I’ve been meaning to write a post about Monday’s launch of Cuil, the so-called Google-killer search engine. But then Erick Shonfeld at TechCrunch wrote it for me.
“The hype cycle now lasts less than a day. Take yesterday’s over-hyped launch of stealth search startup Cuil, which was quickly followed by a backlash when everyone realized that it was selling a bill of goods. This was entirely the company’s own fault. It pre-briefed every blogger and tech journalist on the planet, but didn’t allow anyone to actually test the search engine before the launch.”
So I am not gonna join the hordes who have dumped on Cuil and its launch. I wanna talk about the PR/Agency relationship in launch situations, using Cuil’s launch as a lesson plan.
First off, while Shonfeld is spot-on, it is also true that Cuil garnered some highly favorable traditional media coverage, e.g., in Reuters and Associated Press stories. Those positive articles will get wide play in mainstream media outlets. Most of the negative press appeared in blogs, which plenty of mainstream readers are not reading.
Thus an Old School Marketer could look at the stack of positive and negative clips and decide, on-balance, that this was a successful outcome:
“Sure those wingnuts in the blogs demand perfection and like to get all wound up. But most people don’t read the blogs. They still read the newspaper (online and offline), so those AP and Reuters hits alone will outweigh the negative perceptions of those bloggers.”
I think, however, that we can all agree that that Old School Marketer is off base. Which leaves us not with the question of “Was this a good launch?” (it wasn’t; unless you’re one of those “all PR is good PR” types) but, “How the heck did this even happen? Who was in charge?”
Obviously, the client is in charge. The buck stops there. Pulling the trigger is their call.
But what is the Agency’s responsibility?
At a high level, it’s essential for the Agency to strategize for the launch and to make honest suggestions and arguments to the client when their suggestions don’t match up to the client’s demands. The Agency should have seen these troubles on the horizon and advised the Cuil team to snatch the reins. Maybe they did.
The Agency should have insisted to Cuil’s management that their media contacts get a chance to play with the technology. Within 2 meetings they’d have known they had a problem and could have re-tooled the approach.
The Agency should have insisted that Cuil slap “BETA” all over the site and any other outbound communication. I checked lots of different sections of the Cuil site, and never saw any hint from the Company that they might not be ready for prime time. The messaging is marked by ambition and (in retrospect) arrogance.
The Agency should have enlisted the Search community’s aid. There are plenty of Search Algorithm experts, SEO experts, Online Marketers, etc., who might be willing to offer free advice for such an ambitious start-up. Taking on Google is a big, hairy, audacious goal: this community could have gotten excited about collaborating on something so audacious. This longer-term, inclusive approach could have cushioned the launch with some built-in compassion for the Cuil engine’s lapses.
It’s a complicated process, launching a company. The entire team must be in-synch and well-coordinated on many fronts. It doesn’t always work and it is always sad to see the rocket blow up the launching pad.
Tweet This Post!
Subscribe by Email
View on mobile phone
Click here for my LinkedIn profile
The agency certainly needs to share some responsibility here. The “too good to be true” client claims about any new product should be met with the same bit of skepticism by PR people that journalists will bring to the equation.
As a relative rookie PR guy, I once handled the launch of a supermarket’s latest prototype store and invited all the top trades to the grand opening. While the stories were favorable, a headline from the leading trade pub said, “XX Company Takes A Giant Leap Into The Present!”
Ouch. Of course I was blamed for the headline, which I dismissed at the time, but later I realized the client was right. Since then, I seek many sources for my information, and I’ve learned how to create conditions that will inspire rave reviews rather than impose them on the media or the customers. It’s a much better approach to say the least!
I agree with your points about how the agency should have counseled the client. I believe it is incumbent upon the agency to give its client a cautious and realistic perspective, particularly during a launch. Yet how often do we try to lead a client down a path only to have the client big foot the process (often because of an “owner” who has big plans but knows very little about the PR process). You’re right - the agency has a responsibility, unfortunately, very little power comes with that responsibility.
Your BETA comment is spot on. Search ‘Cuil’ in Google and it comes in at number 2. Search ‘Cuil’ in Cuil…not there. That’s not cool. I think Scour has done a much better job; quietly launched, genuine social engine and it pays you to use it. My money’s on that.
I summed it up fairly well here:
1) http://twitter.com/ikepigott/statuses/871476584
2) http://twitter.com/ikepigott/statuses/871490181
Sadly, this could have been averted with the use of one word: EVENTUALLY
As in, “our more complete indexing and contextual algorithms will EVENTUALLY return more relevant search results.”
Eventually. They didn’t temper expectations, and the bloggerati didn’t temper their frustrations.
Great stuff Todd. And what is really sad is that the mistakes go even deeper than that. Once the ‘poop’ started to fly around the folks at Cuil got eerily silent. To the point that a colleague asked ‘Is this a legit site or some sort of spoof thing?’
That the product itself wasn’t fully baked and that claims were so horribly overstated is bad enough. But for the company to not even say anything - ANYTHING! - was even worse. When one went to the Cuil site yesterday and took a look at their Press/News page the only thing up was the original news release from Monday. No position statement. No explanation, or even something to say an explanation was forthcoming. Nothing.
And what of those places where people were coming out with some pretty serious allegations against Cuil? Check out the first comment in response to this blog. Is there anything there from Cuil to counter the allegations? Nope.
Cuil’s silence is as damning as any of their other problems. Maybe even worse because they’re either saying that everyone else’s point of view is unimportant or that they have no answers. Ouch, that’s gotta hurt.
Kinda bad to refer to a link and not include it! Sorry about that! Here it is…
http://www.atelier-us.com/e-business-and-it/article/new-search-engine-wwwcuilcom-finally-ready-to-compete-with-google
Hi Todd, i have to say that i don’t agree with you. The problem of Cuil is not about communication it’s about the business itself. A PR agency cannot replace management in strategic decisions. And, as a lawyer would do, simply tries to get out the best from what they have.
Reuters and AP pitching success demonstrate how superficial can be mainstream information in a world that is definitely going too fast for traditional media.
In conclusion, from my point of view, everyone in this story comes out with a big failure, losing a small piece of credibility. And credibility is the real asset of the future.
Regards
Giacomo Cambiaso
@Giacomo - I have to say that I disagree with you in disagreeing with Todd’s stance. I am confident that the PR firm involved, in many ways, set Cuil up to fail.
Having been involved in many sites going through both alpha and beta testing, being an active professional in the SEO realm and just a downright web junkie who works with PR folks daily, there was a Romper Room’s worth of balls dropped here.
If you’re heading-up the PR thrust for a tech startup/launch, I’m thinkin’ (just thinkin’) your firm might want to be savvy in that space. From classic CYAs/disclaimers like “ALPHA/BETA” tags to focus groups who can tell you real-time what the perceived problems are with your application, the Agency missed the boat. Honestly, they didn’t even bring their client to the dock. Cuil was about ready for some water wings and a kiddie pool, with plenty of potential to compete with the big boys one day.
Now the hype has gone south, and if you really believe that any PR is good PR, you may believe Cuil is still afloat in the search engine Matrix.
Personally? I think it’s the signs of an Agency that had no business operating in the space and at the magnitude they went into. While the client pulls the trigger, it’s the Agency’s bee-hind on the line.
What chance do they have now of garnering the next tech startup/launch account? Slim to none. Damn shame, really. With all of the potential collaboration that could have occurred with a wide range of tech space professionals and marketing/PR types, there’s no reason for this launch to be floating belly-up in a fishbowl like a 3 day-old goldfish from Petsmart.
FWIW!
Not sure that slapping beta labels onto Cuil would have helped. Cuil would have been hit by the same wave of indignation because the problem is Cuil simply isn’t good enough to live up to its own hype. On whether they went eerily quiet when the proverbial hit the fan, from what I’ve seen their comms guy has stuck his neck out and fessed up to problems. Only route to go. http://gbckewroad.blogspot.com/2008/07/wishing-cuil-well-but.html
I’m sure there is enough blame in the Cuil fiasco for everyone to get their share, but speaking specifically to those on the PR agency side, the lesson is not to drink their client’s Kool-Aid. They may claim their product or service is “unique,” “cutting edge,” “one-of-a-kind,” or “pushing the envelope,” but odds are it isn’t, so strike those words from your media relations vocabulary.
When the client is full of bluster and bullshit, it’s just hot air around the conference room table. When the PR practitioner mindlessly repeats the same unsubstantiated claims, it is their credibility and reputation that gets blown away, leaving them with very little to carry forward in their careers.
Todd, the quality and depth of thinking that went into this post and the discussion that has followed are why I love the web.
As usual I am delighted by the time and thoughtful insights of my readers. Thanks very much.
@PRJack - Eventually the Cuil folks noted their mis-steps on their blog. Too late, arguably, but at least it showed some recognition of the challenges…
@Erika - I think there’s a whole other post in your comment!
@Giacomo - I did note that “the buck stops” with the Company; not sure where the disagreement lies. Anyway, enough lessons for all to learn!
@Shel - thanks, as always!!
The problem with Cuil is that’s not particularly very good… even the name is crap…
But then, people across the internet have sure been talking about it over the past week and notification for the new search engine has reached a hell of a lot of internet users…