Measuring Up

Hiring freezes send shivers down clients’ spine

The other day, I was reading in a PR industry trade that one of the largest public advertising holding companies has finally lifted its 18 month hiring freeze. I guess either business has come back (at least a little) for this mammoth marketing services company, or it finally decided that it just can’t maintain a complete hold on bringing in new talent forever.

This definitely brought back memories (mostly negative) of my days at J. Walter Thompson. I remember that we had an “unofficial” hiring freeze for about a six month period. While, no official edict had come down from the corporate decision makers in the UK, all senior executives understood very well that any new hires had to be approved in triplicate form by the top brass, or there would be hell to pay. This reality meant that a typical hire could take a long time to be approved (in some cases four to five months). So, the effect caused many firms within the global network to either just give in and find ways to maximize current talent (as they had lost the stomach for fighting against the system), or become ultra creative to work with outside talent, but not officially hire them. This often included fudging the use of consultants/freelancers or even offering people jobs, but being very creative in how their salaries were hidden within a larger cost structure.

Of course, the only ones that really felt the collateral damage with these across the board freezes, were clients. Think about it. Let’s say there are over 200 individual marketing services companies in a typical advertising holding company. I guarantee that even in the worst of times, at least five, ten or even 20 of those companies are doing just fine because their businesses ran counter cyclical to the masses. As a businessman, I understand the need to cut costs and protect the larger entity as a whole, but the 5-10 percent of firms who still need to hire because business is coming through the door, can’t when this mandate is set. So, what happens? Clients are promised x, y and z in terms of quality and quantity of talent to service their account. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that some of that is sacrificed because as much as the agency rants and raves to higher level management sitting in their ivory towers, the resources needed, simply can’t be allocated. A secondary evil that then transpires is that very good account and creative leaders and managers within those well to do agencies start walking out the door. They are frustrated beyond belief and have had quite enough with the big agency model. Sometimes the domino effect ensues because the delicate agency balance between having really great talent to service new business and top accounts diminishes once the anger and frustration spreads.

Any way you slice it, across the board hiring freezes are just dumb policies. This whole topic is kind of ironic considering that agencies are only in business to service clients in the highest way. So, the big, public holding companies (without saying it) actually advocate doing the opposite during bad times through these poorly created mandates. 

Big, bureaucratic policies like these, which have no room for flexibility to meet the most basic client needs (and demands), represent some reasons why we started Peppercom in the first place. When times are bad, it’s understood that sometimes resources need to be let go and adding staff just can’t happen. But, most independent firms are smart and would never just implement something so inflexible as a cast in stone hiring freeze. Instead, it’s about understanding which marketing or communications areas clients need the most professional help in. Then, if necessary, these smaller agencies make trade-offs or just plain invest their own money to ensure that clients are being served they way they promised to. Profit levels are often sacrificed when this happens, but that’s understood. The public agencies can do no such thing because they are under the constant pressure of their investors.

I’m not a public holding company basher (at least, not usually). It’s just that this practice has been happening for so long and just hasn’t changed. You’d think someone at the top would get it (finally). But, I guess not.   

Making Oscar ethical again...

I found this article amusing. As you'll read, one of the co-producers of the highly acclaimed small budget film "Hurt Locker" has been banned from attending this year's Oscar Awards Ceremony.

It seems Nicholas Chartier broke Academy rules by emailing some Academy judges in February, urging them to vote for his film as movie of the year. In the same email, he lambasted the high budget, fan favorite (Avatar) that is the clear front runner.

Academy campaign rules ban direct personal communications with members, and explicitly ban any attempt to cast a negative light on a competing film. Mr. Chartier has apologized. But, his penalty is set in stone.

It's hard for me to say whether this man's "ethical” lapse in judgment calls for a penalty like this. But, I find this whole episode ironic. From what I hear, personal emails such as this are really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how studios (and their representatives) now market, lobby and directly sell, push and prod to convince Academy judges to vote for their films.

Yes, this has become a big business within Hollywood. And, one that isn't taken lightly by PR, promotions, advertising, agents and other niche service providers who make big bucks spending lots of time and energy waging hard hitting campaigns to achieve results. The pursuit of the Oscar is understandable. Winning one these days means instant fame for newbie's in the business and creates an ongoing spotlight of recognition for any actor, director (or even sound producer) who is continually looking to build his/her career. It also means the ability to command a lot more money on any future films, promotions and sponsorships.

Peppercom has never gotten involved in the Hollywood scene (thank God). A firm really needs to have deep Tinseltown roots to be effective in that city (which is all about who you know versus the substance of one's communications strategy). That just never interested us. But, I have marketing and entertainment friends who are highly networked into this scene. Most agree, that the battle to obtain the Oscar has become an absolute obsession which has forced friendly competitors to become hostile combatants who often take on a "win at all cost" attitude. I've heard that it's not uncommon for campaigns to include "unofficial and casual" lunches or drinks with Academy members, as well as gifts (offered under other auspices) and nasty public relations battles behind the scenes with Hollywood media and other influencers who can help sway both perceptions and decisions. And, of course, in typical Hollywood fashion, malicious and often scandalous rumors about directors and their actors/casts are routinely spread to undermine credibility and their appeal.

I wonder if this one-off penalty will really have any impact on a system that is plagued with ethics problems and has gone completely awry? No doubt, the Oscar founders didn't have this in mind when the platform was created. It seems to me that a complete assessment and then revamping of the rules and principles guiding how the participants "campaign" for the Oscars really needs to be looked at versus this insignificant band aid approach.

I marvel at Apple

The other week, I was in an Apple store in a New Jersey mall. My 10 year old son’s iPod Touch wouldn’t charge because the charging component inside the device had been bent just enough to ensure that the little rectangular charging component would not fit squarely inside. My wife and I both knew that my son was the culprit here. He loves that iPod. And, I’m sure in his typical haste to give it optimum battery time each day, he clumsily pushed it to a breaking point. Still, we had purchased a three year warranty and I intended to bring out the salesman in me with an Apple representative to convince him to either cover the damage by fixing the iPod or replacing it.

I was just about to leave for the Apple retail store, when my wife explained to me that I can’t just walk in and receive service on the spot. No, instead (like thousands of others) I had to set an appointment, online via my Apple account. When she told me this, my first thought was, “What a royal pain in the butt.” I complained to my wife that I didn’t want to deal with any retailer that has gotten this big and bureaucratic; I started having visions of what it’s like to deal with cable and phone company service and that just didn’t make me happy.

My complaints really didn’t make a difference once my son gave me that sad look, which often leads to a few tears. So, I conceded, went online and made an appointment to see a service representative at 11am, on a Saturday morning, two days later.

Anyone who has been in an Apple store understands  the branding experience that customers receive there. (I won’t provide the obvious explanation about that.) What was interesting about my experience was just how service oriented the entire process was.  I checked in with a lead customer service representative. He asked me to sit anywhere I wanted  and within a few minutes,  a personalized technician (named Bill) would be at my service. And, that’s exactly what happened. After explaining the problem and walking the technician through my warranty, I asked him if this tiny little problem could be fixed. He smiled and told me no. The iPod was ruined because no charger or device to download tunes on it, could be attached. Then, he told me that my warranty only covers “problems that Apple is responsible for. Not those that a 10 year old boy created himself.’

I was just a second or two away from trying my used car salesman pitch (and then groveling if necessary) to get some relief on this product, when Bill surprised me. He explained that Apple wants to do right by its customers and he has no problem replacing it with a new iPod Touch. I would just need to pay the $20 warranty fee. I was completely psyched and appreciative. The next few words out of my mouth were “Thank you. Really appreciate it. You’re a great guy, Bill.”

Apple came through in a major way for me. Clearly, the company is devoted to ensuring that customers experience that brand promise (ease of use, innovation and being customer friendly) that is so heavily marketed every day.  The irony here (though) is that Apple creates these products knowing that most will break down and die within a 12-18 month period. Most iPods are not fixable. That’s a very smart go-to-market strategy for Apple. The company hopes (or in this case knows) that its customers will just keep coming back to purchase the next latest (and trendier) model. It works because most customers never really ever question why these products aren’t built to last longer.  And, to my earlier point, consumers (like me) are even willing to make appointments two days in advance to have their products serviced.

Very few brands have this type of powerful impact and control over consumers everywhere. Over the last decade, Apple has become the de facto standard in how to build a mainstream brand. It has worked so well that many consumers don’t even wait until their current model is broken. They just want the next greatest version as soon as it is released. The next big question for Apple is how long can the company stay on top. Most leaders typically fall from grace after any number of years because it’s so difficult to maintain that same level of innovation, quality and service (think of Dell, HP, Sony, etc.). But, I continue to marvel at Apple because it seems to keep getting better and better, each and every year.

How “privileged” is your client/agency communication?

There’s an interesting legal trial taking place which digs deep into an important issue involving public relations agencies and their clients. For as long as I can remember, clients, agencies and lawyers have questioned whether communications between client and PR agency would be deemed privileged information (as it is between lawyer and client) when challenged in a legal setting.

This current case is an interesting one because it brings this very issue to a head. Reyes is the former CEO of Brocade Communications Systems, who was convicted and then sentenced to 21 months in prison for backdating options a decade ago during the dot com days. His sentence was then thrown out in an appeals court because it was proven that the prosecution had knowingly made false statements during closing arguments.

Now, the case is being prosecuted again. But, this time, Reyes’ former PR firm, Sitrick & Company, is on the hot seat as prosecutors have subpoenaed client files held by the firm. These documents could provide damning information which would hurt Reyes’ case. It becomes a little confusing because Reyes now has new attorneys for this second trial. These attorneys (Cooley Godward Kronish) are claiming that the PR agency client files should be protected by the attorney client privileged code because the agency worked so closely with Reyes’ former attorneys (from Skadden Arps) during the first trial. They argue that they jointly created a responsive PR strategy and executional approach to combat the negative assault by the Justice Department. The government (prosecution) counters that Sitrick performed the sort of “standard public relations work” for which there is no attorney client privilege. 

Yikes. This is a very sticky issue that certainly has no black and white answer because there isn’t a real legal precedent to follow here.

We’ve dealt with topics like this over the years. To ensure that we don’t end up swimming in subpoenas and legal costs (like the agency in this trial is,) our strategy is usually straight forward if we’re about to enter into a crisis situation. Normally, we’ll be actually retained by the attorney representing the client so that our firm will be under the same privileged and confidential arrangement as the law firm is with its client.  So, technically, the law firm is then our client.

Of course, it isn’t always this easy. Many times we’ve represented a client for years. And, crisis situations which involve legal matters just sprout up out of nowhere. In these cases, it’s hard and many times inefficient, to simply change official representation during these chaotic times. And often, no one really knows if our communications will lead to the type of scary situation that Sitrick & Company is now involved in.

Anyway, this is a good article to read. And, one that certainly has me thinking about how we can prepare better for issues like this that could easily arise.

Through rain, sleet or frigid weather, Disney World keeps on smiling

I spent the last two days in a very cold Disney World.  Forty-five degree weather (with blustery winds) is simply too frigid to see the sights of the Magical Kingdom and take on the rides at Universal Studios.

But, that didn't really matter to those in charge of this theme park. They simply found new ways to draw thousands of kids' attention and to certainly make lots of added revenues while doing it. I tip my hat to this company. It is among the best I've seen at marketing. More to the point of this blog, Disney changes how it provides service and value to meet customer demands as quickly as a company can.

For example, I couldn't help but notice how every Disney shop strategically rearranged its stores by placing all sweatshirts, coats, hats and even gloves right up front. There were long lines at the cash registers to buy these necessities. Conversely, the typical Mickey, Homer Simpson and Jimmy Neutron t-shirts were almost impossible to find.

It was certainly too cold for families to slip and slide on water rides. But, that made no difference to Disney. It still found numerous ways to entertain everyone, keeping them outside in the streets. I noticed that the parks had (what seemed like) an unusually large number of Disney characters in costume walking the sidewalks, greeting excited kids. When I asked one park official why, he (unofficially) told me that they tripled the frequency of these characters coming out into the open so that families would brave the cold to make their children's dreams come true. (I'm not sure if any dreams were realized for my kids... but after waiting for 30 minutes, they did get a nice photo with Homer, Bart and Marge Simpson.)

Although most rides and exhibits had long waiting periods, it was obvious that Disney employees were also doing everything possible to herd groups of customers into express lines. This moved crowds along at a quicker pace and, in many cases, pushed people inside where warmer shelter existed.

I heard from many native Floridians in Orlando that this is the coldest winter in 20 years. Some complained that lots of businesses have been hurt because of it. My bet (though) is that Disney World has weathered this crisis just fine.

Riding roller coasters, eating ice cream and standing around to watch parades doesn't make much sense in any place with such extreme cold weather. That is, except for Disney World, where every day is magical and everyone is always smiling.

What’s not to like about Steven Singer?

Ever hear of Steven Singer Jewelers? I’ve probably heard this company’s quirky radio commercials a thousand times and never thought anything about them. Until it finally hit me this morning just how bizarre Steve Singer’s marketing strategy is. You see, Steven Singer’s web site is www.ihatestevensinger.com. And, whether the company  is simply promoting discounted jewelry (as it always does) or special 14 carat gold dipped roses around Valentine’s day (yuck), this web URL is proudly highlighted over and over again in all of its advertising.

I found it quite odd that a company would promote such a negative statement about itself. So, I Googled Steven Singer to see if anything is being written about the URL name and then went to its Web site. I couldn’t find much being written, but the “About Us” section of Steven Singer’s Web site gave me what I was looking for. It seems that founder Steven Singer is quite a successful entrepreneur and businessman. He started the company at an early age and then expanded it in the Philadelphia area not long after. He’s won countless awards and has played a key civic role in the community as well. The positioning doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, but Steven seems to feel that with each successful move he’s made, it’s a great reason for people to hate him (i.e. when people say, “Don’t you just hate the guy?”). Pretty weak, eh?

Regardless, his contrarian strategy to create a lot of noise around this negative (completely comical) Web site URL seems to work pretty well because the company keeps expanding. I only call this point out because it shows how sometimes counter intuitive, yet very creative marketing strategies can actually work when implemented the right way. With Steven Singer, he actually has Howard Stern preaching the company’s accolades, all while he makes fun of the URL ihatestevensinger.com. That’s caught on with Howard’s fans big time.

Who knows. Maybe this will start a trend and we’ll see Apple create www.ihateipod.com , or Disney promote www.idespisemickeymouse.com. Well… I can’t see this really becoming a trend (and I wouldn’t recommend it to any clients.) But, if it works for Steven Singer, that’s great.

Become synonymous with what you do

This is no easy task for companies. As a matter of fact, most hire firms like Peppercom to help them create more visibility for what sets them apart and to ultimately try to build their brand above and beyond category or industry competitors.

Over the last 50 years, I can only think of a handful of companies that have truly become synonymous with the category/service/product they create or represent. To name a few, Kleenex successfully did this with tissues and Google has now accomplished this with Internet search. But, it often takes many years of creating superb customer experiences, exhibiting much desired product/service qualities that competitors don’t posses and spending lots of $$$ on disciplined marketing.

The fact is that most industries or categories simply have too much competition for one company to truly stand out as a brand in this dominant way. Understanding that the odds are long against any organization becoming the next Kleenex or Google, I believe that many companies still have a real opportunity to become more synonymous with what they do. But, they need to recognize creative PR or marketing approaches that can create impactful ways for them to own white spaces that exist (especially when such ideas or opportunities are smacking them right in the face). ADP did exactly that when the opportunity presented itself. Among other offerings, ADP is the largest outsourced payroll company in the country. I’m not sure when it happened, but ADP proudly owns an employment index which showcases the increase/decrease in new jobs created each month. Guess what? Pretty much every media outlet I reviewed either refers to this index or simply profiles it as the official barometer in our marketplace. The tie in is clearly perfect for ADP because it links the brand to employees/jobs. In today’s business environment, tens of millions of eyeballs have seen this index and there’s no doubt it has helped ADP build its brand to become more synonymous with what it does.

I can find lesser known examples, but equally successful in their own right. Ever hear of a company called Prebon Yamane? Probably not, unless you are a Wall Street trader. Prebon Yamane was acquired over a dozen years ago, but it used to be one of the largest wholesale brokers (brokers to traders) on Wall Street. These firms are seen as commodities by their customers and most have very little to speak of that truly sets them apart. But, Prebon Yamane did something very smart. It had been tracking the ups and downs of Federal Fund prices in the industry for years. The information was limited to being used internally at the firm, as well as provided to clients to help their trading efforts. Until, a Wall Street Journal editor conducted a random interview with the firm’s CEO. As a matter of fact, this CEO happened to discuss how important this proprietary information is to clients. Long story made short, it took a few months, but Prebon Yamane’s index soon became the first official “Fed Fund” Index featured two to three times per week on the front page of the 'Marketplace' section of this elite daily newspaper. Aside from creating instant credibility and publicity for the firm, the branding from this index allowed Prebon Yamane to become synonymous with Fed Funds on Wall Street. This was a huge marketing win which cost nothing to arrange.

From time to time, we present clients with these type of branding opportunities. Typically, through one of our white space audits it becomes clear that no one in our client’s industry has taken ownership of a topic, issue or even most/all of the service/product it represents. Yet, I find that in many cases it’s hard to convince clients to move forward with such initiatives. The reasons vary as to why the responses can be negative. Sometimes it’s just about money (even though the investment cost is typically low), but often it’s just because  they are too focused on just delivering solid, yet basic “bread and butter” results for their organization.  

That’s disappointing. Whether it be some type of index, research, award program, unique coalition or simply just taking a proactive, consistent stance on owning a thought leadership topic that no one else is, marketers need to see that three is often very little setting each company apart from the competition. If a real idea comes along to make one’s company even a tiny bit more synonymous with what it does, my advice is to find a way to make it happen.

How will they “Spin” this?

There’s a cool, new club in New York City called Spin. Much like cigar bars and pool clubs took off five to ten years ago, Spin is making a big bet that ping pong will become the next craze among the New York club crowd who are quick to find the newest progressive and creative themed venues. 

Right now, Spin’s near term future looks pretty bright.  I attended a special charity tournament a few weeks back and was a little surprised to see just how packed the place was (on a Monday night.) It was fun to see how dozens of seemingly normal club goers became competitive and talented table tennis players once the jackets and ties came off and the paddles started to swing through the air. Naturally, ping pong isn’t the only activity of choice at this club. The crowd hanging at the chic long bar was just as rowdy as the players they were watching.

I’ve heard from friends that Spin is on fire right now. The place continues to pack ‘em in. That’s not surprising because Spin’s owners were smart enough to catch a rising trend in America… the growth of ping pong as a cultural sport.  And, they’ve created a nice formula to tie it into a real club scene. Unfortunately, it seems that the organization doesn’t understand (or simply doesn’t care) that success can be ephemeral. Especially, when the business is solely based on the fickle and ever changing wants of trendy consumers.

Which leads me to discuss my issues with Spin. For the last three weeks, we’ve tried to book a day time birthday party for my 10 year old son at Spin. (He’s an avid ping pong player.) The responses from the club have ranged from indifference, to rude, to plain idiotic. The women who are functionally charged with booking these types of events have lost our file, given us the wrong email addresses, told us they’d call back and then never did so, and have plain forgotten who we are (after multiple conversations.) I’ve spoken to two other friends who both shared the same type of experience as I.

In my mind, Spin’s staff either doesn’t give a damn, or is so confused and disorganized that they have no idea how to create customer loyalty. Either way, it doesn’t really matter. My belief is that it might happen tomorrow, next month, a year or even two, but Spin will fail if it doesn’t change its modus operandi pretty quickly.

I’m not writing this post to bitch about a business that frustrated me. Spin is but one example of a very real business issue that exists today. Trendy restaurants, clubs and other consumer facing businesses come and go for the reasons I highlighted above. Once that frenzy is over, only the really customer focused, savvy businesses that can provide superior products/services then survive. To do that, these businesses have to focus from the onset on how they can build a solid base of loyal fans who will provide the core sales revenues (to stay afloat) when all the hip and cool early adopters move on to the next trendy theme.

My guess is that the heads of Spin’s management are ‘spinning round and round’ right now in a state of euphoria and confusion. They are probably ecstatic about their new found success and have no idea that it’s time to shake off that feeling that they are conquering the world and start looking at the basics of how to build a business from the ground up. Of course, that all starts with delighting the customer.

Everybody is a “solutions” provider

The other morning, I watched Dow Chemical’s CEO conduct an interesting interview on CNBC about his  company’s business strategy.  Throughout the interview, he repeated over and over again how Dow Chemical is a solutions provider for its clients. He offered up one or two examples that showcased this. But, to be honest, he pretty much lost me after the fifth time the word “solutions” came out of his mouth.

So many companies across countless industries continue to use ambiguous phrases such as “solutions provider” to describe the core benefit provided to clients/customers. The problem with this phrase is that while everyone understands immediately what the word solutions means, ironically it has almost no worth or significance because of its complete overindulgence in today’s business world.

Think about it. What company doesn’t provide solutions to its customers? I’ll go out on a limb here and contend that those companies that really can’t provide solutions won’t be in business very long. So, if a company has been in business for say a year or even two, it’s probably safe to say it is providing at least a solution to customers.

I believe the bottom line effect of using a phrase like this in one’s positioning statement, or at least  as a core message in how a company tries to set itself apart, will have the opposite of the desired result. Most business people hear or read “solutions provider” and their eyes glaze over because they’ve heard that from thousands of other companies. Now, this company (which is trying to set itself apart) has actually become that much more commoditized in the mind of the target audience.

Try using this phrase on a phone call with a reporter while communicating why your client has the greatest company since sliced bread. Oh boy. You’ll never experience someone try to end a conversation quicker. For them, it’s a matter of building credibility about why your client deserves to be interviewed or featured versus the other thousand companies that are pitched to him/her each day. You say solutions provider and the reporter hears blah, blah, blah… It’s an instant turn off and the credibility you were attempting to build is gone.

Over the years, we’ve seen many buzz words come and go. Most don’t have lasting power (which is good) because they become meaningless because everyone tries to own them.  A few phrases that come to mind (mostly from technology companies) include: cutting edge, bleeding edge and scalable. While there is certainly nothing wrong with communicating these phrases internally, we’ve always tried our best to steer clients away from putting them in press releases, on their Web sites and in articles/speeches. Sometimes it worked and many times it didn’t.

For whatever reason, “solutions provider” continues to live long and prosper. (Sorry, I’m a Star Trek fan.) I hope just a few of those companies that continue to cherish this phrase wake up and take notice of what I’m writing. Trust me. You won’t be putting your best foot forward in communicating what your company’s unique story is if “solutions provider” is in the mix.

Protecting the brand or antagonizing fans?

One of the ongoing Internet debates these days focuses on how companies can protect their brands when they are used in an unauthorized manner (often known as patent infringement), while also being very sensitive to the issue that they might be alienating, and even angering fans of that brand through their actions.

In these cases, I don’t mean obvious theft where companies or consumers are illegally profiting from another company’s cherished brand by selling product knock-offs or leveraging it on a Web site in some way to conduct e-commerce. No, instead I mean there are hundreds of cases where “fans” of that brand are just so excited about it that they set up Web sites to discuss, promote and gain an exponential amount of positive publicity about that brand by attracting hundreds (or thousands) of other fans.

One example that comes to mind is a fan site called www.ILOVECROCS.com, a few years back. The creator of this site absolutely adored this trendy rubber shoe. To show his appreciation, he built this site and promoted the brand through photos of different styles of Crocs. He attracted hundreds of new fans (and one would think) helped to provide free, positive marketing services for this company. From what I understand (told to me through a third party,) it wasn’t long after that he received a 'cease and desist' letter from the company’s lawyers. When the man tried to explain that he wasn’t making any money at Croc’s expense and just wanted to show appreciation for the brand through this Web site, the company attorneys didn’t care. In the end, the man was forced to pull down the site. And, that was that. Until anger started to boil up inside this “fan,” and he completely changed his views about Crocs. This anger manifested in his developing a site called www.IHATECROCS.com. And, of course, he now was pushing out only negative stories and vibes to those same fans about this brand that he once cherished.

Other companies such as FedEx and Dell have had very similar experiences as well.

The other day, my business partner and I received the email below. We created a completely fun, post-holiday Star Trek spoof video (in the spirit of our agency’s personality). The video was sent out to friends and family of Peppercom and posted on our Web site. You’ll see this CBS attorney (which owns the Star Trek brand) was actually very polite and tactful in her letter to us. Which is very much appreciated. CBS has every right to protect its brand rights in Star Trek and clearly its attorney is making sure that this is enforced to the letter of the law. Personally, I have no problem with it.

But, the question I ask is whether companies like this are doing more harm by protecting the brand from any type of infringement (even when the other party isn’t trying to profit in any way from it) versus allowing the brand to build more excitement and fans through our new digital world? Common sense dictates that the more Star Trek is seen by consumers, the more these same consumers will be interested in buying products, going to their trade shows and watching the latest Star Trek movie. That all adds up to more $$$ for the owner of that brand.

There isn’t an easy answer here. But, I’d love to hear any thoughts you might have on the topic

Dear Sirs: 
 
I write as attorney for CBS Studios Inc. ("CBS"), owner of rights to the "Star Trek" franchise (collectively, the "Series").  These rights are protected by numerous copyrights and trademarks in and to the Series, the characters, the ships and other elements thereof (collectively, the "Star Trek Properties"). 
 
We appreciate that the success of the Star Trek Properties is enhanced by the interest of its dedicated fan base.  However, as a public relations firm, your company understands that CBS is obligated to enforce its rights in the Star Trek Properties to guarantee the Properties’ continued success.  In that regard, CBS is sensitive to consumers' desires to communicate and share information about the Star Trek Properties, and we seek to strike a balance between encouraging legitimate use and discouraging unauthorized infringement of valuable rights.  For example, CBS has numerous licensees worldwide who offer a wide range of products and services, all of which are carefully monitored for compliance with its licensing program to ensure the quality, authenticity and integrity of all goods and services associated with the Series.  In addition, CBS objects to the unauthorized commercial use of the Star Trek Properties, as well as the posting of protected material such as audio or video content, content from official websites, photographs, artistic renditions of the characters or other properties, music and sound files, and books or excerpts therefrom. 
 
It has come to our attention that your company has distributed a video utilizing the Star Trek Properties (http://vimeo.com/8707511) (the " Video").   While we appreciate your firm's interest in the Star Trek Properties, we are concerned about your use of the Properties as such use may be deemed violations of CBS's rights under applicable copyright and trademark laws.  It appears that the Video was limited in scope and timing.  We therefore request that your firm take steps to remove the Video from your website, vimeo.com, and any other website which your firm controls and confirm that your firm will refrain from using the Star Trek Properties in this manner in the future without prior written consent from CBS.
 
We trust that you understand CBS' concerns and will comply with our request.  We would appreciate receiving your written confirmation of your compliance within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter.  Should you need any additional information or wish to discuss this further, please use the contact information provided below. 

Nothing in this letter shall be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any right or remedy possessed by CBS Studios Inc., or any other affected party, all of which are expressly reserved.
 
Mallory Levitt
Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property
CBS
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
ph: 212-975-3633
f:  212-975-0114
Mallory.Levitt@cbs.com