The CelOut Blog

What's Your Beef With Consumer Crowdsourcing?

2010-12-19T11:31:00.000-08:00

I’ve written in the past about how excited I am by the possibilities presented by digital communications in regards to consumer crowdsourcing. In my mind, crowdsourcing represents the ultimate method for engagement, in that it instills in consumers a sense of ownership in a brand. That ownership fosters loyalty and personal connections. On the flip side, consumer crowdsourcing gives us communications folk a direct line to what the public really wants from a given brand. Regardless of the inherent benefits, crowdsourcing is still viewed cynically, and not without a tinge of contempt, amongst some advertising professionals. In this regard, I have a message for my colleagues: “We need to get over ourselves!”

Is that harsh? Maybe. However, it is certainly not as harsh as what is coming from our community at large. With every consumer crowdsourcing campaign there is commentary that mitigates that campaign’s results. Most often this commentary is little more than industry people making fun of what the consumers create. Truthfully, a lot of these comments are funny. I admit that. However, underneath the humor I believe that there is actual disdain for the work of those we view as amateurs.

We create, we innovate, we communicate, and many of us are pretty damn good at it. But we should be; it’s our job! The kid who creates a logo or the mom that suggests a new line of baby food is just trying to have some fun or offer an opinion. Is much of what results from consumer crowdsourcing amateurish? Absolutely. Is some of it downright stupid? Sure it is. Why should we expect anything else?

Granted, consumers are not privy to the behind-the-scenes information that we are. A great idea to a consumer might be preposterous for us to conceive, given client restrictions and real-world application. Yet, perhaps that preposterousness is where we might find the kernel of genius in these campaigns. Instead of resenting the consumers because they are not us, let’s embrace that fact. Isn’t it possible that we might be too far entrenched in our own professions that we often miss out on the layman’s perspective entirely?

There is another aspect to consider here, and it has nothing to do with consumers. In the advertising community, crowdsourcing is a four-letter word. The idea itself is subversive to the status quo we’ve been operating under for decades. This is an ego-driven industry, and people work hard to achieve the recognition that comes from putting in their time and creating great work. If I were a creative-type or a strategist who had dedicated a better part of his/her life to becoming a go-to person for ideas, I would probably be resentful of crowdsourcing too.

But fear not, my fellow egotists! Crowdsourcing will never, ever replace the outstanding work you do. The sooner you embrace that fact, the sooner you will be able to see it for what it simply is: an effective tactic.

Regardless of what they actually create, consumers are interacting with brands, and that is what is most important. What we need to accept is that the environment in which we operate has changed dramatically, and that the real ownership in the brands we represent now lies with the consumer. Everyone has a voice now, and we need to pay attention ... even if the result is sometimes stupid.

GM tries Nostalgia.

2010-12-17T16:59:00.000-08:00

It’s been a few weeks now and the verdict from industry professionals has been swift and near unanimous: Goodby, Silverstein, and Partner’s new campaign for Chevrolet misses the mark. Aside from the harsh criticism of the tagline “Chevy Runs Deep” -- criticism that ranges from perplexity to the mocking of the sexual innuendo inherent in the line --there has been a damning commentary regarding the agency’s “Chevrolet Anthem” spot, one that evokes the industrial days of yore, when GM was as much a part of Americana as the Yankees and apple pie. Whether invective-filled or rationalized, the basis of the reaction to the campaign has been this: Why is GM, fresh from a government bailout and a decade of poor market performance, bringing up the past?

The question is valid. In fact, I agree completely that it’s a quandary. However, I understand how the campaign came to be, and as much as I disagree with it, I get it. I get it because I was raised in the Detroit area.

My father worked in the automotive industry. The majority of my friends’ parents worked in the automotive industry. In my youth, I took approximately six school field trips to the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn. If I were to search my parents’ house, I’d probably find a “Buy American” pin or T-shirt packed away in a cardboard box. The automotive industry is inexorably tied to my upbringing, as it is tied to most who hail from the Detroit area and other areas tied to the Big Three. Myself, and those like me, grew up in what I call “The Big Three Bubble.”

But then I moved away from Detroit. I lived in Washington, D.C. for a while, then onto Chicago where I currently reside. As Midwest and blue collar as the city of Chicago is, the themes -- or anthems, if you will -- of my youth are not present here because there are a multitude of industries that drive the workforce, not just one as in Detroit. I have lived outside the Bubble for several years now, and let me tell you something: The sentiment regarding the American automotive industry is much different on the outside.

The truth is, consumers and the American public outside of the Bubble have a short-term memory. In all that has happened in the past decade, it is hard for them to remember anything too far in the past. What they remember is that General Motors would have collapsed if not for the drastic action of the federal government in the 11th hour. What they remember is the decade’s worth of vehicles that just couldn’t quite compete with their foreign counterparts.

However, if one were to take a look at the demographic of the Big Three’s executive class, I’m willing to bet good money that it is comprised of men and women who have lived inside of the Bubble their entire lives. To these people, the most important, treasured aspect of their respective brands is that they are embedded in the foundation of American industry -- and therefore embedded in our national identity. The “Anthem” campaign rings true to these executives, right to the core of their collective being.

Now, this is all supposition, but I’m willing to bet that Goodby came to Detroit with all sorts of out-of-the-box ideas that were shelved because the client’s notion of the Chevrolet brand still only exists inside the Bubble. Or perhaps Goodby drank the Detroit Kool-Aid, and who could blame them? The goal of all great advertising is to connect on a strong, emotional level with the consumer, and what’s stronger than the connection Detroiters have with the automotive industry?

The shame of all this is that soon GM will pay back the bailout loan and the federal government actually will make money off the deal -- and that the new lineup of GM vehicles are legitimately great products. Goodby’s work doesn’t convey any of that, not yet anyway. As an admirer of Goodby, and as someone who genuinely wants to see the Chevy brand do well, I look forward to new campaigns that convey the state of the brand as it is now, as well as conveying what it may become in the future.

Go Big or Go Home

2010-09-27T12:51:00.000-07:00

For the first time in my career, I am not with an agency. Thankfully, this doesn’t mean I am unemployed as I am currently operating as an independent contractor (working as a social media consultant, in fact). While contracting has its perks, I am eager to get back to agency life. As to those perks, many are obvious (working from home, calling my own hours, etc.), but one that was not-so obvious to me when I began is the time it has afforded me to wax philosophically about the next step in my career. I want back in to the agency world, but I don’t need back into it as far as the necessity for a paycheck is concerned. What I mean to say is, since I am not in the dire straits of being without an income, I have the luxury of choice. But I have found that this choice has less to do with where I’ll be and more to do with what I’ll be.

In the past several months, I have interviewed with digital, PR, and advertising agencies that run the gamut of size and recognition. Among the best of these agencies, one key characteristic seemingly is shared: fanatical devotion to the job. “We burn the candles here” is a common saying I've heard from employees of these agencies. Sometimes the demand of the job isn’t even veiled by euphemism; sometimes it is asked if you are prepared to work 70-80 hours a week.

I have an old college friend who is a talented copywriter and has worked with some great agencies in his career. Until recently, he worked at a well-known, global agency. He confided in me that toward the end of his tenure there, he began to question whether or not he really wanted to continue being an Ad Man. This friend began to train for triathlons and, in doing so, discovered in himself a passion for something other than advertising. His passion for training and competing did not trump his passion for advertising. What it did for him was open his eyes to the fact that some things in this world indeed exist other than his occupation that had come to define who he was as a human being. He just didn’t know if he wanted copywriting to be his whole life anymore.

Is it sad to think that we must choose between personal happiness and a successful career in this industry? Absolutely. Is it an inescapable decision we all must make at some point? Yes, it is. To return to my friend’s story, he knew that in order to be one of the “greats,” he would need to continue living, breathing, and eating advertising. This is not to say his life would be horrible if he chose to continue on, merely that his career would have remained the dominating facet of his life. To his credit, it was one or the other; he knew all too well that in the gray area between the two lay only mediocrity.

So here I stand, on the precipice of what could one day be an outstanding career, but only if I am prepared to devote my heart and soul (not to mention my time and sanity) to that career. That is what I have been philosophizing on all these months.

The truth? I can go all Descartes on the matter, but there is no decision. Not really. Not in my case. I made the decision long ago that this is what I want to do; that this is what I want to be. Those close to me wonder why I am so determined to find work with an agency that does great work, why I’ll up and move anywhere in the country for the right gig. They don’t get it because they are not in this industry. Those of us who are in this crazy business know the price. The question you must ask yourself is whether you are willing to pay it.

Talkin Bout My Demographic

2010-07-30T20:24:00.000-07:00

I cannot live this lie any longer. It’s time for me to admit to the world what I am. This is my confession and as I write it I cannot help but wonder what my friends and colleagues will think of me after reading this. Most of all, I fear for how my girlfriend will react as I have worked so hard to hide this awful truth from her.

Here it goes:
I…
am…
a nerd.

Yes, I am a nerd. Like, a big nerd. I’ve participated in in-depth arguments over which superhero is more likely to win in a head-to-head grudge match: Batman or Superman (Batman, of course. One needs only to look in the annals of comic canon to see examples of him whooping the Man of Steel). I can recite from memory each and every line of dialogue in the original Star Wars Trilogy and I feel as equally rancorous about Episodes 1, 2 and 3 as I do about the handling of Hurricane Katrina. My Xbox Gamerscore is a modest 8075 and the excitement I feel watching each new video preview of the upcoming Halo title is so great it may as well be pornography. Perhaps most telling of how truly nerdy I am is the fact that I find the films of Kevin Smith to be funny.

Let me be clear, my nerdom has nothing to do with my love of gadgetry. Thanks to Apple, obsessions with technology have become far too chic to be embarrassed about. I’m talking about the “living in your mom’s basement playing World of Warcraft” type of nerdery.

Why have I chosen this column to make my grand confession? Because, as advertisers and marketers, you should be trying to get me and my brethren to buy your client’s products. Forget “Soccer Moms”, it is we who comprise the Nerd Demographic that are truly deserving of your attention.

Stripped of all pretenses, advertising is simply the selling of products. Fragrances, luxury cars and tennis shoes are not products that will cure cancer or solve world hunger. They are material things that, at best, will make a consumer feel a little bit better about his or her own self-worth. My point is that, in the grand scheme of things, these products amount to very little.

However, a nerd will go to fisticuffs over the most inconsequential matter. We nerds live in a world where the most innocuous subjects are matters of life or death. For example, two Soccer Moms won’t get into an intense argument over whose mini-van is best, but two Nerds will hurl the basest insults at each other over the merits of Red Bull vs. Monster. This is because the requisite characteristic of a nerd is blind passion. Blind passion is reason why a Storm Trooper will never show up at a Trekkie convention and it is why we are likely the most brand-loyal consumers that exist.

Several years ago, when I was working in experiential marketing, I pitched to senior management San Diego’s Comic-Con as an event for our automotive client to participate in. I not only thought it was a great event but I really wanted an excuse to go, so I put together what was probably the best Power Point deck I’ve ever created (remember, a nerd is passionate) and proudly gave a presentation chockfull of stats and case studies. Perhaps I erred in showing too many pictures like the one I included in the deck of a woman dressed as Princess Leia arm-in-arm with a man suited up as Boba Fett, because my crowd was too busy snickering to really understand what I was pitching. Once I had finished, it was a single person who summed up management’s thoughts, “Great job, Justin. It’s just that this is all so…nerdy!”

I look back on that memory today and I still believe that if management had seen past their own “coolness” and given the event a shot, Comic-Con would have been our client’s most successful event of the year. I don’t hold onto that belief as a nerd scorned, I hold onto it because as a professional I have seen the value of brand evangelism raised above all else in this industry. Over 100,000 people attend Comic-Con each year and that makes for over 100,000 would-be evangelists for any brand smart enough to court them.

Comic-Con San Diego 2010 wrapped up last weekend and several reports in the news questioned whether the event had become too “commercialized.” If Comic-Con has indeed become too commercialized, then I know that I’m not alone in assessing the nerd demographic as fertile ground. So take me at my word as a nerd and try throwing some of us into that focus group next time client tasks you with a product launch. Just make sure you have a capable monitor because with that many nerds in one room, things could get ugly fast!

Note: The Author neither lives in his mother’s basement nor plays World of Warcraft. He does not pass judgment on those that do.

#SocialMediafail

2010-06-18T08:58:00.000-07:00

Over the course of weeks since the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, there has appeared to be one thorn in the side of British Petroleum’s PR team that has served to stoke the ire of the corporation more than any other. It isn’t the media with their 24/7 coverage and underwater live-cam footage of the leak; it isn’t the politicians spouting toothless threats; and it is not Greenpeace and their pseudo mililitia. What has BP flaks at a loss for an appropriate course of action is one man. Or rather, it is one man and a Twitter account.

Shortly after the disaster struck, Leroy Stick (an admitted pseudonym) launched the Twitter account @BPGlobalPR, which he meant to use as a means of parodying the cliché PR messaging coming out from BP crisis communications team. What began as Leroy’s personal outlet for expressing his frustration through comedy gradually grew (through the magical power of social media) into one of the more poignant commentaries on the subject.

But you all know this story by now; in fact a number of you reading this column are probably one of @BPGlobalPR’s 170,000 followers. There is no point in my rehashing what many other PR and social media experts have stated on this matter. The purpose of this piece is to illustrate that when it comes to issues of social importance, the way we as communicators approach and execute initiatives requires a different kind of thinking and, most importantly, assessing the reality of the situation.

An example: Back when I worked in Washington, DC in public affairs, we handled an account composed of a consortium of corporations that were concerned about certain environmental legislation that was being debated on the floors of both houses at the time. Our job was to attempt to sway opinion against this legislation and, well, let’s just say our client’s and the Sierra Club didn’t see eye to eye on the matter.

During a brainstorming meeting, someone at the table brought up the idea of producing a video for Youtube that would deliver our message in a new way. Several present at the meeting thought this was a great idea - I did not. My reasoning was simple: Our position was one that was easily assailable. Anyone with enough time on his or her hands and a moderate level of cleverness (someone like Leroy Stick for example) would be able to take the serious-in-nature video we produced and, using the most rudimentary of equipment, create a parody in response. Users, specifically those on Youtube, do not seek out clips that are serious and informative, they seek out clips that are funny and entertaining. If we had been lucky enough to get 10,000 views of our clip, any attempt at a parody would likely have garnered tenfold that amount (case in point: @BPGlobalPR and its 170,000 followers and the 14,000 followers the verified account of @BP_America).

It has been discussed ad nauseam and countless case studies exist with evidence that corroborates the power of social media as a means to propagate social causes. The tricky thing is, this is a one-way street. If you happen to be employed to rebrand the Legion of Doom (I may be dating myself here), social media is not the platform you would use to broadcast their message. @TheSuperFriends is going to wipe the floor with you in terms of fervent followers and you will likely see a rise in negative public sentiment stemming from their twitter acolytes.

The mistake that BP made is one that Comm students cover in Social Media 101. Social Media is not a soapbox for corporations to stand upon to trumpet quarterly reports, new branch openings, or generalities that fall under the “Look how great we are” category. Users aren’t interested in that information because they are using social media as a means to interact with a corporation or a brand. BP chose to use Twitter as a soundboard of banal talking points, rehashing the very same quotes BP’s hapless CEO’s used on Fox News and CNN Headline News.

If BP had been smart, and possessed the requisite cajones, they would have used Twitter as a “hotline” by which the concerned public would use as a direct line to bemoan, harangue and chastise them (the key to this being a success would be someone on the other end responding). BP made a mistake, they needed take ownership of it and they needed to listen to the public. At least then the irate public would have felt like someone was listening.

So next time there is a chemical spill, nuclear meltdown, automobile recall or any sort of calamity whose fault lays squarely in the lap of one of your clients, think about what I’ve written here. If you’re client is courageous and thick-skinned, social media will be a useful tool in your arsenal. If your client is not, stick with press releases.

The Great Schism

2010-05-24T10:49:00.000-07:00

This past week, I experienced internally a Great Schism, one not unlike that of Rome and Constantinople, East and West Berlin and Charlie Sheen and his ex-wife(s). My mind, it seems, has split into two distinct personalities: The Marketer and The Consumer. What has caused this rift, you ask? Well, these two sides have held an uneasy truce ever since I began working in this industry, but the culprit is easy to identify: Facebook.

Go ahead and pull up Google News, then enter “Facebook” into the search box. Your results will invariably pull up two perspectives: Outrage over Facebook’s disregard for user privacy and excitement over what Facebook’s new initiatives will offer brands and marketers. Having read ad nauseam of opinions from both camps, I find myself both outraged and excited. I feel like the only recourse I have is to use this column to give voice to each of my personalities and hope that through discourse and discussion they can once again come to uneasy but functional terms.

The Consumer: Orwellian! That is the only word that can describe what is going on here. When I joined Facebook several years ago, I joined because it was a way to keep in touch with friends. That’s it. The information I made available on my page was meant for friends and friends only – I reserved the choice of who was privy to my information. Now, Facebook dictates that I no longer have that right to choose. There is no State of Facebook, and Facebook does not have marshal authority over its user community.

The Marketer: Then quit! It’s that simple. If you don’t like it, get out. Yes, if you stay you will be providing Facebook and certain third parties (i.e. marketers) with specific, benign personal information. In return for that information, Facebook users will experience a higher quality web experience. Meanwhile, marketers and advertisers will be able to glean insightful information that will allow them to create messaging that will better resonate with users. Furthermore, thanks to enhanced targeting made possible by these initiatives, users will not have to sift through ads that do not apply to them. It’s a win/win for both sides.

The Consumer: How extremely altruistic of Facebook! The fact remains that we, the user community, did not sign up for Facebook as an advertising platform. I get the “improved user experience” point, but it’s not for me and other likeminded users. All we are asking for is the ability to opt out of participating in these new initiatives.

The Marketer: According to the “likeminded” you mentioned, last week it was Google, not Facebook, that was planning world domination. You and others are not surrendering your passwords, checking accounts, and social security numbers in order to participate in Facebook. Facebook is simply providing third parties with behavioral data on users. The Web is evolving and as it does users will find that giving up this type of information is necessary for participation.

The Consumer: Fascist!

The Marketer: Hippie!

Well, this was clearly an exercise in futility. I’m not sure that I will ever personally approve of Facebook’s privacy policies, but I know that they will indeed improve on how I professionally earn a living. I think that on some level all of us marketers, advertisers and PR flaks all struggle with this duality - it comes with the turf. I know that I will remain wary as to what information I share on Facebook, but, as a professional, I will definitely take advantage of the information shared by my community peers that use Facebook with less discretion.

How will I find peace? I’ll just up my donation to the ACLU this year.

Has Digital Killed Experiential?

2010-04-21T07:41:00.000-07:00

My very first gig in this industry called communications was with a marketing firm that handled the experiential marketing initiatives for General Motor’s Saturn brand. My position was that of a ground troop, and it was my job to travel all over this country to engage consumers at events large and small on behalf of Saturn. My career has taken a winding path since then but I count myself lucky to have entered this industry at a time when the paradigm was shifting from vertical to horizontal engagement, and to have begun my career with a position that embodied that shift. Now as a professional that is seeking to define his career in the digital realm, I have to wonder if my first gig has any role in today’s business environment.

I stated above that I count myself lucky to have had that job in experiential marketing and I was being wholly sincere. From the start of my career I was able to see firsthand the powerful effectiveness of genuine consumer engagement. I will say that my job wasn’t terrible difficult, since the Saturn Brand is a case study of how to create and grow a brand-loyal consumer base. I am still amazed when I recollect my encounters with Saturn owners and just how excited about the brand they were.

One instance in particular involved a 5-year old child and his mother from my very first event. The boy was a savant when it came to cars. He could recite with a Rainman-like delivery the specs of each of the vehicles we were showcasing. I had a blast with him and spent a good amount of time helping him in and out of the cars, popping the hood so he could check out the engine and being quizzed by him on each vehicle’s features and amenities.

It was about two weeks later when I received a forwarded email from my boss the contents of which surprised and warmed me. The original email was from that boy’s mother, who wrote to thank me for spending time with her child and to let me know how much he had enjoyed it. There was even a picture of him and I in front of an engine attached to the email. As any good marketer would do, I never divulged that I represented anyone but the brand, so it was impressive that the mother took the time to track down a way to thank me.

I think about that mother and child often. For me that experience is the purest example of what the modern day marketer/advertiser/PR pro hopes to accomplish. I tend to believe that she is always reminded of that experience almost every time she sees a Saturn vehicle, and isn’t that what we strive for? The association between the experiences we create and the brands we represent?

When we as professionals use social media it is exactly that association between brand and experience that we attempt to create, and that is the greatest treasure in the bounty social media presents us. Realistically, we cannot create the level of engagement online that I detailed above, but we can create micro-experiences with thousands of consumers with the click of a button. With digital there are no costly logistical concerns, no displays to transport or per diems to assign. Simply put, digital is cheaper. And as we operate in an uncertain economic environment, the bottom line is really all the case there is to make.

In the time between when I left that position and when Saturn announced its liquidation, the agency and the one that inherited the work saw an incremental decrease in demand from the client in regards to experiential initiatives. To be sure, there were other motivating factors, but perhaps it was finally a cost/benefit analysis that was experiential marketing’s doom in that situation. I for one believe in the power of experiential marketing and have to believe that there is a time and a place for it, though I’m just not sure when or where. However, as a digital communicator I use the knowledge gained from that episode in my career as a benchmark for what can be accomplished through true consumer engagement.

"Social Media Doctor" Doesn't Have The Same Ring To It...

2010-02-24T12:37:00.000-08:00

Question: Who handles a business’ social media initiatives?

A. The Digital Agency
B. The Ad Agency
C. The Marketing Agency
D. The PR Agency
E. All of the Above

Admittedly, this is a silly way to open my column. (Undergrads, the correct answer is “E. All of the Above”) However, ask your client this same question. Next, ask them how many of the agencies they do business with have pitched social media projects in the past year. The fact of the matter is that the full spectrum of communications agencies are competing - often tooth and nail - to grab as large a piece of your client’s social media budget as they can obtain. So while each agency can make a legitimate claim to carrying out social media initiatives, it may just fall to you to convince the client that your agency is the one to entrust with social media.

In this writer’s opinion, one of those generic agencies listed in the question above holds a considerable advantage over the rest of the field when it comes to social media and if you, dear reader, are an employee of one of the these agencies, you may just be surprised by my pick. If so, hear me out as I try to explain my stance.

It’s the PR Agency. (Disclosure: I spent a year in Washington, D.C. working at a public relations agency with some brilliant PR minds)

Digital Gal, hold your retort. Ad Guy, don’t get your cardigan in a twist. I do not mean to say that you two can’t do social media. What I am getting at here is that social media is a medium much more in line with what PR practitioners have been cultivating an expertise in for decades.

Before I write anything more on this point, I want you to do me a favor and dispel your preconceived notions of the PR flak. I’m not talking about P.T. Barnum or about war bond propaganda, and I am definitely not talking about the slimy spin doctor. What I am talking about is the relations part of public relations.

As David Ogilvy said, “If it doesn't sell, it isn't creative.” At the core of exceptional advertising and marketing is The Sell. At the core of exceptional PR is The Message. In the two previous sentences, I want you to substitute the term "social media" in place of “advertising and marketing” in the first sentence and “PR” in the second. In which sentence does “social media” sound more appropriate? The latter, of course.

If a social media initiative is too obvious about The Sell, then the community will ignore or reject it. John Q. Public doesn’t use Twitter and Facebook to be inundated with “Buy This” messaging. J.Q uses these networks to maintain relationships, and this is what we as communications professionals need to understand about the nature of the beast. True social media campaigns are about creating and fostering a relationship between the consumer and the brand, a goal that is achieved with the right messaging.

I recently visited a leading ad agency, where one of the admen I met with stated that they tell their clients that it is actually a good thing to be a little afraid at the onset of a campaign. This is an excellent mantra to apply to social media, since committing to this medium is not without its risks. Unfettered access to these communities in turn means unfettered feedback from these communities (i.e. the infamous Motrin v. Mommy Bloggers debacle ). PR practitioners have a name for handling that kind of thing; they call it crisis communications. Better yet, a PR flak might just be able to foresee these issues before they arise, something that can be an invaluable asset during the planning phase.

Have you ever been handed a media policy document by management? If you are unfamiliar, a media policy outlines procedure and talking points for an organization’s staff when speaking with journalists. More likely, you have been handed a social media policy guideline, as more of us engage in social media than speak with journalists. If you had both documents in your hand, you would be quick to see the similarities. Most social media policies I’ve seen appear to have been adapted from media guidelines.

Granted, this covers merely a portion of what goes into executing a quality social media campaign. The digital agency will use its development chops to craft unique user experiences. The ad agency and its creatives will come up with new, fun ways to engage users. The marketing agency will rely on methodology and research to ensure success. Yet if your agency is working in the social realm, take the time to read up on PR 101. It will make you better at your job and give your agency an edge as it struggles to become your client’s go-to firm for social media.

From Paris With Love

2010-02-09T09:14:00.000-08:00

I was glad to read that I was not alone in feeling under whelmed by this year’s Super Bowl ads. Advertising pundits across the board collectively announced their surprise at the amount of mediocre spots. I am hoping that this is a good sign. If advertisers are content to throw away millions of dollars, perhaps the economy really is rebounding!

I do not mean to say that I am against the buying of ad time for the Super Bowl, only that it seems a tremendous waste to spend that money to televise a completely unmemorable ad. At $2.6 million a pop, you had better make it worth the investment. Speaking of dollars and cents, don’t forget the production cost of these spots, some of which probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is with this in mind that I was able to pick the clear winner amongst the rabble that was this year’s Super Bowl crop, and that winner is Google.

First things first, it was brilliant in its simplicity. Using only simple (but well crafted) copy along with generic sound effects and imagery, the ad managed to tell an engrossing and engaging story. So many of the over-the-top spots left me thinking “WTF?” and this ad managed to present a well-rounded anecdote in 30 seconds.

However, what clearly distinguished the ad in my mind was how unbelievably low the production cost must have been. Forget location. Forget actors. Forget crews with cameras and boom mics. This ad was simply a prolonged screenshot. What do you think it cost Google to produce? I can’t see it costing more than $10,000, and I admire that.

Google is probably better off financially than 99% of the businesses that spent millions to advertise last Sunday. I appreciate a little frugality from one of the most profitable companies on the planet. In my own mind, frugality is a sign of corporate responsibility. Being a communications professional, I might be bordering on my own “Jerry McGuire” meltdown. This ad probably didn’t produce heavy billable hours (actually, I’m pretty sure that it was produced internally…AAAAAAAAHHHHHH!).

So I’ll put down my laptop before I start screaming “Who’s coming with me?” and just say this in closing: Bravo, Google.

The Family Room 2.0

2010-01-07T10:30:00.000-08:00

As the number of mediums that we as marketers and advertisers employ to target consumers have grown, the physical location of the consumer we are targeting can no longer be singularly defined. With mobile we hit them on the bus or at the dentist and via the Internet we hit them at the coffee shop or while at work in the office. Given this, it is hard to imagine the days of radio and television dominance, when our greatest aim was to reach consumers at home in the family room.

What if I told you that I believe we are on the verge of seeing the return to relevance of The Family Room? Would you laugh at me? Would you chase me from the halls of your agency, throwing vegetables at me? You could, but I think that you’d be wrong to dismiss this as simply crazy talk on my part.

Even though Nielsen still lists TV as the King of Mediums, we are finding that other mediums provide far more fertile grounds for yielding quality results. Yet what will happen when the Internet jumps from your small computer screen to that large plasma in your family room? Internet TV is around the corner according to announcements coming from this year’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES).

Picture any, generic family room. What is the centerpiece of it? Unless you are Amish, it’s the TV. Soon families will be surfing the World Wide Web via the same platform that used to bring them Hee Haw. So while broadcast and cable stations cringe at the thought that this will further denigrate their ability to garner ad revenue, let me tell you why this is actually a great thing.

Let’s use Hulu as an example: Citing a great book called Socialnomics, advertisers saw a 22% increase in ad recall and a 28% increase in intent to purchase as a result of advertisements placed on Hulu. What will happen to those statistics when that same content appears on the TV screen…do you think that they will drop or increase? My money is on the latter. Think of the possibilities for the traditional, 30-second spot for advertisers, as we will be able to add the layers of interactivity that has so far been confined to the computer screen. Ads on Internet TV will also provide marketers and advertisers with more robust analytical data and tracking.

It is not just Internet TV that will draw consumers back to the family room. Look at the possibilities presented by the growing acceptance of console gaming beyond the hardcore audience. One only has to look at the Wii to see how a console can be fun for the whole family. However, it isn’t the Wii that has me excited; it’s Xbox360’s Project Natal. If you aren’t familiar with Project Natal, I recommend that you devote 20 minutes to checking out the launch video . Essentially, this add-on to the Xbox360 console will bring augmented reality to the TV set. The AR craze that has digital marketers frothing at the mouth is about to jump from the Mac to the big screen. I am not assuming that every family will get an Xbox, but this jump may just be indicative of other advancements to come. Again, announcements coming from CES tell us that Skype will soon be available through certain TV’s. It isn’t a stretch of the imagination to think of Skype as the first step towards bringing AR to television. For a digital marketer, that is a pretty cool thought.

I admit that I am a geek when it comes to this kind of stuff, and that maybe I am getting ahead of myself. Regardless of how prone I am to excitement, the way that consumers ingest media via the television will evolve dramatically over the next 5 years. And while the family room will never be what it was to my parents growing up, maybe it will again be the central place where families gather around to spend some quality time with the ole’ boob tube… and the best place for us to convince them to buy stuff that they don’t really need.

The Young, Unkowing Satirists

2010-01-05T13:58:00.000-08:00

I remember my favorite class back in high school was Government. It wasn't because I was particularly interested in the subject, to be honest it was remarkably boring to me at the time. What made it my favorite class was the two weeks we spent performing mock-senate.

I had four good friends in that class and when it came time to choose your party my friends and I decided to revive the long-defunct Whig Party (it was that or the Bull Moose Party, famously founded by Teddy Roosevelt when, having felt slighted by the Republican Party for not electing him as their candidate for president, established a party of his own from which to run.) We gathered several other students into our party, and established a respectable minority in a class of about twenty.

Each student was required to draft a bill and in order to receive an A+ the student would need to see his/her bill passed into law. My friends and I were young, stupid and thought we were much more clever than we actually were so, being of that mentality, we decided that we would filibuster every single bill introduced by our classmates. I was excited to read from a phone book, but my teacher informed me that this was mere fiction.

The Whigs were loud and boisterous when other parties held the floor. We had fun screaming patriotic platitudes in the middle of our speeches and would regurlaly label non-Whigs as "unpatriotic." For the other senators seeking an A+, it became imperative that they receive the Whigs support on their bills. If we personally did not care for one of the senators, we would work to vote down whatever they brought to the floor. We even arranged for two of the Democrats to switch to the Whig Party mid-term, mitigating their majority. The bills we presented to the senate were based on stupid things that we knew our classmates would vote on, like nominating the following day a national holiday during which we would hold recess or declaring that the school's administration was a proxy government whose authority we did not recognize.

It never entered my mind 13 years ago that I would one day tell this story and have it read perfectly as a satire of the Republican Senators serving in the U.S. Senate today. I look back on my friends and I as being silly and immature bullies, the same view I hold of Republican Senators today. If you think me biased or unfair in my assessment, I ask that you observe the current proceedings of the Senate, where any bill of any significant substance proposed by the Democrats has yet to hit the floor for fear of a filibuster. I freely admit that the Democrats are just as much to blame for their constant capitulation.

Regardless of where you stand on political spectrum, we can all agree that debate and deliberation is necessary in order for the type of government our society is based upon to function. For our Senate to remain stagnant is an affront to the very foundations on which it is based. I see clearly that, regardless of how much fun it may have been, my friends and I completely missed the point of that class exercise. I hope the today's Senators will one day in retrospect feel the same.

Consumers of the World, Unite!

2009-12-22T13:43:00.001-08:00

In the communications industry, hyperbole is always abound. Having admitted that, I will now make the following statement with absolutely no intention of embellishment: We are now in the business of empowering consumers. Where as our predecessors may have focused on less than ethical means of driving sales by preying on the consumers fears and desires, today we are creating new and better ways to grant consumers power in terms of encouraging brand-ownership, striving for transparency and cultivating relationships.

Now, this was not an internal, altruistic revolution within our ranks. I'd be giving us too much credit to claim that. Consumer empowerment was not the product of any effort on our part, but rather the opposite. The World Wide Web opened up the floodgates of information and social media has connected consumers in an unprecedented manner, the cumulative result being an ever-increasingly savvy consumer. In today's marketplace, our old smoke and mirrors magic has been rendered impotent.

As the colloquial saying goes, "If you can't beat'em, join'em!" So we have. And why shouldn't we? Who needs focus groups when one can just spend some time on Twitter and Facebook to get candid feedback from real consumers? Why should we continue to push the 30-second spot when digital campaigns are so much more effective? Why pursue traditional, top-down communications when we can have direct dialogue with the consumer? Why am I asking so many obvious, rhetorical questions?

The one trend that I am most excited about, and the one that is most illustrative of my argument, is the use of crowdsourcing. Several big name brands have launched crowdsourcing campaigns recently, Starbucks being the one of the biggest. Starbucks launched the site "My Starbucks Idea" and encouraged visitors to post their own ideas on how to improve Starbucks service and products. Visitors were also encouraged to vote on the user-generated suggestions that they thought were the best. Starbucks has pledged to put the top-ranked ideas into action. Also, check out what Dell has been doing in this same vein over at www.ideastorm.com.

Today and moving forward, our job as communicators is to create the platforms and campaigns that drive consumer participation. I for one find this an exciting era our industry is entering and I am genuinely proud to be a part of it. To be honest, in my youth I used to idolize the spin doctors and admen who could sell snake oil to cure syphilis, but I find myself embracing their obsolescence. I'm sure that I sleep better at night than they did.

Advertising’s West Side Story (Sans The Bernstein Score)

2009-12-03T14:23:00.000-08:00

Over the past month or so, I’ve come across numerous articles and blogs in which pundits are heralding “The death of the traditional agency.” Conversely, I’ve read rebuttals, both direct and indirect, from industry experts proclaiming that the “digital” agency has hit its apex and will soon fall prey to the pitfalls that all agencies face. As if something out of West Side Story, the advertising industry seems to have broken into two factions. I myself, being an employee of a strictly digital firm, find it hard to agree with either camp.

First let me say that I am not a believer in the demarcation line that has been drawn between “traditional” and “digital” communications. Yes, there are agencies that offer solely digital practices and then there are those that appear entrenched in the status quo. Yet I challenge you to find a major ad agency that doesn’t offer digital services to its clientele. It is my belief that the actual craft of communicating and the principles employed by these two camps are, at their base, the same (or nearly so).

As I previously stated, I work at a digital agency. One of our largest initiatives in 2009 was the enhancement of our social media practice area, so in turn I set about expanding my own acumen. In order to accomplish this feat, you might be surprised to discover that I did not have to unlearn the tenets and axioms that were embedded in my mind through a degree in advertising and years of experience at “traditional” firms. It might even shock you to learn that these things actually helped me! To be clear and to avoid any detraction from the challenge of this task, there was certainly a learning curve and I would be negligent to claim that I’ve mastered social media in all its forms. I continue to learn more about social media everyday, though more often I’m broadening my technical understanding and not the communications principles that guide actual strategy.

I admit that the scope of digital communications is larger than merely social media, but this example is indicative of my larger point. Qualified research, solid strategy, exceptional content and measurable results will continue to be the pillars of advertising, no matter the form or medium in which it exists. These are principles that oldest-of-the-old-school embraced and ones that the new-kids-on-the-block continue to rely on as canon.

Many assume that the move away from traditional, top-down communication is a by-product of the digital revolution. If we were to take a look back in time to the turn of the century, prior to the advent of Twitter and when Facebook was strictly for college kids, we would notice that vertical communication (i.e. traditional advertising) was already beginning to give way to dialogue and direct consumer engagement. Back then, guerilla/experiential marketing emerged as a way of carrying out campaigns that directly engaged the consumer and “Word-of-Mouth” became a staple in every good adman’s vocabulary. I make note of this because it is important for us as advertisers to remember the time before social media, breakthroughs in mobile technology and the advancements made on Web. The communications model was changing ahead of the medium, and well before digital agencies became as prevalent as they are today.

It is a sobering fact that the largest of the agencies, the ones that once held court in this industry, face difficult times ahead. Smaller firms are more nimble and thus hold a decided advantage moving forward. Yet large or small, the truly great minds in this industry realize that the future of advertising needn’t be thought of as one path or the other, but of creating campaigns that encompass all mediums: old, new and emerging.

I portend that in 2010 and beyond the defining line between digital and traditional will become more opaque. Although late to the party, traditional agencies will attract the necessary talent to compete with the digital agencies that have thus far demonstrated a superior adroitness. Many of the most talented Digerati want to work for the edgy boutique agency, but let’s not forget that even in these dire economic times, the big agencies have deep pockets. Those that are unable to attract the talent and adopt models more in line with the digital age will fall by the wayside (as we’ve seen in 2009). Consequently, digital agencies will most likely expand their own practice areas into production and other “traditional” services. The big winners will be the Wieden’s and Crispin’s, those that have been prescient enough to build diverse talent pools and practice areas, and are capable of crafting multimedia campaigns that defy traditional definition.

There is, however, a way of settling this debate once and for all. Traditional and digital agencies must take to the streets and dance-fight. Just like the Jets and the Sharks in West Side Story. Should this happen, I will make myself available to sing “I Feel Pretty.”

Author’s Note: I actually loathe musicals and have no idea where my knowledge of West Side Story comes from.

“Welcome to Omnicom, May I Take Your Order?”

2009-10-19T12:08:00.000-07:00

When I had just graduated from college, jobs in the Detroit communications industry were few and far between (for more on my personal, job seeking experiences, check out my article for Talentzoo.com here). Faced with a seemingly endless stack of bills from my college years and needing an immediate source of income, I started waiting tables. I can’t even begin to describe the level of humiliation and degradation I felt during that time of my life but, in retrospect, I learned many lessons that I apply to my profession today.

In the time I’ve spent in the communications industry, I’ve seen the best and the worst of how agencies deal with their respective clientele. I’ve seen clients over-serviced and I’ve seen them treated as myopic ne’er-do-wells. At its best, I’ve seen the agency/client relationship manifest as an equal, like-minded partnership. What still surprises me is that people in this industry forget that, under all the ancillary aspects of our work that include awards, recognition, creativity and new business, communications remains in it's simplest form a service industry. Let me repeat that: This is a service industry; not that much unlike the one I worked in while waiting tables.

If you are a waiter/waitress, your ultimate responsibility is the customer’s satisfaction. Providing excellent service can mitigate a sub-par meal. If the kitchen is running behind, then you can assuage the ire of your patrons by remaining attentive throughout their wait. If their meal comes out wrong or the quality poor, then you must be quick to provide them with an alternative. My managers taught me that the service I provided my guests was as important as the meal itself, and they were right.

It doesn’t take much thought to substitute situations that occur in the account-side of agency life with any of the scenarios above. The creative doesn’t thrill your client, your agency’s workload has pushed the deadline of that client’s project, the client absolutely hates your concept….see what I mean? And just as it is when dining at a restaurant, having an attentive, sympathetic and knowledgeable account person can ensure that the client, regardless of the situation, is as content as possible in the end.

Not to take this metaphor too far, but one more thing comes to mind as I write this. I started to really make money waiting tables once I had cultivated “regulars” (customers that frequented the establishment and asked for me by name). I developed these “regulars” by building up a certain level of trust and expectation. In return, these patrons were more apt to respond to up-selling. “You are much better off going with a bottle of wine if you plan on having more than one glass” or, “That is a great selection, but let me tell you about our special today that I think you will absolutely love.”

Again, it doesn’t require a stretch of the imagination to apply these same scenarios to account service. The most important client in this business is a repeat-client, especially in these tough economic times. Building a relationship based on trust between your account team and your client is as important to long-term success as is the quality of the work you execute on that client’s behalf. Remember, many of your clients aren't as deft as you and your colleagues are in the art of communications, as such they might not be able to immediately see the big picture (or justify the big budget). It's not your job to sell them, but rather to engender an environment of trust in which they will take you at your professional word.

If this seems too obvious a metaphor, you're right: it is. Yet each of us at some point in our careers has cursed a client for ineptitude or lack of vision or for setting unreasonable expectations. Thinking of your role in this way may just help you be better at what you do.

And trust me, you don’t want to have to wait tables instead.

Mr. Smith Goes To Twitter

2009-10-15T11:00:00.000-07:00

In 1997, Matt Nadeau, a Vermont native, started his own microbrewery in the basement of his home. He named it Rock Art Brewery, in honor of the ancient petroglyphs that are etched in the rocks of the Vermont mountains surrounding his home. Eventually Matt moved his operation out of his basement and into a larger facility where he produces a full line-up of beers that are distributed throughout Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut and Arizona. In all regards, Matt had successfully realized his dream and turned a pastime into a profession.

To celebrate Rock Art’s tenth anniversary, Matt decided to brew a special beer. Indicative of the ten-year mark, Matt crafted a big, bold beer with a 10% ABV (Alcohol By Volume) and aptly named it “Vermonster.”

Everything was going great for Matt until September 14, 2009. That morning, he received a cease and desist order in the mail from the Hansen Beverage Company, the makers of Monster energy drink, demanding that he:

1. Immediately cease and desist from any distribution, sale or other use of "Vermonster in connection with beverages, including the use of any advertising, promotional and point-of-sale-materials that include the infringing mark;
2. Expressly abandon U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 77/765,863; and
3. Pay to Hansen its attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this matter.

Hansen’s argument is that, as Monster is planning to enter the alcoholic beverage market, Vermonster will "undoubtedly create a likelihood of confusion and/or dilute the distinctive quality of Hansen’s Monster marks. Thus, use of Vermonster infringes Hansen’s rights, and constitutes unfair competition under state and federal laws.”
Matt has sought out legal advice from a number of trademark attorneys, who each in turn have stated that should he proceed with litigation, he would most likely be vindicated in the eyes of the law. However, if he were to win in one court, he would be faced with an appeal from Hansen’s lawyers in another. And another. And another. Fighting this, he has been advised, will most certainly bankrupt him.

So Matt decided to do what downtrodden, Little Guy’s do when bullied by The Man: he resorted to grassroots tactics. However, this isn’t your mother’s letter-writing campaign.

Matt has smartly gone digital and positioned Rock Art Brewery’s website as the hub for his battle against Hansen. The landing page features little other than content relating to his cause and prominently features a large title reading, “ROCK ART BREWERY VS CORPORATE AMERICA.” Just below the battle cry is an embedded, surprisingly well-produced, 6-minute YouTube video detailing his company and the lawsuit facing him. The site includes downloads of Hansen’s original cease and desist letter, as well as links to the media coverage Matt has garnered. And, of course, there are the must-have “follow us on” Facebook/Twitter tabs. The #ISupportRockArt hashtag is a popular trending topic (though it has yet to break into the featured top ten). On Facebook, the 1,800-plus fans of the brewery are posting their support, encouraging a boycott of Monster and have even posted the mailing address of Monster’s CEO, Rodney C. Saks.

What Rock Art Brewery is attempting to do could very well become a perfect case study of the power of social media as a grassroots tool. Beyond the #ISupportRockArt hashtag, Twitterati have already started posting #monsterboycott, #BoycottMonsterDrinks and (my favorite) #monsterfail in their tweets. In my two minutes on Twitter observing #ISupportRockArt trending, 25 new tweets were posted featuring the hashtag. Furthermore, this story is only a month old and the exponential rate at which it has gained supporters is illustrative of the wildfire-like nature of the Internet.

Should this campaign gain enough of a following, Hansen will be forced to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of whether or not to pursue with their current course of action. I am willing to bet that had they checked with their PR counsel as well as their legal counsel in the beginning, they probably would’ve been advised not to have issued the cease and desist in the first place.

Regardless of how this plays out in court, any attempt by Hansen to position Monster in the alcoholic beverage market will inexorably be linked to the Rock Art Brewery name, even when it fades from the Twittersphere, as any future google search for “Monster Energy Drink” or “Hansen Beverage Company” will surely list links to this story amongst its returns. In the end, the move by Hansen to protect its brand from the “likelihood of confusion and/or dilute the distinctive quality of Hansen’s Monster marks” will in effect have inadvertently perpetuated that very same scenario to occur.

**UPDATE 10/22/09**
Hansen has withdrawn the C&D order. Here are the details.

The Year of Living Anxiously

2009-10-14T14:39:00.000-07:00

Last month, I was fortunate enough to write a column for Talent Zoo that was featured in the website's "From The Front Lines" section. This is a great (well, not so much great) story from when i first started interviewing with ad agencies. Take a read here! I hope you enjoy it as much as i enjoyed writing it!

Bizzaro World

2009-10-06T10:16:00.000-07:00

Humor me for a moment. I want you to join with me in imagining a different world. A better world. It is a world where humor is king and where all the salacious scandals that have become so customary in our culture are handled not with banality or contrite humility, but with humor and candor.

Of course, I was inspired to imagine this world by David Letterman’s recent on-air confession regarding his extramarital affairs with his coworkers and the subsequent blackmail attempt. The debate rages whether or not he handled this appropriately, or whether or not he is a lecherous, old man. I don’t care really. I just found it so refreshing that I began to ponder a world in which some of the other, more recent scandals might have played out.

In this Bizarro World, Governor Mark Sanford, fresh from his sojourn to Argentina, calls a press conference and gives a speech devoid of Biblical reference and grandiose comparisons to King David. Instead, Sanford tells the story of a love unrequited that does not beg for pity but instead offers insight into temptations with which most can relate. There are no tears as he retells the story, no allusions to tragedy. When he speaks to the when his wife found out about the affair, he jokes about how comfortable he has become sleeping on the couch and highlights portions of that awkward camping trip in the Ozarks with the in-laws.

Elliot Spitzer, busted by the FBI and IRS, gathers the press to talk about his dalliances with prostitutes, recalling with a wink a specific encounter with a woman saying, “Well, I guess you could call her a prostitute, but I sure don’t remember paying for anything.” He bemoans his call sign, “Client-9,” stating that he had hoped for something cool like “Maverick” or “Airwolf.” He claims that while the entire ordeal was horribly embarrassing, he felt that the revelation to the public that he “wore calf-length black socks while performing the sex act” was a low blow and that the FBI could’ve done him a solid and left that one out.

Forgive me, but now I’m just getting carried away. In all seriousness though, I think that licentious politicians could take a cue from Letterman. The truth is that once their stories become public, they cease to exist in the realm of politics and transcend (or descend) into the realm of pop culture. Whether Sanford and his ilk come to terms with it or not, their politicking days are numbered. (The notable exception being Slick Willie)

My advice to future public figures/adulterers: Why not go out with a laugh?

Selling Health Care Reform

2009-09-10T10:18:00.000-07:00

As a communications professional, I tend to focus more on the crafting of a message more than I do the substance of the message itself. It doesn’t matter if it’s a product that I’ll never use or a candidate that I’ll never support, I just enjoy breaking down what others in this industry are doing to effectively influence public opinion.

Of late, my inquisitive attention has been drawn to the health care debate where, I have to say, the Republicans are mopping the floor with their respective, partisan counterparts.

Now, I am nowhere near well versed on this subject, especially with the many intricacies laden throughout this debate. However, as this debate is becoming increasingly less about facts and more about raw emotion, I think that my lack of health care-specific knowledge doesn’t prevent me from offering my take on how the Democrats might improve their messaging.

First of all, hats off Republican’s on this one. I mean, I am a supporter of a public option and they’ve managed to even scare me a little! Whether it is Sarah Palin writing on Death Panels or talk show pundits spouting the tie between government-run healthcare and Nazi fascism, they are effectively evoking in American citizens their most base fears.

I remember that in my earliest advertising classes at Michigan State we would review Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Effective marketing appeals to one or more of these human needs. Low-level needs such as physiological requirements and safety must be satisfied before higher-level needs such as self-fulfillment are pursued. In this case, the GOP has managed to craft a campaign based upon attacking the foundation of, as Maslow defines it, our most basic needs of safety, security and physiology. In doing so, the recipient of this message is left bereft of concerns like morality and truth.

If we are to believe Maslow, Americans are not fazed when democrats speak of millions uninsured, corporate greed and other threats to our society because the Republicans have kept this debate from reaching the point in our hierarchy of needs where we begin to become concerned by such matters.

Maslow’s theory has its flaws, I’ll admit that. In fact, I believe that there should be a primary need that is placed before all others. What ensures that we have food? What provides us with clothing and shelter? What grants us protection? What is the most often cited benchmark in success? You know where I am going with this. It’s money.

Now, I know that this is an oversimplification. But really, what defines us culturally more than the “American Dream”, a dream that, once stripped of all pretense, is entirely materialistic and selfish? When it comes down to it, money is what matters to us Americans. (Don’t get me wrong. I am all for the American Dream. I want the house, the two car garage and maybe a little, red convertible.)

So let's take a look at a few examples of the stats (from the Center for American Progress) I've heard touted by liberals :

1: Ranking of health care costs among reasons Americans file for bankruptcy.
87: Percentage by which premiums rose between 2000 and 2006.
20: Percentage by which wages grew between 2000 and 2006.
18: Percentage by which inflation grew between 2000 and 2006.
$40.7 billion: Additional costs placed on and passed through the health system in “uncompensated” care of the uninsured. These costs are borne by everyone in the form of higher premiums for the insured and higher taxpayer costs to support safety net providers.
$768: Amount by which the average annual health premium for a family of four ($11,480) exceeds a minimum wage worker’s annual earnings of $10,712.

Taken as soundbites, these facts mean little to a viewer whose attention has been commandeered by the threats to his/her most basic needs.

The Democrats will never, ever change the minds of hard-line conservatives and libertarians. Trying to fight them, or even engage them, is a wasted effort. But in the words of Nick Naylor, “I’m not after you, I’m after them.” The most important constituency in America is neither Republican nor Democrat, it’s the Independent that controls the pendulum of public opinion.

Targeting the non-partisans, the Democrats need start delivering talking points that appeal to the individual’s bottom line. I’m not sure of the numbers (I can’t find them) but one thing I’ve learned is that data exists to validate any claim, so long as you know how to spin it.

The talking points must all revolve around the basic premise of “How much?”

As in, “How much will I save?” The People need before-and-after comparisons. So the average health premium is $768? What will it be if health care is government-run? What is the difference in dollars that I will make up per year between the taxes necessary to execute this and the premiums I pay now? What do I stand to save over my lifetime? "These costs are borne by everyone in the form of higher premiums for the insured and higher taxpayer costs to support safety net providers" - that statement means nothing to the average constituent and needs to be broken down into an average, individual cost borne by each citizen, and then compared with what they stand to save on average individually.

Find out these figures, climb to the mountaintop and scream them. Repeatedly.

And watch the tide turn.

Am I being cruel in my estimation of the American Public’s motivation? You may think so. But before you go all “Home of the Brave” on me, I encourage you listen in on what’s being shouted at these town halls. The masses have made apparent that there is no room for cogent, respectable or honest discourse and debate. The loudest person in the room, shouting the most simple and effective message, will win this battle.

Just look who’s winning it so far.

ad:tech Chicago

2009-09-03T11:25:00.000-07:00

I just got back from two days at ad:tech Chicago. I was lucky enough to get to cover the event for Adrants.com. Check out what went down here: http://www.adtechblog.com

Keeping it Real

2009-08-20T08:33:00.000-07:00

If you are an avid reader of my blog posts (I mean, who isn't, right?) then you probably know that I tend to write on the topic of social media. I write about social media primarily because I personally enjoy using the services on which I extrapolate and because it happens to be my job to sell folks on the benefit of engaging target audiences using these services. Having said this, what I am writing about today may at first glance seem somewhat contradictory to my profession (and might even smack of blasphemy to some of my socially-strategic brethren!) but I feel that it's time to lay down some brutal truths.

You see, in my profession I have the sometimes duplicitous role of building up a client's expectations at the onset of a social media campaign while, at the same time, tempering those expectations. The buzz surrounding social media makes it an attractive marketing tactic, especially with the many successful case studies one can reference. However, the social media landscape is laden with pitfalls and barriers, and even the best laid schemes of mice and mad men often go awry. It is in the best interest of the client, and the agency itself by way of cultivating a long-term relationship, that this reality is addressed and not mitigated in the hopes of of winning the account or project.

To better describe what I am trying to explain, let's take a look at the imaginary company BetterButter. BetterButter is a medium-size, B2C provider of organic peanut butter. They have been around for roughly three years and have had modest success in the Northeast region of the USA. The powers that be at the company have decided that it is imperative to establish a social presence. After a brief review, BetterButter chose Agency X to help them achieve this goal. Agency X begins to set into motion the development of a Facebook fan page and a Facebook application, as well as a twitter-centric promotional campaign.

Now fast-forward a year. The Powers That Be at the company are perplexed. They have invested a fair amount of time and capital into growing the brand socially, but the results have been far from a commercial success. The Facebook page has only 150 fans. The application (a nifty peanut butter recipe-generator) has only been adopted by 40 people, 25 of which are employees and their family members. The brand's twitter account has 230 followers, 30% of which consist of attractive women with x-rated links for viewing and the several twitter promotions have not increase the company's presence on the service, let alone any substantial increase in sales. The Powers That Be can't understand why this campaign hasn't yielded the results they projected and Agency X inferred.

If you are a small-to-medium size business, this scenario may sound eerily familiar. If it does, it's because your internal marketing team or third-party agency that carried out your campaign either didn't know what they were doing or were simply to eager to take advantage of the buzz surrounding social media. This scenario, whether fictional or close-to-home, is indicative of what's wrong with our industry right now. It is our responsibility when providing these services to our clientele to be forthright in stressing the substantial barriers of entry that exist in the social realm, rather than take advantage of an organizations eagerness to "get social." The following are several things I think every client must know before strategy can be discussed, let alone executed:

1. Social media is not the end-all, be-all answer to an organization's marketing goals. It is merely a component, albeit an increasingly crucial one, to your overall marketing mix. The core parts of that traditional mix, most importantly branding and corporate identity, must be strategically developed and executed. As with all of your communications efforts, you want a unified communications front. If your brand or corporate identity is not established, then your social presence will lack a real-world tangibility.

2. To expand on the subject of the importance of branding, I'd like to note the correlation between brand-loyalty and successful social marketing. The largest asset an organization can have at the onset of a social media campaign is a brand-loyal consumer base. Brand-loyal consumers provide you with a pre-established network that is already exicted and knowledgeable about your organization/product and therefore likely to be receptive to any attempts to socialize with you. From a viral standpoint, you need to use this group as your mavens. If you are lacking in brand-loyalty, then one of the long-term goals of your social campaign should be to build that base. Think quality over quantity in terms of followers/friends.

3. Has your organization developed an application for one or several of the major social networks? If so, you probably spent a good chunk of change on it and have not received the ROI you expected at the onset. Here is a sobering statistic that you should be aware of: only 1% of the applications on Facebook account for 77% of volume in terms of usage. Last I checked, there were over 17,000 applications on Facebook. That means that only 170 applications are being adopted by the majority of users. I'm not saying that applications aren't great viral tools (I may just put myself out of a job if I were); rather I am stating that your application had better be engaging and useful to your audience if it is to succeed. If your social media presence is in its nascent stage, it is probably not a wise idea to launch an application. If you do have a firmly established social presence, make sure that what you application offers is unique and, most importantly, serves a useful purpose.

4. What is the status of your organization's current digital presence? (Note that I said "digital" presence and not "social," and by this I mean any and all web-related endeavors. What's your website like? Is it dated? Slow? Informative? What's level of traffic does your site experience? These are important questions to ask before launching a social media campaign because what you distribute socially should be, in terms of best practice, short and sweet. The real bulk of information is located on your website, and one of the primary goals of any social media campaign should be to increase traffic to your site.

5. Does your company have a blog? It should and, while there are great third-party blog sites available, that blog should exist within your own domain. A blog is the best opportunity you have to: establish thought leadership and expertise, display your corporate identity and personality, optimize your site's search engine ranking and allow for direct dialogue with the community your are seeking to build or grow through trackback and comments features. More often then not, engaging an audience through social media means participating in a conversation that is directed by the community itself. Your blog is were you set the agenda.

There are still other things to consider when planning a social media strategy, all of which should be determined by conducting a preliminary audit of your marketing mix and digital presence. As communications professionals, it is our duty to make sure that we are honestly and accurately assessing our client's strengths and weaknesses at the onset of any social media endeavor. It can be difficult, especially in these difficult financial times, not to be blinded by dollar signs when approached for this type of service. To best serve our clients, we need to be brutally honest about the barriers of entry that exist in social media, as well as communicate the importance of traditional marketing, PR and advertising.

Beyond all of this (and thorny subject matter to be further elaborated on in a future post) we need to redefine - for this specific medium - how we measure the success of these campaigns. Promising a lofty, or mollifying a more realistic, ROI goal does not accurately reflect the value inherent in participating in this medium. I have worked in public relations, where there exists a similar debate on attempting to quantify the value of a media hit. I've always been of the camp that believes that a story in the New York Times speaks for itself and need not be quantified through the application of the Advertising-Value-Equivalent method (measuring the size or length of the placement, using current ad pricing to determine what an ad of that size or length would cost, then multiplying by 1.5 or up to 3). In social media circles I've heard others refer to ROE, or Return On Engagement, which I think is much more representative of the nature of this beast. Simply put, we need to work with our clients to categorically determine how "success" is to be defined at the onset of any social media campaign.

Monetize This!

2009-08-20T08:32:00.000-07:00

It seems that business pundits are of the mind that many of the successful social networks that exist today are doomed to fail because of a crippling inability to monetize themselves. I've thought about this and I'd like to take a moment to mount my digital soapbox. After much reflection, I think that this is not only a myopic point of view, but that it is exactly this line of thinking that will in fact bring down social networking as we know it.

I'll be honest with you; in college I didn't exactly excel in my Finance, Accounting and Econ courses (and that, as my mother will tell you, is putting it lightly). However, I have been around long enough to recognize good business practice when I see it. I mean think about it, we all are experts in our own right, simply by performing our role as consumers.

As consumers, we reward those that provide useful, reliable, friendly services with our continued patronage. If they provide us with the contrary, we take our business elsewhere. We may not be schooled in the science of supply and demand, but we are smart enough to know when we are getting the short end of the stick.

But I digress… Back to the topic of monetizing social networks. For the jury, I submit Exhibit A: Facebook, the Grand Poobah of the social realm. Facebook seems to be perpetually seeking ways to monetize itself and every time it does, it shoots itself in its very corporate foot.

In November 2007, Facebook launched Beacon, a system where third-party websites can include a script by Facebook on their sites, and use it to send information about the actions of Facebook users on their site to Facebook. Information such as purchases made and games played are published in the user's news feed. While still active, a class action lawsuit was filed in 2008 against Facebook, Blockbuster Inc., Overstock.com, Fandango, Hotwire.com, GameFly, Zappos.com, and any additional "John Doe" corporations that participate in the Beacon service.

In 2008, we loyal users learned of a clause in the network's terms of service that reserved Facebook the right to sell users' data to private companies, stating "We may share your information with third parties, including responsible companies with which we have a relationship." The backlash from this revelation was so great that Facebook eventually removed the clause from their privacy policy when it was updated on November 26, 2008.

More recently, there are reports of rampant "click fraud" occurring within the network's cost-per-click advertising, a service mainly used by small self serve advertisers. In some cases, advertisers have reported gross misrepresentation of click-throughs as high as 10:1 when gauged against third-party metric tracking sites. The site instructed those who have issue with the service to log the discrepancies and submit them to Facebook. After taking the time to collate these logs, advertisers have been rewarded with a reassuring, pre-scripted response letter.

As I list these controversies, I know that they have resulted in little or no change in how the Facebook runs its network and that they have had no effect whatsoever on the exponential increase in FB users (What? Are we supposed to switch to MySpace? Please, that is so 2004).

However, the alternative network twitter , which most social mavens now use almost exclusively, has Facebook worried about its future (for evidence, just look at all of the new, twitter-like features recently added to Facebook). It isn't out of the realm of possibility that if Facebook continues to lose credibility, users will up and take their profiles elsewhere.

WARNING: If you are a devout capitalist, or if your name is Rupert Murdoch, the following paragraph may make your head explode.

What I propose as a solution is simple: don't monetize them, at least not in the traditional sense. There exists in media a perfect example of how these sites can persevere and ensure longevity, but I haven't heard a single pundit offer this idea yet. I suggest that social networks adopt the same model as PBS and NPR. Revenue will come through "donations" that are made by corporations and businesses that wish to participate in this medium. If they are smart, these businesses will realize that they have a vested interest in ensuring the survival of these networks as a communication tool. This will require that that they accept that there is no way to moderate or direct the conversation; the value lays in the ability to facilitate and participate in it.

Not only will this provide a constant stream of revenue, but this model will ensure transparency throughout and allow these networks to maintain the trust and continued participation of its users.

I am not naive enough to think that the CEO's, CFO's, MBA's, etc. that run these sites will ever consider such a drastic course. I understand the need for ever-increasing revenue, especially in the digital world where the necessity for continued improvement requires substantial reinvestment. Only time will tell if Facebook and twitter and their ilk can survive or if the imminent death of MySpace is an aberration and not a paragon. I simply encourage those in charge of running our social networks be wary of how they seek to monetize them in the future, because their track record so far has me worried.

Digital Strategy in a Recession

2009-08-20T08:31:00.000-07:00

When times are tough, companies tighten the belt buckle (thank you, Captain Obvious). This generally entails companies cutting or severely limiting their expenditures on non-essential projects to free up money for important things…like executive bonuses (ZING!). While businesses are cutting down expenditures across the board, many proactive companies are making concentrated efforts to grow and enhance their digital presence.

Before I write any further, let me address my somewhat biased opinion on the matter. Yes, I am the New Business & Marketing Manager of a firm that sells clients digital services and that would serve to reduce my impartiality. With that said, I am merely pointing out what others have chosen to do with their limited budgets. I just happen to think that they are right.

A great first example is the recent launch by The New York Times of its TimesReader 2.0 . Here is an industry that is, by all accounts, dying. It seems that every month there is news of yet another prominent newspaper going bankrupt, and while the Times will no doubt survive this print holocaust, it has not been immune to the pitfalls that plague its industry contemporaries (see Reuters' article "S&P cuts New York Times rating deeper into junk status" ). Realizing that in order to survive and remain an industry-leader, the Times has chosen to invest in developing the first truly "digital newspaper".

Competitive advantages are all the more important in today's tough marketplace. One of the best advantages a business can leverage in a recession is customer service which, when executed correctly, builds consumer loyalty and can distinguish a business from its competitors. The web provides businesses the opportunity to interact and engage customers in an expedited and convenient manner, provided that they embrace emerging technologies and digital trends (note to cellular companies, your online chats are even more infuriating than your 800 lines). Domino's Pizza recently committed to improving dialogue with consumers by hiring a consulting agency to assist them in strengthening their relationships with consumers through online communities. As stated in their press release, Domino's seeks to "continue to incorporate social media into their overall communications plan, expand consumer trust, and build excitement in new services and products."

But investing in digital doesn't have to mean investing large amounts of capital. For example, take what some small businesses are doing with the free service Twitter . New Orleans based Naked Pizza, recently launched a Twitter-specific marketing campaign that proved to be rather successful. In a test run April 23, an exclusive-to-Twitter promotion brought in 15% of the day's business. And while Twitter has yet to offer a comprehensive analytics tool, the simple daily tracking of how many users you are attracting shows at a macro-level how your outreach via the service is fairing.

Does bolstering your digital presence make your company "recession-proof"…probably not. It isn't a cure-all and it can certainly require some investment when funding is tight. However, going digital (as it pertains to your specific industry and audience) arms your company with a proven means of communication in a time when traditional methods are proving ineffective.

Or you can always think of it like this: In this economy, it couldn't hurt to try.

Transparency In The Social Realm

2009-08-20T08:20:00.000-07:00

There is a universal rule that people, companies and organizations must adhere to when participating in the Social Media Realm: Remain Transparent!

All too often, those trying to maximize the all-too-appealing benefits of conducting social campaigns forget the transparency tenet. Truthfully, I understand the temptation, especially for marketers, advertisers and PR professionals. People tend to respond more favorably to communications that they believe are altruistic or sincere, communications that do not possess ulterior motives.

But transparency goes both ways and applies, if not even more so, to those who maintain and run these sites. Again, I understand the temptation. These sites are cash cows (Facebook's total implied value is around $15 billion). While just about every industry and company is struggling in these financial times, the social media companies that run sites like Facebook and Hulu continue to add more users each month, which in turn means larger advertising premiums. However, the decision makers of these sites must be wary that the monetization of the communities they've created doesn't mitigate the user's trust.

Case in point, let's look at what Hulu recently did to assuage user rage over the removal of a popular TV show on the site. Hulu, at the request of the content provider, FX Network, removed "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" from the site's downloads, and it did so without any form of notification to its users. "Sunny" was one of the most popular shows on Hulu and its many fans began emailing, posting and tweeting away in protest. Below is the letter posted by Jason Kilar, CEO of Hulu, to the site's users.

On January 9, we removed nearly 3 seasons of full episodes of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." We did this at the request of the content owner. Despite Hulu's opinion and position on such content removals (which we share liberally with all of our content partners), these things do happen and will continue to happen on the Hulu service with regards to some television series. As power users of Hulu have seen, we've added a large amount of content to the library each month, and every once in a while we are required to remove some content as well.
This note, however, is not about the fact that episodes of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" were taken down. Rather, this note is to communicate to our users that we screwed up royally with regards to how we handled this specific content removal and to apologize for our lack of strong execution. We gave effectively no notice to our users that these "Sunny" episodes would be coming off the service. We handled this in precisely the opposite way that we should have. We believe that our users deserve the decency of a reasonable warning before content is taken down from the Hulu service. Please accept our apologies.
Given the very reasonable user feedback that we have received on this topic (we read every twitter, email and post), we have just re-posted all of the episodes that we had previously removed. I'd like to point out to our users that the content owner in this case - FX Networks - was very quick to say yes to our request to give users reasonable advance notice here, despite the fact that it was the Hulu team that dropped the ball. We have re-posted all of the episodes in the interest of giving people advance notice before the episodes will be taken down two weeks from today. The episodes will be taken down on January 25, 2009. Unfortunately we do not have the permission to keep the specific episodes up on Hulu beyond that. We hope that the additional two weeks of availability will help to address some of the frustration that was felt over the past few days.
The team at Hulu is doing our best to make lemonade out of lemons on this one, but it's not easy given how poorly we executed here. Please know that we will do our best to learn from this mistake such that the Hulu user experience benefits in other ways down the road.
Sincerely,
Jason Kilar, CEO, Hulu

This is a textbook example of how to diffuse a social uprising. Kilar directly addressed Hulu's users, accepted blame for the way the situation was handled, offered a remedy and then promised to learn from this mistake (I may just disseminate this letter to politicians).

Think about this example when your company or organization decides to go Social. Remember that the user is wary and easily slighted. Remain transparent and reap the rewards!

Thanks to Muhammad Saleem (@msaleem on Twitter) for writing a great article on this subject.