Let me apologize in advance for the transcript’s front and end missing. I will be sure to update when it becomes available, but was limited to the failures of the FTC live stream. The core message is 100% in-tact, from the intro to the last statement prior to questions…

…OTHER PARTIES, INTERVIEWED NUMEROUS INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS AND TOOK SWORN TESTIMONY OF KEY GOOGLE EXECUTIVES.

“There are two aspects to the settlement we announced today. The first involves Google’s misuse of patent protection to prevent competition. We stopped that abuse. The second concerns allegations that Google unfairly biases its search results. We closed this investigation finding the evidence does not support a claim that Google’s prominent display of its own content on its general search page was undertaken without legitimate justification. We do accept Google’s legally binding commitments to stop the most problematic business practices relating to search in search advertising. This also comes with monitoring obligations as well.

Let me start with the patent issue. By a 4-1 vote, a bipartisan majority of the commission orders Google to stop seeking to exclude competitors using standard essential patents that Motorola, which Google purchased, had first promised but refused to license unfair and reasonable terms. These essential patents and others like them are the cornerstone of the system of interopen — interoperability standards that we have taken for granted. Over half of American consumers own and use one of these devices, including iPhones, Android phones and Xboxes. Today’s action by the commission ensures that competition ensures to work for the benefit of American consumers in these important markets.

Now, years ago Motorola promised to license its patents essential to these interoperability patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. Those are called fran terms, to any interested manufacturer. Other companies took Motorola at its word. Over many years relying on this promise, they invested billions and probably tens of billions of dollars in developing and bringing products to consumers using these patents. Rather than offering a license or the license it promised, Motorola changed the rules of the game. The company sought injunctions and exclusion orders to prevent the devices from coming into the country against products using their patents. After Google purchased Motorola, it inherited this litigation and continued the same practices. Google’s un-fair conduct threatened  laptop and tablet computers and smart phone and gaming systems or it could have increased the cost of these products by requiring manufacturers to pay higher licensing fees which then would have been passed onto consumers.

Here’s an example of one product issue in the case. It’s an iPad. I happened to have an older one. There are a number of other devices, xboxes, government-issued Research in Motion smart phones, that are all under threat if this practice had been allowed to continue and grow. Google’s settlement with the commission requires to Google to abandon their claim for relief on any essential patents with a fran commitment and offer a license on fran terms to any company that wants to license these patents in the future.

Today’s landmark enforcement action will become, we hope, a template for resolution of SEP licensing disputes across many industries and builds on more than 15 years of bipartisan work in the Federal Trade Commission from patent reports, to workshops, to enforcement actions like this one aimed at protecting the integrity of the patent system and even more importantly, protecting American consumers. Today’s action makes clear the commitments to make patents available on reasonable terms matters and that companies cannot make these commitments when it suits them, and to have a patent included in one standard and behave differently later once the standard is in place makes those relying on it vulnerable to extortion. Today’s commitment action will relieve companies of hoarding patents for defensive purposes, savings we hope that can be invested in job creation, research, and development.

Before we turn to the commission’s investigation of Google’s search and search advertising practices, let me say a few words about the commission’s section 5 authority, which was the statutory basis for our challenge to Google’s unfair conduct.

When Congress created this agency in 1914, 99 years ago, it endowed the commission with a unique commission of broad jurisdiction and limited remedies. Our section 5 authority reaches beyond the antitrust laws to prohibit unfair methods of competition. In lies a pennumbra. We can impose fines. We don’t put malefactors in jail. Section 5 violations are not violations of the antitrust laws and are not a basis for subsequent follow-up private lawsuits for treble damages in Federal court. In a society that many believe is overly litigious, the judicial use of section 5 represents a practical way for the commission to bring problematic conduct to a halt.

In the second part of the action, Google committed to stopping the most troubling of its business practices related to Internet search into search advertising. Google will stop misappropriating or scraping the content of its rivals for use of its own specialized search results. Google will drop contractual restrictions that impair the ability of small businesses particularly to advertise on competing search advertising platforms. Google has made legally enforceable and binding commitments to resolve the commission’s concerns. These commitments have reporting requirements that will allow the commission to vigorously monitor and enforce compliance if necessary.

Let me talk in a little more detail about some of this conduct.

The commission investigated allegations that Google misappropriated without consent the content of rivals websites to improve its own products and pass this content off to consumer as if it were its own. For example, Google allegedly scraped the user-generated reviews of local restaurants displayed on yelp and led consumers to believe that they were its own. When some websites complained to Google about the practice, Google allegedly — and I say allegedly — threatened to remove them entirely from Google search results. Now, Congress created our commission almost 100 years ago to stop unfair business practices and I won’t seek to characterize Google’s behavior as conduct that is clearly problematic and potentially harmful to competition because it undermines incentives to innervate. That is why you would create a new site for restaurant reviews if someone else can take them and appropriate them as if they were their own.

Going forward, Google will allow websites the ability to opt out of Google local or product shopping without being penalized or demoting in its general search results on Google.com. That is it’s organic search. This arrangement should ensure that the Internet remains vibrant and competitive.

The commission also investigated whether Google unfairly restricted the ability of businesses to use tools to manage their advertising campaigns simultaneously on Google and on other competing advertising platforms. For example, Bing. This practice is known as multi-homing. Our investigation suggested that most large advertisers preferred to multi-home. Multi-homing by small advertising and small businesses affected by the Google restrictions was much less common. Some commissioners were concerned by the tendency of Google’s restrictions to raise the cost to small business and Google has committed to drop the restrictions on multi-homing. We think that will create a more competitive environment.

Many of Google’s critics, including many competitors, wanted the commission to go further in this investigation and regulate the intricacies of Google’s search engine algorithm. The commission exhaustively investigated allegations that Google unfairly manipulated search engine results to harm competitors, a practice that most of us refer to as search bias. Today the commission has voted to close this investigation unanimously. It can always, of course, reopen any investigation if it believes that a company, in this case Google, crosses the line with respect to our investigation. Although some evidence suggested that Google was trying to eliminate competition. Google’s primary reason for changing the look and feel of its search results to highlight its own products was to improve the user experience. Similarly changes to Google’s algorithm that had the effective demoting certain competing websites had connection, applausable connection, with improving Google search results, especially when competitors tried to gain Google’s algorithm in ways that benefitted those firms but not consumers looking for the best search results.

I remember an article from the New York Times maybe a year ago about J.C. Penney paying companies to do precisely this: not commenting on the value of seeing J.C. Penney advertisements ranked higher or lower in search results. Tellingly, Google’s search engine rivals engaged in many of the same product design choices that Google did, suggesting that this practice can benefit consumers.

Now, while not everything that Google did was beneficial on balance, we didn’t believe that the evidence supported an FTC challenge to this aspect of Google’s business under American law. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote more than 50 years ago and as the Federal courts have consistently ruled since, “the focus of our law is on protecting competition, not competitors.”

Google is unquestionably one of America’s great companies, innovative in fielding from its core search engine to varied ventures such as driverless cars. With today’s action by the FTC, Google can refocus on its business and its products, but with a clear understanding that it must do so while competing fairly. Now, some may believe the commission should have done more in this case perhaps because they’re locked in hand to hand combat with Google around the world or perhaps in a mistaken belief that criticizing us will influence the outcome in other jurisdictions. Some may believe we should have done less. I imagine Google is one that believes that. but for our part, at this very wonderful agency, we follow the facts where they lead  and apply statute faithfully. We do it with a vigor and appropriate restraint.

Today’s bipartisan commission action brings to an end the commission’s investigations of Google in a fashion calculated to brings our investigation to a close.”

Pretty moving, but we all know how it ends. Jerry gets fired, brings Bridget Jones with him, argues with Cuba Gooding Jr., falls in love and re-establishes his proficiency in his field using the philosophy he mandated at the beginning. Happy endings all around.

Sure, I doubt many of us are high-level sports agents and therefore may not relate to Jerry’s epiphany and I fully plan on relating this to your business and your brand stories (retail, industrial, B2B, whatever), but first let me tell you another story.

Starbucks and the External Internal Memo

In 2006, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz spent some months auditing the Starbucks franchises and came to some unsettling conclusions. He felt that the Starbucks experience had become “too commoditized” and was distancing itself from their original vision and purpose. He made his concerns known to his internal leadership team in a memo.

He told them of his feelings by saying things like:

“Over the past ten years, in order to achieve the growth, development, and scale necessary…we have had to make a series of decisions that, in retrospect, have lead to the watering down of the Starbucks experience, and, what some might call the commoditization of our brand.”

and

“Many of [the] decisions were probably right at the time, and on their own merit would not have created the dilution of the experience; but in this case, the sum is much greater and, unfortunately, much more damaging than the individual pieces.”

He goes on to explain how the choice to move to better espresso machines was a smart economic move, but the height of the new machines cut off the barista from the customer, thereby removing “much of the romance and theatre that was in play” in the stores; and how the need for fresh-roast coffee in every international market required flavor-locked packaging that no longer allowing baristas to scoop and grind the beans, which in turn eliminated the natural aroma expected in the stores, “the most powerful non-verbal signal… in [the] stores.” Schultz then moves to the streamlining of the stores’ design, a necessity based on store ROI, but how the branches inadvertently lost their neighborhood feels and came off as “sterile, cookie cutter, no longer reflecting the passion [the] partners feel about [Starbucks] coffee.”

He ended the memo saying:

“I have provided you with a list of some of the underlying issues that I believe we need to solve, let me say at the outset that we have all been part of these decisions. I take full responsibility myself, but we desperately need to look into the mirror and realize it’s time to get back to the core and make the changes necessary to evoke the heritage, the tradition, and the passion that we all have for the true Starbucks experience.”

It is a very powerful and emotional memo and I’ve used quite a few direct quotes from it already. The interesting thing about this though is that it was an internal memo, never meant to see the light of day or grace any eyes besides those of Mr. Schultz and his top 12 executive team members.

It was leaked and picked up by the fan blog Starbucks Gossip and within days had spread to the likes of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and many more.

This event noted a turning point for Starbucks. No longer could they hide behind their size and distance from the consumer. Thanks to social channels, everyone now knew that Starbucks was aware of their issues, leaving them no choice but to act and actually do something about them.

In an interview following the leak, Schultz said the public reaction was a wake-up call for him.

“Stunned as I was that the memo had leaked, I was also astonished by the depth of conversation it unleashed, as well as the speed…The heated online conversations about the memo were beyond Starbucks’ influence, more so than any other controversy we had experienced…Starbucks had no interactive presence online. No way to speak up quickly on our own behalf, to talk directly to customers, investors, as well as partners, or let them talk directly to us…we were losing control of our own story.”

Unlike Maguire, Schultz never meant for other people to see his thoughts and feelings, but that doesn’t change the fact that he wrote his own Maguire Manifesto, the honest document that broke down walls and changed the course of a brand and an industry.

Controlling Brand Stories & The Maguire Manifesto

Jerry Maguire learned the hard way that revolutionary thinking will be met with backlash, and Howard Schultz learned the hard way that nothing in this world is truly confidential anymore. It is the responsibility (not to mention, the necessity) of all brands to take steps towards owning their brand stories. Whether they be the strategically-branded stories created and distributed by companies themselves or the ones curated and fostered by online communities, brand stories and their ownership are vital parts of the business world now.

To get to that point of understanding and owning your own brand stories, you need to write your own Maguire Manifesto. What areas are stagnating in your industry/business/brand/office and what steps are needed to get back to that transparency that truly connects your company with the people it serves? When was the last time you mapped out all the influencers and advocates that stand up for you when you’re not standing up for yourself? Do you know where they live online? Are you creating and curating brand stories that provoke further conversation, and, maybe more importantly, do you know how those conversations fit into your overall marketing strategy and further your business’ goals?

No longer can these Statements of Realization be kept private. Everything eventually gets out. But honestly, why would you want those statements to be kept under lock and key? By releasing them to the very people you’re desiring to connect with, you allow them to hold you accountable to your mission (like the Starbucks community and Howard Schultz) and bring them into your the brand story that you are controlling. No more catch-up playing, no more controversy, just conversation.

This is a big step for a lot of companies and the progression from the walled garden into the town square can be a rough one. It’s important to have the proper guidance and a team that can manage those connections and lead you to where you want to be as an organization that plans on lasting 10, 20, 100 more years. We are entering the days where Connection Planning and Management is going to overtake Channel Planning and Management and your Maguire Manifesto will help lead you into that new dawn.

Carbonated Conversations

Recently I was very impressed with Coca-Cola because of their take on the Maguire Manifesto. Not only did they externalize an internal company conversation, but they animated it and actively shared it on Youtube. The fully disclose their marketing and content strategies as well as explain their thinking and why these changes are important to them. It’s like Jerry Maguire times 1,000.

Take a look. Here’s part one of their two-part Maguire Manifesto:

Coca-Cola is leading the way with their efforts in social media and this manifesto just promotes their efforts further, bringing their advocates and fans deeper into the conversation about their conversations (how meta!) and changing fans’ opinions of just how Coca-Cola fits into their lives. It’s an impressive step and one that should be emulated throughout all industries.

Are you inspired?

Have you already begun writing out your Maguire Manifesto in your head?

Or perhaps there are things standing in your way that seem insurmountable, problems that don’t seem to have a solution or walls that can’t come down.

Jerry Maguire had a box of belongings, a love-struck secretary and a pompous second-rate wide receiver and he still found a way. Howard Schultz had the eyes of a nation focused on the company he loved and the minds of his customers thinking the Starbucks brand was crumbling and he still found a way. Coca-Cola was coming from over 130 years of tradition and a world that viewed them a certain way and they found a way as well.

Maybe you just need help.

Their ways started with their Maguire Manifestos, so maybe you should start there too.

Thoughts?

Unfortunately, many technical clients are far too busy with R&D to spend time talking to some pushy content marketer about source content and value propositions. Well, fellow content marketer, follow these simple steps and clients will be BEGGING you to provide content because you’re such a damn pleasure to work with. But first, you may have to…

Sell Clients on Content

78% of people believe that organizations providing custom content are interested in building good relationships with them

Some clients understand the importance of content so many of you can skip this step. For the rest of us, we need to explain to clients that content = customers. Customers LOVE content and will happily provide contact information (and eventually money) in exchange for valuable content. You may want to remind clients of these interesting 2011 content facts, courtesy of the Custom Content Council:

• 90% of consumers find custom content useful
• 78% of people believe that organizations providing custom content are interested in building good relationships with them
• 61% of people feel better about a company that delivers custom content and are more likely to buy from that company
• 77% of people understand that an organization’s goal for custom content is to sell them something, but are OK with it as long as it provides value

Clients need to understand you’re on their side, actively trying to make them money and help them look good. It also helps to establish a little industry street cred; in order to accomplish this you need to…

Do Background Research

Nothing annoys clients/ruins credibility more than making them explain the basics of their industry. It’s your job to be semi-knowledgeable on their industry prior to scheduling your first client meeting. I’m not saying you have to become an expert overnight, but you should AT LEAST do the following:

• Read the client’s website (if you don’t do anything else, do this)
• Research at least 2 competitors and read their websites
• Thumb through at least one print or online industry publication
• Understand the client’s business and marketing objectives
• Know at least one industry-related joke or trending topic

My go-to chemistry joke

Clients, especially the really smart ones, love voicing opinions on controversial industry topics. If you casually mention a recent industry-related trend, clients will involuntarily engage the reptilian complex of their Triune Brain (wiki on Triune Brain) and try to educate you on said trend. You instantly made a new friend and have a basis that will help you…

Build a Client Questionnaire

For the purposes of this example, I’ve outlined my questionnaire process for authoring individual web pages for a company site. I typically repeat these steps until I’ve completed a questionnaire for every page. However, these steps can be applied to any content asset (or life in general, really).

Protip: Before I create a questionnaire, I generally have an understanding of the client’s products/services, business objectives and user types (this is a process in and of itself. Contact me at ismcontent@marketstrong.net for help with this).

Ok, so our pretend client manufactures widgets and has asked you to create content for a new website. At a bare minimum, you’ll need to create the following: home page, product overview page, product detail page, contact us page, about us/company page.

Let’s start with the product overview page. The purpose of this page is to provide a basic value proposition, a few supporting details and a path to the product detail page to give the reader a chance to buy something. To create a compelling product overview page, you’ll need to pick your client’s brain a bit using our trusty source content questionnaire:

1. Who is the audience for this page?
2. What are the value propositions/competitive advantages?
3. What problem does this product solve?
4. Where have customers typically gone to find more information on this product?
5. Why should customer do business with your client?
6. How do customers of this product typically measure success?
7. Where are the majority of your customers located?

Now I’m not saying you should solely rely on these questions; this is just a STARTING POINT. Your research should allow you to ask more product-specific questions such as, “What are the specifications/tolerances for this widget,” “What is your process for manufacturing widgets,” etc.

I like to send questionnaires to cover at least four web pages at a time. I’ve found that four pages per week is the magic number that doesn’t overwhelm clients, yet still allows for steady progress. Adjust frequency accordingly based on your client’s schedule. Speaking of schedules, make sure you…

Schedule Weekly Meetings

Even the busiest client can devote 30-45 minutes to marketing if you plan a reoccurring weekly meeting around their schedule. The trick is to make the meeting go as smoothly as possible so the client doesn’t feel like their time was wasted. A butter smooth meeting requires you to do the following at least two days PRIOR to the meeting:

• Send a meeting agenda
• Send the questionnaire
• Provide a conference call-in number if multiple parties are involved
• Invite client to a meeting using an Outlook calendar or whatever your client uses

It’s unrealistic to think all your questions will be answered during these weekly meetings, so be sure to set the expectation to the client that you’ll be following up on unanswered/additional questions in subsequent emails. Ok, so now…

Let’s Recap

Some of these steps may seem obvious but I can’t tell you how much clients appreciate the professionalism. Repeat the questionnaire/weekly meeting process until you’re happy with the quantity/quality of the collected content. You’ll be doing yourself and your client a huge favor.

If you need additional help, contact our content department at ismcontent@marketstrong.net or visit our Content Strategy page on www.marketstrong.net/contentmarketing.

Do you currently employ content writers, copywriters or a content team? If not, who manages and develops content for marketing efforts? Internal communications?

The term “content strategy” elicits a rather wide range of responses, both from the technician/creative side as well as marketing.

Sure, it’s a term of endearment these days, often more hype than substance. But brought into the fold early in the process – and given the opportunity to add actual value – it can be pure magic.

Plan for content strategy – Now, not later

Too often, content is the very last item on the priority list, a “to be checked off” instead of the key cog in the marketing process it should be. ”Early” is where project stakes are at their highest, and where most people stumble.

So I’ve included a few necessary steps (from my experience) to plan for content, to ensure that the “how” and “when” you communicate with customers is aligned with the message, before the foundation is set and the marketing is turned to 11.

But first – why?

Before we dive into the what and how, it’s important to understand why content strategy should be introduced early in the process.

So why early?

Because everything along the marketing spectrum will depend on a solid plan for writing and delivering relevant communication. Your sales staff will need it in the field. Your marketing campaigns will need it. Your customers will definitely need it.

The nuts and bolts of content strategy

I’d need a few books (and then some) to really dig down deep into the methodology for planning and executing effective content strategy.  Even armed with an empty canvas, much of the specific tactical recommendations largely depend on a wide variety of factors (industry, resources, in-house expertise, conversions, etc.), so I’m focusing on a few foundational elements that you can attack right away.

Audit what you have

You have more than a few ways to approach a content audit, but since you’re actively building a business case for later recommendations, don’t get hung out to dry without at least cursory audit of what you have to work with.

Note - It absolutely should be a precursor to a more in-depth audit before content requirements are delivered, but it doesn’t have to go that deep just yet. This is about getting a feel for the quality and relevancy of your content so that you understand the playing field.

Open a text doc and scan your website, page by page, recording general observations on the messaging – is it useful, outdated, extraneous, lacking a clear call to action, match current business objectives?

This will serve as starting point A for a more in-depth audit by your newly appointed content strategist (yes, you should have one of those).

Identify roles and responsibilities

I ask the same two questions on every project. Though not an exact phrasing, the questions generally look like:

Do you currently employ content writers, copywriters or a content team? If not, who manages and develops content for marketing efforts? Internal communications?

Identifying roles and responsibilites is an absolute. It’s ownership and accountability for the crucial steps in content development. It’s putting the ducks in a row, keeping them in row and ensuring the row evolves with your business.

Without clearly defined roles in content, you get a lot of balls dropped and inconsistencies in communication strategy.

Ask LOTS of questions

Curiousity never killed anything (well, except for that proverbial cat), so use this process as fuel for your discovery process. You should gain just enough knowledge from key departments to build an initial business case.

A few examples of the right customer-facing questions that a) doesn’t invite a bloated pre-sales process because of content and b)  limiting yes and no answers:

1. Do we have printed sales tools available for our sales reps? What about interactive tools for the field? Who creates/manages the content that goes into these tools?
2. Do we have documented, standard verbiage — whether on external printed materials or internal documents — that employees are expected to adhere to?
3. Who will serve as primary approver for all communication – offline and online?

Sell the foundation

Before campaigns are conquered, get the messaging foundation down. Do everything above and then some. I don’t mean this metaphorically either. Do the leg work, then write it down and share with everyone in the company. Get alignment!

Literally, the process might look something like:

1. Get all departments involved, early
2. Audit
3. Customer/competitive research and analysis
4. Present findings/give recommendations
5. Map key messaging priorities to appropriate products and services
6. Write value props, features, calls to action for product/service category
7. Repeat above for each product service, value adds, company processes, etc.
8. Write company elevator pitch – lose the bland, please
9. Consider these first steps in setting communication standards
10. Set a meeting to review with all departments, designate leads to ensure these standards are met.

Building the foundation for effective communication starts today, not tomorrow. I’m well aware that this is only the beginning, a surface scratch on what is a massive universe of methodologies, processes, philosophies, etc.

So, how do you envision content strategy should be leveraged, and what is your ideal scenario for incorporating content into your existing processes?