mix,” so long as the media outlet clearly delineates journalistic content from that which is paid for. We’d also note that just because you’re paying for it doesn’t mean you are now free to promote your brand, product or service…we’d argue that it’s all the more imperative that you take an even-handed, reportorial approach, erring on the side of providing information and insight versus bald touting of your awesomeness. As in most things, we recommend you just let your awesomeness emerge organically.

Bear in mind that BackBone specializes in “earned media” — getting clients coverage in credible media outlets on the strength of your story. This is still the most persuasive type of “messaging” as it’s either a reporter writing objectively about your and your company…or a bylined “thought leadership” article written by your or your CEO that’s almost entirely informational (with some degree of editorializing). Getting into a Forbes or Crain’s is hard, and sponsored may be the surest route; ideally, you’d be able to develop a portfolio weighted toward earned media, with key “gets” via sponsorship.  

We’ve worked with companies in developing sponsored content and believe it does have a place — but there are caveats and considerations. Ultimately, sponsored content works best when it’s “backed” by the credibility and third party validation that comes with  “earned” media.