Content

Question: Has your sales and marketing tactics changed radically over the past five years?  Not to over hype it, but the second half of this decade has brought changes in media consumption that rivals the introduction of the printing press and television.  You need to keep your customer’s behavior in mind when deciding which marketing and sales tactics to use in light of the dramatic changes.

Five years ago no one had yet heard of YouTube, Hulu, Face book or Twitter.  Reality TV now dominates the ratings as Andy Warhol’s prediction of instant fame actually came true.  Public Wi Fi is everywhere and Google is now a verb.  The new generation of smart phones would amaze James Bond.  DVRs  and IPODs have completely changed the concept of consuming and buying entertainment.  When it comes to content, the influence of bloggers in politics, sports and entertainment often drive the media narrative with the mainstream media chasing. 

Major newspapers like the Boston Globe are a dying business model.  Network TV viewership is at an all time low and the level of creativity is even lower – how many crime shows do we need?  Magazine are shrinking and trying to reinvent themselves like Newsweek, Playboy and Reader’s Digest.  The B2B trade press is migrating from print to online content, web casts and virtual trade shows.

Thanks to advances in technology, the balance of power has shifted from media to consumer and that changes everything for marketers.  Have you adjusted your marketing plans to take advantage of these changes or are you maintaining the status quo?

Here are ten burning questions you need to ask yourself now:

1. Are you conducting or finding research to understand how your customers are consuming media? 

2. Does this research tell you the information needs of your customers and prospects?

3. Are you still renting expensive ad space in print and TV with the majority your budget? 

4. Are your producing original content and owning your own media channel to create an interactive dialog with your customers?

5. Is your company using original content to become a trusted media brand?

6. Are you creating passion and communities among your customers?

7. Do you make an effort to balance your retention and acquisition efforts, or are you over investing in lead generation?

8. Do you have a defined social media strategy to engage with customers and prospects where they are spending more and more time?

9. Are you personally engaged with Linked In, Face Book and Twitter to find prospects and talk to your customers?

10. Do you have measurement metrics in place for all of your marketing and sales tactics?

Think about your honest answers to these questions and take stock of where you are with both your company and career.  It is easy for mid career professionals to write these changes off as a passing fad or “for kids”.  That is probably what they there thinking at the Boston Globe and Newsweek just a few years ago.  We are in the midst of big time changes across the spectrum of politics, economics and media consumption.  The companies that adopt swiftly will thrive over the next decade. 

During last few weeks I have noticed a ratcheting up of inbound direct mail (postal and email) coming to me from companies that I had bought from in the past.  It ranged from Lowes and the Sunglass Hut sending me $50 off coupons for purchases over $200 to Omaha Steaks and 1800 Flowers emailing me great deals for Mothers and Fathers Day. 

Marketing to current or past customers is always smart, but even smarter during a recession.  Acquiring new customers can be a very expensive but necessary operation.  When funds are tight nimble companies tweak the balance between retention and acquisition.  By mining your customer database you can target past customers who will be more receptive to your messages.  Keep in mind most consumers are cutting back and trying to spend wiser.  A good deal from a familiar voice can get them to open their wallets.  It is always easier to convince someone to buy again rather than for the first time. 

Customer retention is even more powerful when paired with content marketing to build stronger relationships with customers who will see you as a trusted information resource.  This content can take the shape of custom magazines or magalogs, newsletters or webcasts.  Even face to face events for current customers could deliver a solid return.

How are you balancing your acquisition and retention efforts?  Do your customers see you as a trusted source of information or just someone trying to sell them something?

A content rich custom media customer retention program may be your best bet during trying economic times.

In 2000, Al Gore received a half million more votes than George W. Bush for President, but it was not to be.  Talk about Karma - fast forward to today and W. is in his living room with the lowest approval rating in modern times and is still a punching bag for the media and comedians.  Meanwhile, Al Gore has added a Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar, Grammy and Emmy to his environmentally correct trophy case.  In case you didn’t know, Gore is also one of the founders of Current TV.  Description below:

Since its inception in 2005, Current TV has been the world’s leading peer-to-peer news and information network. Current is the only 24/7 cable and satellite television network and Internet site produced and programmed in collaboration with its audience. Current connects young adults with what is going on in their world, from their perspective, in their own voices.

Current pioneered the television industry’s leading model of interactive viewer created content (VC2). Comprising roughly one-third of Current’s on-air broadcast, this content is submitted via short-form, non-fiction video “pods”. Viewer Created Ad Messages (VCAMs) are also open to viewer’s participation.
 

Current TV is a creature of the new media landscape and takes advantage of the fact many people want to create content, connect with peers and be famous. The technology to live this dream is now in the hands of the masses.  You can see this theme throughout media and popular culture.  Who received more “buzz” this year?  Was it Adam Lambert, Susan Boyle and the Housewives of NY/NJ or the scripted dramas on network television?  Clearly it was the reality stars because they feed into the concept of democratized content and aspirations of fame and fortune.

This trend has implications for marketers and advertisers trying to reach an ever more fragmented audience.  The 30 second spot and print ads are dying art forms.  One of the cool things about Current TV is they allow viewers to create ads for major brands such as HP and T-Mobile based on some creative assets and a brief.  Their research shows that viewers prefer user generated ads by a ratio of 9 to 1.  This trend does not bode well for traditional ad agencies, and doesn’t big Al know it.  Read a few quotes from a keynote he recently gave at marketing event as reported by Adweek:

He described the end of the industrial-revolution-like era of advertising, which produced ads that are “big, blunt expensive and very intrusive. . Audiences have begun to resist that old model.”   Going forward, advertising needs to become more nuanced, authentic and peer-to-peer, said Gore. “People want a different kind of feeling toward brands to which they give their money.”
 
That means being more upfront about ad messaging, rather than attempting to squeeze marketing messages into content through branded entertainment, he said. According to Gore, one of the reasons that Current viewers like VCAM ads is that they are straightforward in their intent. “People are interested in what someone like them is going to do and they’re not going to have something slipped by them,” Gore said. With ads that have been disguised as entertainment, “there is some resistance to those models. . . . We believe that intelligent empowerment of the audience is the key.”

Al Gore will likely never be President but he is now at the forefront of private custom media channels and content marketing.  In the parlance of marketing speak, Al Gore “gets it”.  Do you? 

The job of a marketer has probably never been more complicated with all the choices and options we have to communicate our messages for lead generation and customer retention.  The advent of new web tools and social media has made keeping up a full time job.  Our friend Joe Pulizzi at Junta42 has done a great job of compiling all the tools you need to know about in the areas of custom media, social networking, interactive conversations, Facebook and Twitter tools, content sharing, blogging, back end operation and of course, measurement.

Take a look at the list and let us know if you have any gems to add.   Personally, I have found the ability to share information with peers one of the best benefits of social media. Later this week I’ll let you know who I follow via Twitter to keep up with the daily changes in our world.  Happy reading.

Two sets of numbers recently came across my screen that illustrates the wrenching changes in media and marketing.  MIN Online has released 2009 first half numbers for monthly magazines and it is ugly.  Yes, we are in a tough recession, but these steep drops are more about the decline and fall of print advertising supported media.  Here is a snippet of the carnage as reported by MediaPost News:

The losses were widespread, with only eight out of the 118 titles tracked by MIN showing an increase in ad pages.  Among women’s lifestyle titles, Allure, Lucky, Vogue and W are all down over 30%. Auto and enthusiast titles (mostly targeting men) are sharply down, with drops of over 30% at Power & Motoryacht, Boating, Automobile, Motor Trend and Road & Track, Details, Maxim and GQ are also down over 30%, as are music monthlies Spin and Vibe and food titles Gourmet and Bon Appetit.

The brands mentioned above were formally profit generating powerhouses in lucrative categories.  The bulk of these pages are not coming back after the recession nor are closed newspapers going to spring back to life.  The ad market is undergoing a structural change.  Print is caught is a vise – readers have moved on to online media (more about that soon) and marketers are looking for measurable results that drive sales.  It is hard to make that case with a $50,000 branding ad in a monthly glossy magazine.

At the same time social media is on fire.  Facebook is now getting 300 million unique visitors per month, a 160% increase from a year ago.  This April, Twitter received 32 million world wide uniques, up 70% in a month!  MySpace has been flat at 123 million uniques per month while Facebook and Twitter grow unabated.  MySpace is going to end up the Netscape Navigator of its time. 

Since there are still only 24 hours in a day, something must be suffering with people spending all that time with social media.  Spring 2009 MRI readership shows a significant decline in magazine readership in the past year.

This has huge implications for marketers as they decide on their strategies for coming out of this economic downturn.  Reaching customers and prospects the old fashion way, is well, old fashion.  More than ever, it is imperative for marketers to turn to content market, storytelling and private media channels for measurable results.  And, now is the time to harness the power of social media.   Tweet now or forever hold your peace.

This is an interesting situation worth watching to see if a classic “old media” brand can make a successful transition to the new media landscape.  As reported on cnbc.com, Newsweek will debut their transformation on Monday in print and online today.  In a nutshell, they are moving from a newsweekly to thought leadership/opinion magazine.  In addition, they will take the rate base way down and focus on quality of readers who will in theory pay more for subscriptions. 

Here is a description of the new sections in the magazine:

“The magazine will be reorganized into four sections with a new focus on opinion. A new section called “The Take” will gather all the magazine’s columnists into one place. Newsweek is adding a new survey called “Internationalist” about world happenings. “The Culture” section will feature a lead essay with big ideas about art etc. The content will aim to speak to a well educated reader. And the design of the magazine and website will be sparser, with a lot more white space”

While everyone agrees a newsweekly no longer has a purpose, it may be too late to make this move.  In truth, they abandoned objective news reporting years ago and are now coming clean as somewhat liberal leaning publication (Obama appeared on 25% of their weekly covers in 2008 dwarfing his competitors).  If they are aiming to become a high end opinion magazine, they are cruising into crowded territory.  As Julia Boorstin mentions in her report, there is already some excellent journalism in that niche such as The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist and the New Yorker.  I am a pretty frequent reader of Newsweek and the New Yorker and there is no comparison in the level of writing.  Newsweek will have to up their game considerably to compete in that space.  Newsweek has been written for a broad general audience and will have to switch gears.

A prediction – Newsweek is gone as a print magazine in less than three years.  One thing I am fairly certain of is that you can’t completely change the DNA of a media brand and expect to go merrily along.  Newsweek has subscribers, newsstand buyers, advertisers and writers who are rooted in the newsweekly world and have a firm impression and mindset of what the brand means to them.  This can’t be changed on the fly at a time when print advertising is falling out of vogue faster than Second Life.

Media brands are living things whether they are TV shows, magazines, movie franchises or rock stars.  They have definable life cycles and eventually run their course.  Even one time mega hits such as Seinfeld eventually run out of steam and die a natural death.  I saw it first hand with PC Magazine, 10 years ago one of the largest magazines in the world, today an online only brand.  Its reason for being, a monthly print magazine with comparative reviews of PCs, is no longer relevant to readers or advertisers.  While we all bemoan the loss, the hard truth is the print magazine no longer served a purpose.

In the age of Twitter and smart phones, a weekly news magazine is no longer relevant.   And, moving a print advertising supported magazine into a saturated market segment does not make a lot of business sense.  At first blush their redesigned web site looks like a hodge podge of various types of content thrown up against the wall/home page to see what will be sticky.  The web site may grow and prosper over time, but don’t count on seeing the President on a dozen Newsweek covers in 2012.  He’ll be running, but the magazine will be a memory.

In my post a couple of weeks ago, I wrote about entering the Jim Beam Remake contest, where users submitted their original parodies and remakes of the new Jim Beam commercials.  

A few days ago, as I arrived home in the evening, I noticed a large envelope poking out of my mailbox. It didn’t have a return address. My boyfriend and I were so curious as to its contents, we ripped it open before we even got inside.

Inside were a Jim Beam t-shirt and a letter from the director of whiskeys, thanking the participants for sending in their videos. I was sincerely impressed by how classy and sincere the letter was. It seemed this person and her team had truly enjoyed watching the hundreds of video entries. She even stated she would do it all again, and hopes we would too.

In my post a year ago about Anton’s Cleaners , I talked about how customer retention works when companies let their customers know they care. It doesn’t need to be big, it doesn’t need to be expensive, but it needs to be personal.

To be honest, I’ve never had an ounce of whiskey or bourbon. But after having such intense brand interaction with Jim Beam, there is no way the Jim Beam brand won’t be at the forefront of my mind the next time I go into a liquor store to stock up for a party or to buy a bottle of liquor for a friend. And the next-best thing to going to bed with a bottle of liquor cradled in your arms is going to bed with a nightgown-sized 2XL t-shirt from Jim Beam. 

You may have seen Time Inc’s latest foray into custom media.  They sold Lexus into a sole sponsorship for a magazine called Mine (tag line – My Magazine - My Way) which is compiled from several of their titles to consumers who request it.  Give Lexus credit for wanting to own a private media channel to potential customers, but is this really custom media?  Anyone could sign up for it, and I did.  They didn’t develop the audience to be car buyers or people in the right demographic for Lexus.  It appears that anyone with internet access could sign up.  The content consists of articles selected by Time from several of their existing magazines.  The gimmick is that subscribers can pick which magazine reprint they can receive all in one place.  I don’t remember exactly what I signed up for, but I know for sure I didn’t sign up for Sports Illustrated because I already subscribe, and I certainly didn’t ask for Golf Magazine.  I want to read about golf about as often as I want to watch a Harry Potter movie or listen to jazz and that is never.  Here is the editorial line up in my “customized” magazine that came My Way:

Travel and Leisure – An article on how to look out an airplane window, and a feature on fancy tents.  I already know how to look out a window and will likely live the rest of my life without ever being in a tent, no matter how swanky.

Real Simple – A side by side nutritional comparison of juices, and a “how to” on road trips.  Let’s just say the editorial mission of being “simple” is coming through loud and clear.

InStyle – How to find the perfect pair of jeans, interview with Marc Jacobs, and fitness page staring Aisha Tyler talking about how to build biceps.  Not bad edit if I were a woman, but alas I am not.

Sports Illustrated – An amusing article from a soccer hater giving the game a try.  Good article and I liked it the first time I read in Sports Illustrated. 

Golf Magazine – Interview with golfer Natalie Gulbis, (of Celebrity Apprentice fame) and a “watch and learn” breaking down Tiger Wood’s swing.  This would be helpful if I didn’t hate golf.

As you can see this is really My Magazine, My Way.  A few weeks ago I received an email from Time that said a “computer error” may have caused me not to get exactly what I ordered in terms of content. 

Custom media and content marketing works best when you create original content that is designed for a specific audience and their information needs.  Mine misses the mark on all counts, the audience was not qualified nor selected as customers or prospects of Lexus; and the content is anything but original or aimed at a specific audience.  This is a classic big media company maneuver.  Take some edit that is already in the can, patch it together and send it to a random list.  And finally, get someone to sole sponsor five issues.  Only an auto company would go for something this off target and old fashion. 

“I wouldn’t call this an ad, this goes much beyond this,” said David Nordstrom, Lexus’ vice president of marketing. “Our message of ‘driver-inspired’ and ‘customization’ will come through a lot stronger.”

Here is what came across to me – the back page is an ad that screams in 28 pt type: THE ALL NEW 2010 RX. NOW WITH MORE GORDON PLUTSKY

It is so much more than an ad; it is off putting and annoying.

All that being said, it will probably be a decent money maker for Time Inc, but please don’t call it custom media when it is a glorified reprint.

Twitter is turning into a full fledged cultural phenomenon.  Former underwear model and cougar lover Ashton Kutcher is now over 1 million followers and Oprah and Howard Stern have joined the fray.  The New England Patriots tweeted their NFL draft picks this past weekend.  There are no shortage of so called social media experts and consultants publishing lists and posts on how to use Twitter, how to make money with Twitter, Twitter etiquette, etc.  The hype is reaching a fever pitch and a lot of it seems to be marketing people talking to each other.

Here is the fundamental thing we all need to keep in mind about Twitter – it is a media channel to talk to people directly without the filter or expense of a media brand or company.  That’s it folks, nothing more, nothing less.  That being said, we are big fans of owning your own media channel, so Twitter can and should become another aspect of your private media strategy for customers and prospects.

Twitter is a great vehicle for pushing out content to a specialized list of people, and I will distribute this blog to my “followers”.  Please go here if you want to follow me.  Whether you are a B2C or B2B company Twitter is an effective way to engage in an interactive dialog with your customers.  I follow lot of journalists and research companies to keep tabs on them without having to go to their sites directly.   It is smart for your executives to have a presence and be able to get feedback from customers and create a relationship with them.  Stronger personal bonds mean stronger sales for your company. Twitter is a no brainer when thinking about customer retention.  Smart and judicious use of this media channel can be a low cost way to drive sales from existing customers and give your content a broader audience.  For a great example, check out what Dell Outlet is doing to engage customers.

On the flip side, given the 140 character limit, it is much harder to mix business and personal as you can with Facebook.  Many keep Twitter mostly business, and that seems to be the general milieu.   Some people link their Facebook status update and Tweets so they are in sync.  I don’t like this because you should customize your message to your audience and environment, but it seems to be a growing trend.  Additionally, you can wear people out with over posting and will no doubt lose followers.

Twitter has reached the critical mass where it can’t be ignored by marketers, so embrace it as a free private media channel while it lasts.  Give it a shot, talking to your customers is always a good thing, especially when they can talk or tweet back.  Or better yet, buy something.

The big media news here in New England is the fate of the Boston Globe.  The situation now looks even more urgent in light of the dreadful earnings report and cash burn situation the NY Times Company reported this week.  The Times bought the Globe for $1.1 billion back in 1993 before the dawn the web.  They had a couple of very profitable years until the bottom fell out of the newspaper business.  In retrospect, newspapers did what many trade publishers did for a long time – resist the web because selling print ads was so damn profitable.  And, they gave their content away free online to build traffic.  This combination worked out poorly.  Newspapers across the country are closing or in financial peril. 

In 2008, the Globe lost roughly $50 million on an estimated $450 million in revenue (down a few hundred million in the past three years).  That is not easy to do unless your costs are way out of whack, especially labor costs.  The NYT is asking the unions for concessions or they will close down the paper, and I would assume and keep the very successful Boston.com. There has been a lot of finger pointing and looking to place blame. Hundred of comments have appeared in online forums raving about how the Globe’s liberal editorial slant has hurt them with subscribers and advertisers.  I am sure it has cost them some, but does not nearly account for their revenue and profit freefall.

The truth is actually pretty simple, but the solution is not.  In the not so distant past the Boston Globe was a money machine because it had a stranglehold on classified advertising in New England – help wanted, real estate, cars –huge money makers raking in over $100 million annually with high margins.   This cash flow allowed the cost structure to get fat and happy during the good times.  Most of that revenue is now gone to cars.com, monster.com, realtor.com and craigslist to name a few.  Although Boston.com generates high traffic numbers, the CPMs for online ads are a fraction of what they were in print thanks to all the competition and low barrier to entry.  Factor in declining subscription and single copy revenue due to changing consumer behavior and the fact they are giving away all the content for free online. 

To survive the Globe and other newspapers are going to have to start charging for online content – there is just no way around it anymore.  Something has to give, or they will go out of business. Our communities and democracy will suffer without a functioning free press.  Bloggers, pontificating from their cube or basement, are no substitute for real reporters who are digging for stories and holding government and business to task.  It has been conventional wisdom that people won’t pay for content online, but they have never been confronted with a situation where if they don’t pay for it they will have no other option, at least locally. 

If push comes to shove will people refuse to pay $10-$20 per month for an online local newspaper and let it fold?  Or will they realize there is no real difference between paying for a pile a paper and ink dropped at your door and online content.  Many consumers have an emotional attachment to newsprint, but the web version of a newspaper is far superior with up-to-the minute news, video, talk back forums, interactive charts and archives.  Additionally, younger people are just not subscribing to print versions of newspapers, nor will they anytime soon. One issue not easily resolved is access for people without internet access. Perhaps a newsstand only version can be provided that is subsidized by ads. 

The bottom line is the newspaper business needs to start monetizing online content and quickly.  Consumers would rather read online because there is more functionality and marketers are running less and less print ads because they are not measurable.  The writing is on the wall, but is anyone reading?  In this case, living in the past is a fast road to extinction.

I was on vacation in Arizona when my friend Sara, a comedy writer and fellow comedian, sent me an email.

“DO THIS WITH ME,” it read, with a link to the Jim Beam website.

Jim Beam’s recent advertising campaign, shown ad nauseum on TBS during Celtics games, flashed through my head. They wanted users to create and submit their own videos, either inspired by or a parody of, the commercials. Sara was going to write a script in which I would get to parody the gorgeous girl who says she likes her man “a little bit hairy.”
I slammed back the remainder of my ice tea and replied, “Hell yes!” 

For comedians and humor appreciators of all persuasions, sites like Funnyordie.com and CollegeHumor.com are becoming an increasingly popular place to watch video creativity in action. It’s like an oasis of laughter in a web crowded with depressing political commentary sites and stay-at-home mom blogs. Besides being a great way to get exposure, it’s also a way to connect people across the country. And lately, corporate America has been starting to use user generated media to their advantage, too.

From Ragu’s “Great American Family” contest to the Brooks running shoe contest, companies are saying to their customers, “Hey! We value you! Come be a part of this with us! It’s fun!” On our commercial parody production team, we studied the original commercials, talked about effective ways to represent the Jim Beam brand, and forced our friends and families to watch the submissions as they rolled in. What better way for a company to build community, engender brand loyalty and market virally, all at one time? Customer retention happens when you make your customers feel like a part of your brand. And if you listen close enough, what your customers are saying can probably help you move in the right direction in the future.

It’s working for Jim Beam. They had hundreds upon hundreds of video submissions, ranging from brilliant to disturbed. (To the man whose cat inexplicably ate his wig during the video—I just want you to know your lingerie was really classy.) One guy even built a Facebook Fan page to advertise that he had entered the contest. Talk about word-of-mouth and social media in action! 

And as for our submission…well, we didn’t make it to the finals. Maybe it was because my character barfed into her purse. Maybe it was the mature lady mud wrestling. We’ll never know. But I do know that next time I throw a party, I’m buying some Jim Beam.

Magalogs – catalogs that include elements of both editorial content and story-telling through design – help traditional catalogers build brand affinity and connections with their customers. To see an example, click here for a magalog King Fish created for PC Connection aimed at their small business customers.  Retailers are recognizing the benefits of this approach, and are morphing their print to better serve customers, showcasing products in far more engaging environments. And to further demonstrate effectiveness, magalogs are also becoming digital versions, where customer shopping, referral behavior and site interaction is measured for true return on investment. Savvy marketers are starting to use this platform – and there is no reason not to – all retailers should. Build affinity, enhance shopper experience, and track results. That’s a recipe for job security.

They key to a successful magalog is producing the project with a team of creative and marketing-types that understand how to incorporate the elements that result in measurement and increased affinity. There are several applications that improve both measurement and sell-through, so be sure your content provider has a solid knowledge in these areas. A media investment should be accountable and measurable, and when executed properly, magalogs can be at the top of the ROI food chain.

Here is a very interesting take from David Meerman Scott on the possible movement of journalists from traditional media to creating meaningful content for companies.  It seems everyday media companies are cutting back and sacking writers and journalists.  (Old joke – When does a recession become a depression?  When journalists lose their jobs)  At the same time the content marketing/custom media business continues to grow.  More and more companies are creating their own content and private media channels to talk to customers.  Here is a clip from the Mr. Scott’s posting:

“Many organizations — corporations, nonprofits, government agencies, and educational institutions — finally understand the value of what I call “brand journalism,” creating interesting information online that serves to educate and inform consumers. People in companies now realize web marketing success comes from creating content-rich web sites, videos, podcasts, photos, charts, ebooks, white papers and other valuable content.”

He gives advice to journalists to be thinking about taking their skills to brand journalism where they can tell stories and impart information to a different set of consumers.  It is pretty sage advice when looking over the current media landscape.  While we can joke about it being the “Dark Side” the fact remains that companies have grown far past the old fashion “advertorial” to creating compelling, rich content for customers and prospects.  Companies like Cisco are maintaining full-fledged news rooms online while leaving the advertorials to Vince the Sham-wow/Slap chop guy.

It is pretty clear which way the market is moving, so come on over to the “Dark Side” you may just find yourself a new career.

Check out this article: “Why Advertising is failing on the Internet” written by Professor Eric Clemons of the University of Pennsylvania.  He makes a case why an ad supported business model may not work over the long term on the Internet.  One of his main themes is that pushing messages at consumers on the web is not a winning combination.  Below is a excerpt:

“Pushing a message at a potential customer when it has not been requested and when the consumer is in the midst of something else on the net, will fail as a major revenue source for most internet sites.  This is particularly true when the consumer knows that the sponsor of the ad has paid to have this information, which was verified by no one, thrust at him.  The net will find monetization models and these will be different from the advertising models used by mass media, just as the models used by mass media were different from the monetization models of theater and sporting events before them.  Indeed, there has to be some way to create websites that do other than provide free access to content, some of it proprietary, some of it licensed, and some of it stolen, and funded by advertising”

In addition he thinks that ads will fail because of the following:  consumers don’t trust ads, nor do they want them.  And, they don’t use advertising for research on the web since there are so many other sources of information available.

He goes on to talk about some models that may work, but I think the critical point is that marketers can’t rely on concepts and tactics that worked off line by merely porting them online.  It makes more sense to build a relationship of trust with customers and prospects rather than jamming advertising at them.  Additionally, marketers should take advantage of the fact that people use the Internet to search for content and information.  Unlike magazines where people browse passively, the Internet is interactive and active. 

It is that dynamic that makes the web ideal for content marketing and private custom media channels.  Talking directly to consumers with relevant content provides them with information and builds trust.  When marketing on the web, content marketing is a better tool to engage consumers than pushing out advertising.

GM and Chrysler have presented business plans to the government in return for more bailout cash.  I don’t know if a new ad/marketing strategy is in the mix, but here is a take on what they are doing wrong and how to fix it.  Click here to read part I.

1. The auto makers over use rented media channels with interruption style advertising, and the basic auto ad has not changed in 50 years. The ads show the car being used by one of their stock cliché characters – the executive, the harried mom, the twenty something on the go, the tough guy truck owner, the hapless suburban dad, etc.  The ads are slices of life showing our heroes using the product.  This is ineffective because there is much waste; and the creative is boring and unmemorable. The auto companies are big at buying sponsorships that just slaps their name on anything and everything.  Chevrolet spends big bucks to sponsor the “player of the game” during televised college footballs games.  Why do they do this?  Awareness?  How many men watching football have not heard of Chevy?  I am sure it makes the Chevy execs happy, but has it ever sold a single car or truck?  In fact, has anyone ever bought a car based on a TV ad?

2. American car companies sell with price, price and price.  The ads always stress the price cut or financing incentive.  If you train consumers to wait for the deal you will never get full price.  That is a problem when your union contracts give you a $2000/per car disadvantage against the Japanese automakers.  They need to stop the addiction to price selling and sell value.  They are two different marketing messages.

3. All the auto companies are out of balance when it comes to customer acquisition and retention marketing efforts.  The majority of the marketing budgets are aimed at convincing new customers to buy their cars while they give lip service to customer retention.  Some of the manufacturers have custom magazines for their owners but they seem half-hearted.  I used to get a magazine from Acura and it was full of underwhelming content.  This year I leased a Mercedes and bought a Honda Accord and the follow up communication from both brands and been almost non-existent.  I have received a few weak emails that are selling me accessories and their overpriced service.

It would be more efficient to create long term customers rather than trying to sell new customers over and over.  This is an area where I would suggest the biggest changes for the auto companies.  They should peel off some the budget they are shoveling at TV to create private media channels to talk directly to their current customers to create a long term relationship.  This private media channel needs to have high quality original content from subject matter experts and great writers.  They need to create a real relationship based on affinity and trust with their customers, not just send them a magazine with travel articles and offers to buy floor mats, mugs and logoed junk.  In addition, try working in some new media – interactive webcasts for owners to get more from their car, and social media to connect owners and build community.

4. I would suggest more live test drive events where people can get inside a car and try it out.  It is a better experience without a sales guy breathing down your neck asking “how much do you want to pay per month”.   I went to a Mercedes test drive event about six years ago and decided on that day I would someday own a fine German auto.  In the time since that event Mercedes has probably hit me with a few millions dollars worth of rented media ads via magazines, newspapers, television, radio and billboards.  All those ads combined didn’t have a fraction of impact of the afternoon I spent getting to touch and feel the product and have a direct educational dialog the company.  On that day they built a level of trust and affinity with me that no traditional ad could ever duplicate. 

The bottom line:  They need to stop renting media and own their own media channel.

Another Oscar show is in the books and the ratings did tick up a bit from last year’s record low.  While the show format is tired, it is not the real story of why it no longer holds America’s interest as it once did.  The original purpose of the awards was to provide a sales boost to the winning movies and to get some PR love for the industry’s image.  That is still the purpose today and it is reflected in the nominated movies and the tone of the show.  This is the industry’s opportunity to show that they make “Big important movies about big important ideas”. 

The nominated movies are often loaded with political messages and diversity.  That is not a bad thing, but a complete disconnect with what the movie industry actually produces in large quantity today.  The majority of releases are marketing concoctions aimed at the at the lucrative demo of young men and women and kids.  Tad Friend wrote a fascinating article in the New Yorker about the movie marketing business.  The story takes you into the sausage factory and it is eye opening.  The artistic process has given way to focus groups and market testing to make sure the product resonates with the target audience.  Between 25-35% of a movie’s budget is taken up by marketing efforts.  Much of that money is dumped into a barrage of unmeasurable and unaccountable 15 and 30 second TV spots.  Like their cousins in the auto industry, movie marketers show no signs of breaking their addiction to print and broadcast advertising that is high in cost and low in return. When it comes to “renting” media channels, the movie industry spends money with a fire hose.

The whole situation becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.  The added marketing costs make it harder for movies to make a profit, so they market test them and alter the film to resonate with the ticket buying young men and women.  This is apparent when reviewing the top movies of 2008.  The top grossing movies are mostly action and comedy films aimed at 15-28 yr old men and women.  There is also a number of animated movies for the under 12 crowd.  The first “adult” movie checks in at numbers 11 and 12 with “Sex in the City” and “Mama Mia”.  After that it is slim pickings for the over 35 set (I could also say the over 110 IQ set, but that would be mean). 

The fact that Hollywood is primarily producing products for the youth market is not a crime.  They are in business to make money and those are the people who buy movie tickets.  Ironically, the target audiences for their movies are the people least likely to settle in on a Sunday evening to watch an Oscar telecast that moves at the pace of a 1970’s variety show.  Unlike the Grammy awards that live in the moment, the Oscars are often about the past.  And, giving technical and behind the scenes awards (sound, costumes, editing) during prime time is not appealing to anyone except the families of the nominees.

There is also another factor at play in why America is tuning out the Oscars and that is political persuasion of the movie and entertainment industry.  They are not shy in their support of Obama and liberal causes.  This manifests itself in both financial and vocal public support.  Sean Penn came through last night talking about how America elected an “elegant” man.  Who knew Obama was like Fred Astaire.

This can be a turn off to the roughly 48% of the country that did not vote for President Obama – elegance and all.  It is one thing to tolerate a difference in opinion from elected officials such as Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi, but quite another to be lectured by rich, spoiled celebrities like Matt Damon.  Don’t underestimate some of the hard feelings from moderate/conservative voters who got fed up with the media and entertainment industry during the past election.  Nobody likes to be told how we are not doing enough about global warming and healthcare from surgically enhanced people who earn millions to stand in front of a camera and recite someone else’s words.  The individuals in the movie business have every right to speak their minds, but it can be a risky proposition when you are selling a product to a broad consumer audience. 

This explains some of the reasons why the Oscars are losing relevance, but what about the future of the movie industry in the age of new media.  We’ll explore that next week….

I am stating the obvious, but 2009 will be a rough year for the Face to Face events business – from trade shows to custom events to conferences.  I have been hearing about cut backs and cancelations from colleagues for months, and then saw this cover story in the New York Times on Vegas.  Business is way down in Las Vegas, arguably the convention and conference capital of the US.  Over 30,000 hotel rooms canceled last month as many shows have postponed or decided to cancel.  At last month’s Super Bowl the famous Playboy party was canceled.  They said a lavish party seemed inappropriate given the economy but I would wager that the only thing that was inappropriate was the lack of sponsor dollars to fund it.

The costs associated with live events makes them easy to cancel during a recession and that is really too bad.  Live events are one of the best lead generation tools available and they do an equally great job with customer retention.  The powers of events are enhanced when they are paired with original and compelling content created for the target audience.  However, event’s benefits come with a high cost per lead due to the fixed costs of running a first class event.   While there is no substitute for personal contact with a prospect or customer, there is another way.

Webcasting has been around for over ten years and is an established lead gen tool being used widely in the B2B world.  The Virtual Show or Virtual Trade Show is really picking up steam this year.  They have been around for a while now, but seem to be reaching a critical mass especially in the technology and life sciences markets.  If you are not familiar with them here is a definition from Wikipedia:

The structure of a typical virtual tradeshow often includes a virtual exhibit hall which users enter with specific permissions and capabilities, to either attend and view virtual trade show displays in the exhibit hall or build virtual booths to exhibit information related to products or services on offer, just as they would at a trade fair in a convention center. The virtual tradeshow may have other components such as a virtual web conference, or a web seminar or a webinar, or other educational presentations. The virtual show thus results in live interaction between all the users on many levels (one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many) and simultaneously. Detailed tracking mechanisms allow organizers to determine the flow of traffic in the virtual tradeshow.

Because this is online you get incredible data on the visitors and the actions they take during the show.  This allows you to segment and score your leads before you feed them into your lead nurturing programs.  And, your sales people can interact with prospects online during the show.  ON24 (King Fish is an authorized reseller) is one of several companies that provide a virtual show platform and they did some interesting research on the growth of virtual shows.  They surveyed 10,000 enterprise executive who reported that 53% of their companies have begun using virtual events and 23% plan to start using them this year.  The majority of these companies are also reporting that they will be decreasing their use of trade shows and physical sales meetings and training events.

If your company is struggling with your live events strategy it is worth exploring a virtual event.  Be aware, it is a large undertaking with project management, selection of a platform, content creation and audience development all playing a big role in your plans.  However, the rewards will be worth it when you start filling your sales pipeline with warm leads at a lower cost per lead (CPL) than a live event.

One of the consequences of the new media landscape is the marketing discipline of online reputation management.  This has always been an issue, but with the popularity of social media it has reached critical mass.  I recently came across a story that illustrates how ordinary people can harness the power of web 2.0 tools and make life very difficult for a company or individual.  Last month while flipping channels my wife came across a show we have never watched – Wife Swap.  The premise is wives from diverse backgrounds are switched for the purpose of mining entertainment from differences in attitudes towards housework, child rearing etc.  They’re generally from opposing social and political strata to create conflict and comedy, and this one was off the charts. 

One family was from Missouri and Middle America.  Their dream is seeing their oldest boy win a paintball scholarship, though I can’t believe it actually exists.  The “snobby” family was a pair of insufferable cultural elites from San Francisco who reveled in being environmentally correct and having a “World View” whatever that means.  The husband, Stephen Fowler, is possibly the vilest person ever to grace American TV.  He is a Brit who lives in the US of A to help us see the errors of our way.  Stephen (wearing a shirt that says “Sustainability”) was mean and cruel to the wife from the Midwest to a level that was almost unwatchable.  For more background check out this news video from San Francisco’s ABC affiliate. 

I watched to the end because I wanted to see this loathsome man get his comeuppance, and I sorely disappointed. It just ended with him and his wife (who said she was not proud to be American) being their usual smug and condescending selves.  I forgot all about the Fowlers until I read about the furor that this story caused in the Bay area and across the country.  Outraged people took to the web/social media networks and started making life difficult for the Fowlers.  This web site (stephenfowlersucks.com) became the hub and you can read about how their business and personal lives took a hit.  Stephen tried to apologize but it was too late, even though he was “deeply” sorry.  He had to resign from boards and his wife’s business, which they were promoting, was damaged.  It’s a reminder that things live forever on the web and once something goes viral, it is out of anyone’s control.  The internet is still the Wild West when it comes to digital rights and reputation management. 

All you need to do is flip through the comments section of any news, political or entertainment site to see public people being bashed by anonymous posters.  It is a real issue for companies who are seeing complaints about them rise in Google searches.  When people are angry today they take to the web and create a permanent record of their grievance than can be found by any customer or prospect.  I have had my challenges with Comcast cable so I typed “I hate Comcast” into Google and found almost 11 thousand exact matches.  And came across the charming site named comcastsucks.org.  That can’t put a smile on the face on their CMO. 

Monitoring your online reputation is something all marketers need to take seriously and it should be part of someone’s job responsibility.  That person needs to keep checking search engines, blogs, Facebook, twitter etc.  If possible you should reach out to the aggrieved person and try to resolve the conflict or at least try and show that there are people behind your logo.  Angry consumers often strike out against companies because they feel powerless and that no one cares about them.  It seems simple, but show you are listening and start an interactive dialog with your own blog or Facebook/Twitter account.  If there is something nasty being said about your company on the web, you want to know about it before your CEO’s son or daughter tells him about it. 

The current growth rate of Facebook continues apace, passing 100 million world wide users.  The growth is being fueled by both non-US users and the stampede of people between the ages of 25-55 who are jumping into the mix in huge and fast growing numbers.  Much of it is driven by professional needs, but the social needs are just as strong.  As the job market softens, it becomes imperative to network and keep in touch with past colleagues.  Also, to promote yourself and let people in your industry know what you have been up to for the past few years.  Having a Facebook account is a “must have” for those of us toiling in the media and marketing business.

We are firmly in a new world where our personal and business lives are combined, intersected and merged.  Even our young President has a Blackberry, and I heard him refer to the White House as a home office in jest.  Think of the Seinfeld episode where George does not want his girlfriend and friends to spend time together, because World’s Collide.  I feel like that on Facebook when “bawdy” Gordon exchanges ribald jokes with High School and gym friends in the same place where I dialog with clients, vendors and co-workers.  I try to be mindful of it, but others let it fly.  If you are going to wade into Facebook you have be tolerant of the torrent of trivial status updates (Fran is baking cookies, Leon is heading to Home Depot, Calvin needs coffee before writing a report) and ones that are there to self promote and sell. 

I have learned that given the ideological bent of the media world, it is best to leave politics off line, lest you want to receive a diatribe on the evils of George Bush or climate change (what global warming is called in the winter).  Like any platform or forum there will be those who abuse it and become serial “frienders”, just looking to pad their total in some odd ego affirming exercise.  Another form of abuse are over-posters who constantly regale their friends with political views, favorite articles and songs and generally clog up the works by assuming that there are hundreds of people who care about their every thought.  Take my advice – de-friend them.  I have done it a couple of times, it is cleansing

Now that everyone is here the question is – how best to use this powerful tool.  At this point no one has any firm answers but I do think it is valuable venue for marketing.  We’ll explore your company on Facebook in the next posting, but it is certainly worthwhile for individuals.  Facebook creates your own private media channel to the world.  You can chose to communicate one on one, to a specialized group or in mass.  It is a method to get the word out about events in your personal or professional life.   It also allows you to grow closer to people you don’t see or speak with on a regular basis.  I have found the ability to post links an effective way to get out the message about some interesting things we are doing as a company.  Facebook also gives us a targeted distribution channel for our blog and other content we create.  One of the main tenants of private custom media channels is the ability to speak to your permission based target audience with content in an environment where they will be receptive.  Facebook enables you to have an interactive dialog with your audience.  Social media has great promise as a marketing tool and right now we are all pioneers.

Over the past few weeks I have had the pleasure of appearing on a few radio shows to talk about the new media landscape.  It is important to look at these changes from the point of view of media consumers and how it affects marketers.  A common theme is how technology has empowered consumers to be in control of their media choices in terms of timing, format and platform.  This dynamic has changed the business model for traditional media companies especially in print and broadcast.  An equally important theme is the drive for measurability and accountability from marketers.  In a down economy, marketers are even more obsessed with return on investment and making every cent count.  These are themes we will be exploring in depth in 2009.

Please click the links to listen to the clips

December 22 – Indianapolis morning show with Pete the Planner, a well known financial planner from Green Candy.

January 16 – Houston National Public Radio

January 27 – KFUO morning show in St. Louis

January 30  - The Small Business Advocate with Jim Blasingame, small business expert

Cam Brown, President
King Fish Media

2009 will feature the greatest redirect in marketing approach that the media industry has seen since the explosive growth of cable television (and its subsequent usage opportunities that caused planning confusion in the 1980s and early 90s) . Looking forward, savvy marketers will broker deals with media companies not for reduced page rates or air time, but for their subscriber list – the more selects available, the better. Media companies will re-structure their sales teams, reducing the workforce of 30 and 40-something reps and elevating the most insightful marketers.

This new staff will gain immediate credibility with advertising partners who will not view them as yet another new face pitching the same old story, but as a strategic marketer identifying the most targeted database possible from their circ files, and guiding the best practices for usage of that file. The story of targeted efficiency over reach, and reduced top line advertising revenue in exchange for a smarter, more collaborative client relationship, is the story of 2009 and beyond.

Gordon Plutsky, Director of Marketing
King Fish Media

Custom Media, across all platforms, will be one of the few areas that will grow in revenue in 2009 thanks to two important trends:

    -  Companies becoming publishers and producing their own content to talk directly to customers and prospects.

   -   The need for more measurable media and high ROI during a recession.

The continued growth of web casting, virtual trade shows and online video will take a significant chunk of revenue from trade shows and live events during 2009.

The decline of the US auto industry will result in huge cut backs in print advertising from the big three, and several magazines will close as a result.  Local TV stations and newspapers will see big decreases in ad revenue as car dealerships close after GM kills Buick, Pontiac and Saturn and Ford also pares brands as part of a government bailout.

Several IT publications will follow the lead of PC Magazine and abandon their print issue to reposition themselves as online and events brands.  They will thrive once all the print overhead is removed.

Facebook will explode and become a “must have” for professionals in 34-54 age group who will continue to blur the lines between personal and business life.

The big television networks will continue to become less relevant in the lives of Americans as they spend more time on niche cable networks and social media sites.  The 2009 fall season will produce zero new hits.  The continued penetration of DVR’s will further erode their advertising base and they will have to make major cutbacks.

A major US daily newspaper will fold its print edition and go digital only.

Sarah Palin will write a book about her experiences during the 2008 campaign.  She will get a giant advance and it will go to #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list much to the dismay of New York Times.

American Idol will see a strong decline in ratings - over commercialization and bland contestants killed the golden goose.

Kathleen Martin
RocketComm

The markets will continue to ride the roller coaster through the third quarter. Big business will continue to contract but there will be explosive growth in small service firms and mid size companies. Contracting will be the norm versus traditional company employment.

Social media will continue to grow and the challenge in 2009 will be how to manage the scale and depth of your social networks and leverage the various media options for maximum return. As customers accept the flashing boxes on the sidebar and scrolling headers the media agencies will be looking for new ways to gain not only mind share but retention in a non-retentive environment.

I also think Elvis and Marilyn Monroe have a pretty good chance of being invited to the inauguration and we will see another Kennedy in the senate.

Joe Pulizzi
Junta42

More and more media companies will shed unprofitable titles in certain verticals to stay profitable and solvent. This will open up opportunities for corporate brands to become the content providers for those industries.  I wouldn’t be surprised if you started seeing corporate brands with some cash in the bank buy out small, niche media properties as they work to build out their content strategies.

Traditional media spend will continue to drop as corporate marketers will lean on web statistics for ROI. Marketers will take half of what they are pulling out of traditional and spend on content-driven activities, social media, and other more “experimental” media. Some “forward-looking” brands will see an opportunity to go back to targeted print activities, such as custom magazines and customer newsletters, to differentiate themselves from the barrage of email marketers. 

 What are your predictions?  Send them to gplutsky@kingfishmedia.com and we will post them or leave a comment. 
 

I just came across some data that shows for the first time in seven years, B2B trade show revenues declined, by 3.7% in the first three quarters of 2008 (source: ABM).  Of course, most people point to the recession as the reason – cut backs in both marketing expenditures and travel restrictions.  Surely, these are a factor, but not really telling the whole story.  It is more than coincidence that webcasting and virtual trade shows are a hot commodity and growing.  According to Frost and Sullivan the webcasting industry was worth $83.3 million in 2007 and is set to grow more than 28.2%. By 2014, they predict it to be a $3.4 billion market.

It is easy to see how cutbacks in travel can help webcasting, but that is just a small part of why it is growing.  Webcasting is one of the best lead generation mechanisms, if not the best, available today in the B2B world.  When someone attends your webcast they are raising their hand and self selecting themselves to view your content and message.  They are committing nearly an hour of their time to your message – the ultimate in content based permission marketing.  Additionally, you get incredible reporting data to know specifically who the prospects are and what actions they took during the webcast which often lets you know where they are within the buying process.  And, if you choose a live Q&A session, you can interact with dozens of potential customers in a personal dialog.  All of this comes at a pretty modest cost compared to traditional in person tradeshows. 

As someone who has once had the pleasure of managing their company’s trade show presence, I can tell you it is a very expensive operation.  The whole operation is designed to separate you from your budget – the space, the booth itself, power, T1 line, staffing, carpeting, plants, shipping and dealing with unions and their rules and rates.  All for the pleasure of standing in a tacky booth waiting for people to come by looking for free stuff and engage you with small talk.  The quality of leads of people who happen to amble by your booth can not compare with someone registering and attending your webcast – and engaging with your content. 

In many industries trade shows have an important role, but at what cost.  Buyers prefer to get content at their desks and marketers want a high return on their lead gen efforts.  Both of those trends point to the reason why webcasting is one of the fastest growing B2B marketing vehicles and it should prosper during tough economic times.

Some very interesting new data out from emarketer this week.  Several large investment banks and media analysts are predicting a significant drop in overall US advertising in 2009.  That is not unexpected given the recession and the lack of a presidential election and Olympic Games in 2009.  The big story in these numbers is the change in share of specific types of media in US ad spending.  The traditional methods of broadcast (TV and radio) and print (newspapers and magazine) are on the decline while the internet and Custom Publishing/Custom Media is on the rise.  The reason is simple - measurability.  Marketers are shifting their dollars to places where they can measure the return on their investment in addition to having control over the environment.  Additionally, Custom Media is ideal to talk to your current customers in addition to prospects with specific messages for each.  Print and broadcast does not give you the ability to target customers vs. prospects nor does it give you a measurable return.  Telling your story with custom content is a much better way to build a relationship with customers than blasting ads at them when they are watching TV or reading a newspaper. 

For the cost of a couple of ads in a major newspaper or during a prime time show you can create a quarterly custom magazine, or a custom web site or a series of live or interactive events with your own content.  It is a decision more and more companies are making. 

If you project current trends, it is easy to see how by 2013 the internet and custom media will be the two most popular marketing vehicles available to companies.  It is not hard to understand why media companies heavily dependent on print media are having fits trying to change their business models.  The latest is the development is about Newsweek who is currently losing money.  They plan to slash their rate base, keep ads dollars up, abandon news and become more of a thought leader publication.  Name me another magazine that pulled off that kind of rapid and radical transition.  My guess is that by this time next year, they will be losing more money than they are now.  It is not about the circ or the edit mission, it is about smart money moving away from print advertising to interactive and custom media and there is nothing Newsweek or anyone can do about that.

America’s Top Marketer’s Report Their Goals Have Changed

This might have been a street hawker’s cry five year’s ago, but earlier this week, it was proclaimed matter-of-factly by nearly all honorees at BtoB’s Best Luncheon in New York. The event was well attended by senior marketers who were there to hear each of the 11 nominees for marketer of the year.  One of the highlights was a panel of marketing executives who gave their observations and communication strategies for next year and beyond.  You can read more about the event here, and some analysis of the comments here.  For those of us in the room, the theme was profoundly consistent: the brand war is over, and efficient, customer-based communication rules. Some excerpts from the nominees, in their words.

“We are seeing high return on live seminars and panels.” – Oracle

“White Papers and product information are the key for customer engagements.” – Siemens 

“We are focusing on a shortening in our time to customer relationships” and “I see convergence media and building content as our focus.” – Kodak

“We are shifting to one-on-one marketing.” – Xerox

“We are generating more content to help business owners do business better,” and “Our small business focus is shifting to value-based marketing.” - American Express

These are direct comments from large B2B companies who have seen the future – and that future is relationship marketing and metrics to measure their success. Companies that once focused on broad reach media and enormous sponsorship marketing budgets are now working to create the own media channels. These leading companies are taking an active role in creating the content their customers receive, and are part of the process of delivering content they know is most relevant to their customer’s needs.  In effect, they are creating their own private custom media channels.

When top marketing leader’s share with each other as opposed to hiding their top strategies, the shift has already happened. Don’t ride the old school marketing approach of broad reach & branding into the sunset. It is no longer an option to throw marketing investment at media channels featuring no measurability. Re-evaluate your 2009 media strategies now, and work to gain relevance with your customers and mind-share with your best prospects. In this case, following the leaders is the boldest approach.

The International Association of Business Communicators recently did a special issue on content marketing.  Here is how they describe it:

Content marketing is about revealing the credibility of your brand through customer-focused information—with an authentic and trusted voice. It’s an opportunity to use creative thinking—rather than a big budget—to get better results than traditional marketing methods.

I was lucky to one of several contributors to add an article to the special edition of their bulletin.  I chose to talk about creating a content-rich private custom media channel rather than traditional advertising.  Here is an excerpt from the article:

When a company educates its current and prospective clients on its field of expertise instead of pitching them products or services, that company becomes a reliable source of information. Your company becomes the media, and you’re now in a position to provide thought leadership and build customer loyalty. You’ve established your company as a trusted resource, and your customer feels more confident buying from you.

It’s no surprise that more and more companies are creating their own private media channels with original content to speak directly to their customers. With content and private media channels, marketers can start to take prospects down the road of permission-based marketing, where marketers must first ask permission before sending content or advertisements to prospective customers. This method requires that people first “opt-in,” rather than allowing people to “opt-out” only after the marketing messages have been sent. It also helps to build trust and affinity between marketers and their potential customers. Eventually, you will get to the point where customers and prospects will welcome your content and messages because of the trust you have built with them. Trust and affinity lead to increased sales.

This tactic stands in contrast to traditional advertising and marketing methods, which rely on renting media channels from media companies at very high costs. In that model, prospects are seeing marketing messages such as ads in magazines, on web sites and television, and are likely spending little or no time absorbing them.

In addition, rented media relies on “interrupting” your prospect with your message, an inefficient way to get out your marketing messages that is more likely to build resentment than trust. When a company owns its own media channel, it is engaging in direct dialogue with customers.

Every day more companies are creating their own media channels with original content to bypass traditional media outlets. In so doing, marketers take control of their message and their audience. Not only can marketers speak directly to customer interests and concerns, but now they do not have to worry about marketing messages being surrounded by distracting—or even inappropriate—content that may conflict with their brand. In addition, the financial rewards of private media speak for themselves: For the price of a few ads in a national magazine, newspaper or broadcast network, a company can create its own custom magazine with original content for a targeted audience. We believe this trend will grow rapidly over the next few years as advances in technology and consumer behavior make it more feasible. There is no better way to drive marketing ROI than by surrounding your potential customers and prospects in a controlled environment that you own.

To read the whole special report – click here.

Are you a subject matter expert?  A subject matter expert is the “go-to” person for their customers and social network contacts.  These experts are seasoned professionals with references and a portfolio of proven success.  Subject matter experts get the customers, win the bids and are answering the phone rather than cold calling.

Interested in being an expert?  Then begin thinking like one.  An expert by definition is “having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience.”  In other words if you can demonstrate that you know more than most and are recognized as a leader within a community you are an expert.

In the 1980’s it could take you years to establish yourself as an expert.  With today’s social networking communities you can be recognized almost overnight.  Let’s look at two communities and how to position you and your business as leaders.

LinkedIn:

LinkedIn is established to be a business networking community.  You have the opportunity to ask questions, answer questions and participate in discussions.  The more time you dedicate to positioning yourself the more you will differentiate yourself.  Include links to your sites (blogs included) and where possible share your books or white papers on the subject.  References also speak volumes.  Anytime you can say “don’t take my word for it, read what my customers think” the more credible your opinions and suggestions become.

You can also join “like-minded” experts on LinkedIn.  These are small groups inside of the larger community that often focus on a discipline (e.g. marketing, sales, recruiting, human resources, or accounting) or on a specific interest (e.g. events, public relations, consulting).  Groups are reflected on your profile and allow people to see your affiliations and interests.

Facebook:

Facebook is different as it was set up as a social site.  Both business and personal intersect here.  You can establish multiple Facebook pages that focus on your business and on you as an individual.  You can choose to combine it all into one page.  Post notes that include article leads with links as well as highlights from your latest activities.  Changing your status to include information on where you are speaking or a presentation you may have posted will drive others to review your work.  You can cross link both Facebook and LinkedIn driving your audience from one site to the other.

There are many other sites that work much like these two (Plaxo, Namyz, MySpace).  It is possible to stretch yourself too thin with social networks.  I recommend you pick two and really focus your efforts in developing your message through your profile, references and participation (e.g. status updates, Q&A). 

The path to being an expert is clear: a well developed profile, references from your customers, participation in online discussions and building a following of contacts who are looking to drive business with you and for you.

The reports of bad news from the world of traditional media have been startling.  Check this link to the I Want Media site and you will see story after story of layoffs and cut backs in everything from staff to frequency.  It seems that all sectors are being hit from consumer to B2B.  US News and World Report is becoming a monthly, and the Christian Science Monitor is closing the print edition.  The cutbacks are hitting all the big names: Time, Conde Nast, Rodale and G&J.  In addition, the troubles of daily newspapers have been well documented. 

This seems different than the usual end of the year cut backs that seem to happen in the industry.  It would be tempting to explain away this activity to a general economic slowdown and impending recession.  That is a big factor for sure and media companies are smart to pare cost going into 2009.  However, I think something bigger is going on than just recession based cutting.  The long talked about decline of print media may be gaining some steam, and approaching critical mass.

Traditional media companies are under intense pressure to transition their business from print to digital and alternative media.  The shift of business model is a killer because with rare exception, people do not often pay for online media vs. print subscriptions and the advertising CPMs for online are much smaller than print.  The web has become the default in most cases for information gathering and reading content.  In the past I never thought I would abandon the daily newspaper.  Now, I keep asking myself why am I paying $30 a month to have the Boston Globe delivered.  All the content is online for free and by time I get a chance to read it at night, the news is ancient.  In the “Green” age having a newspaper dropped at your door everyday seems very wasteful and not eco-friendly.   It now seems clear that information gathering and readership behavior has changed forever. 

The news is equally bad for print media on the advertiser side since print advertising is both expensive and un-trackable. Not a great combination in era of ROI based marketing.  The trend of companies communicating directly with customers and prospects is here to stay and growing.  The content marketing movement is clearly taking a bite out of traditional media.  Custom media is growing at the expense of print media in many cases.  More and more companies are bypassing media companies and creating their own private media channel.  In fact, we just launched a magazine for Aramark, the food service company, to talk directly to customers in the healthcare vertical.  You can see the details here. In addition, we are constantly talking to clients about digital magazines and online video to talk directly to their customer and prospects.  These sometimes are from budgets that traditionally had gone to traditional advertising.

Hopefully the people running media companies recognize the permanent status of these trends and are not just hoping for the market to “turn around”.   It is time for a new business model and cost structure.   However, the biggest change needed is mindset.  For today’s media brand the web needs to be the center of the universe and print thought of as an ancillary product.  This change needs to start at the top of these companies and they have to get out of their comfort zone.  Perhaps the news this month is the first step.  The first step of a long and tough journey that is now necessary for survival.

Here are the final predictions on the Presidential election from numerous Think Tank contributors.  We don’t want to be like the one-sided mainstream media, so in the interest in being fair and balanced here are a variety of opinions and predictions.

Check back here after the election for the post-mortem on the actual results.

Please take the time to read through and please comment or send me your own prediction to gplutsky@kingfishmedia.com and we’ll post them.

Sam Whitmore, Media Survey

Barack Obama will win by five percentage points in the popular vote and with a plurality of between 40 and 50 votes in the Electoral College.

The Senate will go 58-42 in favor of the Democrats.

Sarah Palin will be another winner, as portrayed on Fox News. Fox will side with her in its coverage of the rift that developed between her and John McCain. Her groundwork for 2012 will begin to be laid on Election Night.

Joe Pulizzi, Junta 42

Whether you lean more to the right or to the left, this election if firmly focused on the economy.  If you look at the history of US elections, when the economy is the #1 issue going into the election, there is almost always a change in party, or a “throw the bums out” philosophy. Over the past couple weeks; you’ve seen McCain work to distance himself as much as possible from the Bush administration to try to combat this issue. Nonetheless, it’s pretty clear that Obama will take the election, most likely by a significant margin considering the severity of the economic crisis.

Although there are many important issues being discussed by both parties (health care, abortion rights, Iraq), this election comes down to this one issue.  My prediction, with just a few days until the election, is that Obama will win the popular vote by at least eight percentage points, and take the electoral vote by amassing 363 total electoral votes to McCain’s 175.

Gretel Going, Channel V Media

As someone who is more concerned with the U.S.’s global relations than my own portfolio; who sees more importance in caring for those in need than buying myself yet another house; and who wants to uphold the freedom of choice that this nation was founded upon rather than convincing everyone that my way is the right way, I want Obama to win…and by a landslide.

If he wins by only a small margin it doesn’t send out the message that America’s not happy with the status quo. Considering how the rest of the globe views us—and how much they’re affected by our actions (and us by theirs)—I think it’s important that we send this message out loud and clear.

So while I’d love for Obama’s win to dramatically reflect this sentiment, I think he’ll only win by a hair. I’ll take what I can get, though.

Gordon Plutsky, King Fish Media

It is stunning to think that in a few days we may be electing a president who is the most liberal member of the senate, has socialist ideas on wealth, has questionable past associations and possesses a significant lack of experience and accomplishments.  To top it all off he is a black Ivy Leaguer with the middle name of Hussein.  It sounds like a movie script. Yet, the polls have him ahead and he is likely to win.  How did we get to this point? Let us count the ways.

He is not a Republican nor named George Bush.  All Bush II did was preside over an unpopular bungled war, the Katrina mess and an economic collapse – Quite a nice piece of work, cowboy.  (Don’t blame me, I voted for Gore and Kerry)

By opting out of the federal campaign finance system Obama has raised and spent over three times what McCain had at his disposal.  This advantage has allowed him to carpet bomb ads and build strong local organizations. (Prediction alert – In 2009, a scandal will erupt around the type and nature of some his smaller contributors who’s names are not being reported)  The Washington Post has the story here.

John McCain, while an inspiring person is not an inspiring candidate.  And, he is not the candidate of the base of his party who never embraced him.  What happened to the right wing “values” voters who helped elect Bush twice?  Will they show up on Nov 4th?  If not for Sarah Palin and her appeal to the right McCain would be down 15 points.  She is drawing huge crowds everywhere, well, except for Massachusetts and Manhattan – home base of the liberal elite.

Barack the Wealth Spreader has used class warfare in the way of promised tax cuts and other goodies for “working people” while demonizing “rich” people and businesses.  Obama has leveraged envy and resentment for all it is worth.  Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what Barack can do for you.

   The O-Man on Casual Campaign Fridays

The end of journalism from the mainstream media as we knew it in the form of cheerleading for Obama. They fell for his message of hope n’ change like a teenage girl in love.  The vast majority of the media has been in the tank for him and did the dirty work to discredit his opponents.  First it was Hilary Clinton and then McCain before the brutalization of Gov. Palin.  Joe the Plumber and Bristol Palin were scrutinized more than Obama’s history with Bill Ayers.  It is beyond me why media business models (newspapers, magazines and broadcast networks) that are in real trouble chose to alienate half the county.  In the long term, this will not work out well for the national media.  They have lost all credibility.

And the biggest reason – the timing of the collapse of the finance and banking industry a few weeks before the election was probably point, game and match.  The drop in the stock market accompanied McCain down in the polls.  Books will eventually be written about the causes, but for right now, it is perceived to be the fault of Bush and the Republicans in general.  The general sentiment is to throw the Republicans out of office and give Obama a chance – this is a very legitimate rationale.  This fortunate timing is the reason why he may become the first Democrat in 44 years to top 50% in the popular vote.  The depths of the economic bad news will likely bring in voters who would never vote for Obama under normal circumstances.

The combination of Bush, the fundraising advantage, media bias and current economy are virtually impossible to beat.  However, there is one thought that is haunting me and that is Obama’s performance in the popular vote in the democratic primary vs. Hillary Clinton.  She beat him consistently down the stretch and would have won the nomination if there were a few more states left to contest.  In many of the big swing states the undecided voters broke for Clinton.  McCain has a history of closing strong and the polls are tightening after Obama took a big lead a few weeks ago.  Obama, who has not been in many tough fights during his charmed life, may not be a closer.  For these reasons I think it will be tighter than the polls indicate.  I am calling the popular vote for Obama 51.5 – 48.5, and the electoral votes 311-227.

This election battle will be over but not the war. Being the opposition party (and getting Bush off their backs) will energize the Republicans and conservative base.  The race for 2012 begins on November 5th.  Governors Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty, Huckabee and Romney, please start your engines.  However, if McCain pulls it off, Hillary Clinton lives to run another day.  Close your eyes and imagine this – October 5th, 2012 and Luke Russert is moderating a Presidential debate between VP Sarah Palin and Sen. Hillary Clinton.  That would be some sweet Karma.

Speaking of Sarah Barracuda, here is my talented wife Susan’s entry into her company’s pumpkin carving content.  It speaks for itself.

Larry Walsh, Ziff Davis Enterprise

The lead headline of the Nov. 5 New York Times will read “McCain Wins, Obama Launches 2012 Presidential Bid.” 

The headline might as likely read, “Obama Captures White House, GOP Aims to Capture House in 2010.”

In the closing days of the 2008 Presidential election season, one that began more than 24 months ago, predicting a winner is an invitation to foolishness. Obama/Biden is the likely winner, given the trending and momentum, but McCain/Palin show signs of closing the gaps in key battleground states in the final stretch. The final outcome: too close to call. The pundits are probably correct that the sheer volume of new voters and the anticipated record-high turn outs will likely break all of the previous statistical polling models.

But think about the previous time reference: 24-month road to the White House. Our Canadian neighbors dissolved their government, called for elections, launched a multi-party nationwide campaign and elected new leadership in a period of weeks. Americans, on the other hand, have created a system that will likely result in the perpetual presidential campaign. No sooner we cast our ballots will we immediately see contenders throw their hats into the ring for the next round of polling.

Should Obama carry the mantle of the Democratic party back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we’ll see Sarah Palin’s profile permanently elevated to national political leadership and Joe Biden positioned as the guardian of the Democratic leadership in Congress. And with every speech, every policy brief and every piece of legislation, Obama will be selling himself for another term in office.

Should McCain mount a miracle comeback, he will be charged as the caretaker of the GOP leadership and setting up the White House for a successor. Perhaps that successor will be Sarah Palin, but more than likely Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or some other rising star.

In this new age of absurd politics, the American people lose because they will be overexposed and manipulated by a continuous stream political marketing designed to force reactionary decisions rather than long-term policy direction. “Change We Need” and “Country First” are not strategies, but taglines. And, sadly, those taglines are now being mistaken as positions and substance.

Assume Pennsylvania stays blue; Obama will take the White House with a 5 percent gross national vote margin and 300+ electoral votes. And with that the 2012 presidential campaign will begin immediately. I might as well cast my ballot in early voting now.

Brad Ketchum, King Fish Media

Definition of “change” (or changed, chang•ing, chang•es)
As defined by Answer.com in association with Webster’s Dictionary

Verb:
          
1. To cause to be different: change the spelling of a word.
2. To give a completely different form or appearance to; transform:changed the yard into a garden.
3. To give and receive reciprocally; interchange: change places.
4. To exchange for or replace with another, usually of the same kind orcategory: change one’s name; a light that changes colors.

Change is a word that has come to define the 2008 election and by itself, the very meaning of the word has come to represent one party’s entire platform. The platform for “change.”  But as we all know, change for change’s sake really doesn’t accomplish anything as the definitions above make quite clear: “to cause to be different; to give a completely different form or appearance; to exchange or replace with another, usually of the same kind or category.”

Clearly, no matter who is elected, they certainly will look different in form and appearance from the current administration. But we shouldn’t elect our President based on appearance, their oratory skills, the form they assume or how much they spend on advertising. We need to elect a President that views the current situation as one that needs fixing and improving in order to compete in a challenging global economy and environment. We don’t need government to be bigger, to tell us what to do with our money, to spend more of our money or to merely make change for change’s sake. Change needs to happen as a byproduct of steering this country back on course, not as a platform bereft of sound decision-making, ideals and understanding.

If we’re going to change the way government does business, change has to actually mean something. It has to be supported by ideas, theories, and facts. To merely elect a President who promises change isn’t much different then deciding when to remodel the bathroom. The bathroom is functional, serves its purpose well but its time for a “change.” The thinking is that if we change it, everything will not only look nicer (that olive green sink—yikes), but somehow will work better. But will it?

No matter whom you vote for in this year’s election, don’t mistake change for good or better. We all know that change means many things. Some good and some bad. Rather, vote for the candidate you think has the experience, ideas, values and facts that will help lead this country into the next decade. Do your homework. After all, that new sink might look a lot nicer, but in the end, it can still get plugged.

I have to believe rational minds will prevail and change for change’s sake loses. McCain by a stiff arm’s length.

Kate Fleming, Channel V Media

I’m sure I’m supposed to come down firmly on one side or the other, but right now I’m pretty firmly stuck between my optimist and my pessimist selves.

Optimistically—and, bizarrely enough, rationally—Obama wins on Tuesday.  Key groups that he has rallied—young people, African Americans—turn out in historic and unprecedented numbers to move things decisively in Obama’s favor.  Although there are protests from Republicans about voter fraud and issues at the polls, these are no match for the basic fact that Obama secured a clear and decisive victory.

Now for my pessimist self:  in this self’s brain, ominous scenarios keep swirling.  Many first-time voters, a majority of whom are Obama supporters, arrive at the polls to find challenges to their registrations, people are turned away at overcrowded polling stations (more likely to be in urban—and therefore—Democratic  strongholds), and we see something akin to 2000. Supposedly energized young voters stay at home.  And another 2000 repeat:  Obama wins the popular vote, but John McCain wins the Electoral College.  At which point I, along with millions of others Americans, descend on Washington for the largest protest in years.  But it makes no difference. 

McCain keels over days after he is sworn into office. President Palin, Todd, and the whole Palin clan take over the White House, and bring “Wasilla Main Street,” “Real American” values (none of your fancy “education” for us, dontcha know) to the country.  Suddenly, W looks like a wise leader.

I won’t believe an Obama victory until I see it!

Cameron Brown, King Fish Media

President, John McCain, by 17,200 votes as he wins NC, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

Tim Coffin

President, John McCain, with 51% of the popular vote

Colleen Brown

President, Obama by 10,500 votes

Brian Bucky

Obama - 54%
McCain - 43%
Ralph Nader - 3%

Ekem

Obama - 59%
McCain - 39%
Other - 2%

Kathleen Martin, RocketCom

Winners and Losers

No matter what your thoughts are related to the candidates this year, there are going to be some winners and losers this November 4th.
 
On the top of my loser list would be the majority of reporters in the media.  They have clearly demonstrated that neither truth nor facts are required for a news story.
    
Hollywood will also find itself on the worst dressed list for this election season.  Apparently playing a politician or person of importance on television has left these individuals delusional when it comes to their influence on the majority of voters.
 
Topping the winner list would be democracy.  With record turnouts expected at the polls and early voting lines being opened to allow all registered Americans to vote, the democratic process remains alive and well in the United States.
 
Each of us will also be winners.  While we may be paying more in taxes, healthcare, gas, groceries or anything else we purchase at least the campaign commercials are over.

Kimberly Jackson, King Fish Media

I’m Gonna Miss Sarah - er uh Tina Fey!

Five days till voting and I have just one thing to say:  I am really going to miss Tina Fey.  My favorite part about this election has been the resurgence of Saturday Night Live.  Our country may have needed change, but we also needed a good laugh.  Talk about delivering content that was just what the Comedy Doctor ordered!

Now for the important part: my prognostication for the election.  It was Tim Russert (boy do I miss him) who said “Florida! Florida! Florida!”  My prediction is “Ohio! Ohio! Ohio!  Ohioans have picked winners every year since 1944 EXCEPT for 1960 when they chose Nixon over Kennedy.  I am predicting Obama by a touchdown, 7% points overall across the country with a big win in Ohio.  I also am swinging out and calling Florida and North Carolina as Blue, not dark Blue, but Blue enough to add to the overall point totals.

And as the token mom in the group, I am going to say to my friends and colleagues what I say to may kids, regardless of the outcome.  I didn’t vote for George Bush and my children know that.  One day, one of them called George Bush a bad president and a litter bug.  (For a 7 year old that was a real insult!)  I told them they were not allowed to say mean things about the President especially if they couldn’t prove that the comments were true.  They countered with “but mom you didn’t vote for him, so you must not like him!”  I explained to them all that no matter who I vote for and whether or not I like them - the person who wins is MY President too.  I don’t have to agree with him/her but he/she gets my respect because it is a very hard job to be President and we should be grateful for their service.  No matter what, we have two Americans who love this country so much that they are willing to work around the clock for the next  4-8 years (for much less money than your average CEO) in service to our county and in dedication of their lives to the American people. 

So Sarah Palin, have fun back in Alaska.  Somehow I believe that we haven’t seen the last of your folksy-good ol’ self.  Remember that Obama started off with a big night at the DNC 4 years ago and it has catapulted him to greatness.  Keep your rented wardrobe handy, you may need it again soon!
 

It now seems clear that we are heading into rough waters next year.  You can see the slowdown everywhere.  It will be interesting to watch how marketers respond to the challenge.  Some will overreact, shut things down and go dark to save money.  Yes, you will save money, but you are also sending a signal to prospects, customers and competitors that you are nervous and perhaps a company that will not be around for the long haul.  Other companies will just continue bad habits like overspending on “branding” and expensive, hard to measure ads in rented media such as broadcast television and print.  However, I think the smart companies will be opportunistic by mining their most valuable asset – their customer database.

This is a great time to talk to your customers with your own private media channel and accomplish two important objectives.  First, you can firm up their support and make sure they have a strong affinity for your company, and won’t be swayed to leave for a cheaper product or service.   More importantly, it is an opportunity to earn incremental revenue from a group of people who you have already acquired and sold as customers.  Now it is time to reap the reward of the investment you made to make that person a customer. 

This week I received a mailing at home from a company who does a great job of cultivating their customer base – Lowe’s – the home improvement store.  As a homeowner I am a pretty regular customer, and I prefer it to Home Depot, mainly because of the customer service and nicer atmosphere of the stores.  Recently I bought a storm door and had Lowe’s installed it for me since I am completely useless in that area.  I must have received 10 calls from Lowes and the contractor they hired to set up the appointment, thank me for the purchase and make sure I was satisfied with the installation job.  I was pretty impressed, and it left me with a great experience and strong affinity towards Lowe’s.

The mailing I received was sent to current customers and had two main messages.  One was to send two gift cards – one for $10 off a $50 purchase and the other was $25 off of a $250 purchase.  They called them “Project Starters” which is an excellent idea. The cards are a great method to give someone the motivation to get into a store and spend money with Lowe’s.  The other message was near and dear to my heart.  It was an offer to subscribe to one of three custom media magazine’s that Lowe’s produces for customers.  They gave a web address and an 800 number to subscribe and see back issues on the site.

Lowe’s is doing a great job of creating a content based private media channel to retain and market to their customer base.  When you combine that effort with superior customer service, you have a company that will do fine even during a housing and economic downturn.  I wonder how many companies will follow Lowe’s down the Private Media path of content marketing.  It is much harder than just going dark or the status quo, but the payoff is significantly greater.  There is opportunity in chaos and the companies who are smart in 2009 will emerge even stronger for the recovery.

After a year of campaigning, I am getting cranky with the whole deal.  Less than month to go and I am punch drunk - not to mention poorer thanks to the stock market.  Here are a dozen phrases or issues that I have had more than enough of hearing about.  Some of these are hardy perennials that come around every four years.  How about you?  Do you have a pet political peeve?  Send it in and I’ll post it here in the King Fish ThinkTank.  Click here for Part I
 

Wall Street vs. Main Street – Class warfare at its most insipid.  Didn’t Wal-Mart wipe out Main Street?  Shouldn’t it be Wall Street vs. the Mall?  It is silly when Obama is a classic cultural elitist and McCain is a very wealthy man.  Neither one of them is very connected to the working class family. 

My Plan – Every candidate crafts elaborate policy plans that become endlessly debated during the campaign.  These plans which are dutifully posted on their web sites are forgotten on Jan 20th.   None of them are realistic or have any chance of passing muster with Congress and the lobbyists who actually run Congress.  A giant waste of time for everyone involved. 

Scranton/Amtrak Joe Biden – Very tired of the way he has been reinvented into a blue collar guy.  He moved from Scranton when he was 10 - 56 years ago and has been in the cushy Senate since 1973.  I moved from Hollis, Queens when I was seven – that doesn’t make me a member of Run DMC.  Also, the train trip from DC to Wilmington, Del. is 80 minutes one way.  I used to commute for an hour each way on the Long Island Rail Road, where is my medal?
 

The Bridge to Nowhere – McCain talked about this snoozer endlessly during the primary and it picked up steam with Palin.  The media and Obama then went after it like it was a critical issue.  They actually started comparing it to John Kerry’s “I was for the war before I was against it.”  Not exactly the same scale and it serves to remind people how lame the last Democratic candidate was four years ago.
 

Talking Point Robots – It is infuriating how spokespeople and surrogates from each campaign go on cable news and just repeat the same talking points over and over no matter what question is asked.  Do they think they are fooling anyone?  My least favorite is the unctuous Bill Burton from the Obama campaign.  No matter what he is asked he blames Bush, ties Bush to McCain and closes with we can’t afford four more years.  He is very aggressive in his attempt to stick to his script.  The thought of him as Press Secretary in a potential Obama administration is too depressing for words.

Man Love for Obama – I can no longer watch MSNBC and witness Chris (my leg is tingling) Mathews and Keith Olberman moon over the O-man.  They are joined by a good number of their colleagues on every network except for Fox, of course.  I just don’t see it or find him all that dreamy.  Obama comes off to me like a humorless professor who looks down his nose at you because you don’t agree with him.  Has he cracked a single joke or delivered a laugh line in this entire campaign? Come on Barry, loosen up. Who knows, I guess he is likeable enough.

Less than 30 days to go and then we can turn our full attention to something that really matters – Football.  
 

After a year of campaigning, I am getting cranky with the whole deal - last night’s “debate” was a low point.  Time to scrap the fake “Town Hall” format.  It does not work.  Here are a dozen phrases or issues that I have had more than enough hearing about.  Some of these are hardy perennials that come around every four years.  How about you?  Do you have a pet political peeve?  Send it in and I’ll post it here in the King Fish ThinkTank.
 

This is the Most Important Election of our Lifetime– I have heard this one every four years since I have been following elections – back to 1976.  A sense of historical importance can only be determined when looking back with a greater context.  “The Most Important Ever” is a pretty high bar.  This may not even be a very important election in the long run.   With economy and Iraq a mess, the next President doesn’t have a lot of leeway to get things done.

Earmarks – Enough Mr. McCain, enough!  Nobody cares, nobody comes out to votes on the issue and it is inside baseball.  McCain should not waste valuable debate time rambling on about earmarks when he should be talking about how Obama’s philosophy on business tax is to the left of Castro.

I Love Israel- In every election the candidates bend over backwards to profess their undying love of Israel and the Jewish people.  (Translation:  We love all that Wall Street and Hollywood money.)  Who knew the goyim loved us so much.  In fact, Joe Lieberman is McCain’s BFF!  Too bad Joe and I can’t get into John and Cindy’s country club. (easy, its just a joke)

The Abortion Dance – A specialty among Democratic Catholics such as Joe Biden.  It goes like this – “Because of my faith I am personally against abortion, but I support a woman right to chose.”  Huh?  Either you are pro choice or you are not.  I have a feeling St. Peter isn’t going to buy this one either.

The 40 Million Americans Without Health Care - This group makes an appearance every four years, and not so much during the in-between years.  The Democrats always promise that they will insure them and make them the centerpiece of many a speech.  It will likely never happen since the 300 million who do have insurance are not interested in seeing a decline in service or quality to socialize healthcare.  We will be hearing about them again soon – in 2012.

The Pundit Parade – How sick are we of the same talking heads making the same comments on every cable news channel.  They are all there primarily to push their consulting business, speaking careers, books etc.  You know what they are going to say before they say it.   For how much longer is Paul Begala and James Carville going to be living off the fact they helped get Bill Clinton 43% of the popular vote in 1992.  How about Mary Matalin?  Her claim to fame is working for Bush 41’s unsuccessful reelection campaign, advising Dick Cheney and supporting Fred Thompson’s very brief presidential bid.  Well played Mary, well played.

Check back Friday for Part II

Dear Steve Schmidt, Chief Strategist McCain Campaign,

After watching Sarah Palin light it up against Biden and draw huge crowds this weekend, I feel compelled to give some you marketing and media advice.  Love how you energized McCain and pulled ahead after the convention, but it has been all down hill since then.  The bail out timing was a bad break, and no matter what happens now it is Bush’s fault and by association McCain’s.  That may have been a tipping point in a year that should be a Democratic layup equivalent to Carter’s post-Nixon/Watergate win.  The RCP poll average has you down six, but the numbers have been volatile and may not be that accurate.  You still have a chance, time to take the gloves off and hand the ball to your point guard – Sarah Barracuda Palin. 

Your media missteps nearly killed your hottest brand, but it is not too late to salvage it with a new custom media approach.  What you have pulled off so far is impressive. As Alaska’s Governor she had no reason to be expert on issues such as internal Iranian politics, nuclear proliferation and Wall Street regulation.  You had five weeks to prepare her to debate a guy in who has been in the Senate since 1973 in front of 70 million people and you did a decent job.  However, you messed up the press relations and almost sunk her (and your campaign) by feeding her to the mainstream media on their terms.

What were you thinking?  I admit I may have given the interview to Charlie Gibson, who knew he would be a condescending ass? However, feeding her to Katie Couric was criminal.  The entire concept of network evening news is old school and a relic.  It has not been relevant or important since the 80’s.  In today’s media landscape, the consumer is in control and news is a commodity that is available on demand, 24/7 on any platform. The idea of influential people sitting down to watch 22 minutes of news at 6:30 every night has gone the way of parachute pants and knit ties.

Let’s face it, the mainstream media (MSM) is in the tank for Obama and has shown a willingness to do his dirty work by attacking McCain and Palin.  What possessed you to give into them and send Governor Palin to be interviewed by a woman who is floundering with horrible ratings and is on the verge of being fired?   Couric’s back is up against the wall and you gave her a chance to matter again – and you gave her complete control over content, camera work and editing.  You made people talk about Saturday Night Live again for the first time since the days of Eddie Murphy playing Gumby, damn it. 

Did you cave from the pressure of the MSM?  Did you actually take them seriously when they said it was the role of the media to vet candidates?  I don’t recall reading that in the Constitution.  The coastal liberal elite think that people in flyover land are too dumb to decide for their own, so it is their responsibility to decide for them.  They decided this one back in January, ask Hillary.

Here at King Fish, we have a philosophy called Private Media.  You need to own your own private media channel, not rent the old one from the MSM.  I suggest you create the Sarah Palin channel, to talk directly only to the voters that matter – swing voters in the key swing states.  Forget the traditional media of the networks and print media; you don’t need them – not a bit. They are losing significance and influence in the lives of Americans.  It is not coincidence that the networks and newspapers are the ones whose business models are most under attack.  You can get better marketing ROI handing out flyers in front of Penn Station than advertising during NBC’s new shows (hey, let’s remake Knight Rider).  The New York Times and its junior varsity team The Boston Globe have turned themselves into daily Obama campaign bulletins.  Is it any wonder their profits and stock price are declining?  The Times is cutting costs, sections and staff while losing what was left of their objectivity.

It is time to keep Palin away from these faltering outlets and have her talk directly to voters.  You will take heat for this strategy.  A hue and cry will come from people in NY, Boston, and LA who mock and hate her.  Who cares, let the NPR crowd stew over their soy lattes; you have already lost those states.  Focus on your target market – swing voters in swing states who identify with her and feel she is “one of them”.   Let the voters decide on Nov. 4th and let the chips fall where they may.

You are sitting on a pile a of cash, so buy up half hour time slots in critical local market to run infomercials and promote the hell out of them.  Create the shows as town halls where people can see Palin speak directly to voters with no media filter.  Embrace social networking to a much greater extent than you have – go viral with web video in a big way.  Enlist word of mouth marketing with PTO groups and churches in Middle America. Try some live streaming video web casts with Sarah where she can answers question directly from voters, and not from agenda driven members of the media. 

The game is well into the 4th quarter, put the ball in her hands and have her attack and bust the zone.  You can’t wait for Obama to make a mistake; he won’t, he is too good a politician.  Have her hit him hard on Ayers, taxes, and “the white flag of surrender” in Iraq.  Sarah Palin needs to take her message directly to the right voters and forget about traditional media.  The web, live events, you tube, email and word of mouth will be your media vehicles.

It still may not be enough since it seems that a slim majority of American are ready to cast their lot with Obama because he is a blank canvas to where they can project their hopes, dreams and fears.  Look on the bright side; if you and Gov Palin (or Gov. Jindal or Gov. Pawlenty) takes him on in 2012 you will have an actual Obama record to run against instead of slogans and promises.  No matter what happens over the next four years, good or bad, you can hang it on him.  It may be fun to take the easy route, it has been for Obama.

Word of Mouth (WOM) marketing is certainly not a new sensation; in fact it’s not even a hot buzzword anymore.  The reality is that much of what began under the banner of WOM is now being spoken of in the lexicon of social media.  Blogs, Wikis, User Generated Content (UGC) and the whole social media world are really built upon many of the principles started years ago with WOM. 

No matter what you call it, there’s now an environment capable of propagating the reality of your products quality and comparative value into the marketplace at blinding speed.  All these channels of communication and exchange make information available to a larger group of people at a faster rate than at any time in history.   

Even in this world of radical transparency and information exchange, I continue to be amazed at how much energy goes into messaging and marketing that attempts to gloss over product deficiencies rather than directing more focus and resources on fixing the underlying issues.  Often the result is marketing that dooms a product to fall short of expectations and to subsequently be raked over the coals of public opinion.   This kind of thinking completely misses the opportunity to tap the exponential power of social medial and WOM and fuels those folks who love to expose faulty products and the companies who make them.

Addressing core product issues isn’t always possible for a variety of reasons.  Lack of funding, short timelines to get a product to market or a host of other factors create the need for compromises.   No product, even fantastic ones, will likely go to market without their creators secretly wishing they could have slipped in a couple extra cool features.  

In the end, it comes down to the truth of your product.  Despite great marketing, huge media buys and all the other traditional marketing trimmings, a less-than product is destined for a very short half-life these days.  In contrast, high-quality offerings taken to market with savvy use of social media/WOM channels are likely to enjoy a longer run and do so with smaller marketing budgets. 

Next time you’re planning a go-to-market strategy, don’t underestimate the marketing value of a great product.  Waiting for, or pushing for, that next feature could be the best marketing decision you’ve ever made.    
 

This week the NY Mets gave us an example of what happens when you don’t understand the current media landscape.  They fired Manager Willie Randolph on Monday night, and did it via press release at 3:15 am east coast time.  The team was in Anaheim on the first day of a west coast trip.   So, they made poor Willie fly all the away to So Cal, manage a game (he won) and fired him after the game.  As I am sure you know by now the Mets have been getting killed in the media for this low rent move on a classy guy.  They are spinning all kinds of stories such as they didn’t want to fire him on Father’s Day to they didn’t make up their mind until Monday.  The sad truth is they actually thought that if they did it in the middle of the night it would lessen the news and press impact since it would be a day before the NY papers could jump on it.  That was a questionable strategy in 1978 or 1988, but in 2008 it is beyond moronic.  That “strategy” backfired and blew up in their face.  They got beaten up on every available media platform for nearly three days – print, talk radio, blogs, sports web sites etc. 

At the heart of this mistake is a lack of understanding of today’s media environment.  It is always on, and always in search of content.  The explosion of media platforms, brands and choices has eliminated the concept of “news cycles” as we knew them.  On demand content and viral distribution have made traditional news cycles obsolete.  In addition, the proliferation of media platforms has created a situation where any “hot” bit of content and news is blown out of all proportion.  Many of these media outlets thrive on scandal and controversy.  The search and hunger for edgy content seems insatiable.  How else do you explain Lindsay Lohan’s mother and talentless sister getting a reality show.  More shame for us native Long Islanders.  Wasn’t Amy Fisher’s sex tape enough humiliation? 

The media narrative ended up being about how clumsy, heartless and dumb the Mets management appears to be.  The net result is the Mets did some real damage to their brand image, and maybe their bottom line too.  We are in a new media world, and if you follow the old rules you are sure to get burned.

I recently contributed another article to Chief Marketer on the topic of face to face events.  Specifically it explains how to use events as a lead generation and lead nurturing tool.  While working for several media companies I had responsibility for publication branded events and custom events.  One thing I learned is when using events as lead gen tool it is critical to scale your event (and budget) to the anticipated return.  Many people do think of live events as custom media, but they can be very powerful tools as part of a private custom media solution.  Click here to read the article. 

Just a short word on the passing of Tim Russert.   I spent much of last week thinking about and writing about media bias in the news organizations covering politics.  It was quite a shock to learn about his tragic death, as he was one of the last objective unbiased journalists on television.   Even though he worked his way up the ranks in Democratic politics he was equally tough on both parties.  You could make a case he was the most important journalist in America today.  Many people, including me, turned to him on Meet the Press and election night coverage to make sense of it all in a straightforward manner.  You could trust him because you felt he neither had an agenda nor was self promotional.  The timing of his loss before a historic election is a blow for this country.  We would hope that someone would fill the void, but it will be an impossible role to fill.

Nearly everyone I spoke with over the past few days felt like they lost a close friend.  He was such a presence on television, you actually felt like you knew him.  Just another reminder that as Buddhism states everything in life is impermanent.  It was heartbreaking to watch so many of his friends and colleagues talk about him all weekend.  However, listening to the tributes he was clearly a man who made the world better and lived every minute of his short 58 years.  Personally, I agree with his impressive son Luke, who said that if Tim could hear what was being said about him; he would be the most excited to hear that Bruce Springsteen paid tribute to him and played Thunder Road in his honor.  As a fellow Springsteen fanatic, I was very touched by the gesture from Boss who like Tim Russert is a master story teller with an ear to the common man.  Here is a passage from Thunder Road, a beautifully written song about vulnerability, yearning and redemption.

We got one last chance to make it real
To trade in these wings on some wheels
Climb in back
Heaven’s waiting on down the tracks
Oh oh come take my hand
Riding out tonight to case the promised land

In an interesting bit of timing, the NY Times ran a story today about perceived media sexism toward Hillary Clinton. (A topic covered here yesterday) In a shocking development the mainstream media (NBC, CBS, CNN etc) strongly disagree with that notion.  They seem almost dismissive of the claims.   They are also quick to say that Hillary Clinton’s defeat was caused by her own mistakes and they are not responsible for her loss.  That is true, Hillary has no one to blame but herself, and Barack Obama played by the rules and won the nomination fair and square.  However, that does not absolve them of their actions, nor does it lessen the anger many feel towards them.

There is this passage and quote from MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann:

There was “constant reflection and analysis at MSNBC, and I must say there was constant good faith in trying to make certain Senator Clinton was not treated unfairly.”

Now that they have been called on the carpet they wrap themselves in objective journalism.  Ironically, Olbermann has made a name for himself making fun of Bill O’Reilly and the right wing bias at Fox News.  I don’t know if he realizes that he has become a liberal version of his friend Bill.  I used to enjoy watching him, but his rants have taken on an air of self righteousness and he has lost his ability to be objective. 

There are several problems with the mainstream media defense tactics.

As the old cliché goes – perception is reality.  Many Clinton supporters and women’s groups including NOW (click here to read a column from their President) are angry at the bias, and NBC/MSNBC and CNN have lost credibility with many viewers.  They can defend themselves all they want, but it won’t change the way many women (and men too) feel about the way their candidate was treated while her opponent got the kid gloves treatment.

I wonder if the many of the biggest offenders (who are generally men in their 50’s and 60’s) fully realize the way the media world has changed.  Every one of their comments is stored on the web forever, and can be easily passed around.  And, there is an army of bloggers to offer a counter opinion and analyze their comments.

The bottom line is they can deny it all they want, but we live in a new media world.  My advice would be to really reflect on how they handled the nomination process rather than trying to spin it away.  No one is buying it.

On a separate and personal note – Happy Father’s Day to the #1 reader of the Think Tank blog – my Dad, who is one of the smartest guys I have ever met.  The lessons I have learned from him are too numerous to recount here, and I use them every day.  Happy Father’s Day!!
 

Before we leave the process that will eventually name Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee, let’s take a look back at one of the factors in this contest that helped him beat Hillary Clinton.  It can provide us some clues and insights into how he may fare against Senator John McCain this fall.

There has been much debate whether sexism played a role in the defeat of Hillary Clinton.  She and her campaign made a couple of well hashed over errors:  they underestimated Obama’s appeal, had no organization in the caucus states, and used Bill Clinton incorrectly.   Watching Bill Clinton in the 2008 campaign was like watching Willie Mays play for the Mets in 1973 – painful to watch a star whose time has past.  She was significantly hurt by the actions of Florida and Michigan to break the DNC rules which cost her big states she could have won.  And, it seems like she didn’t connect with the voters until she went from frontrunner to underdog.

A big factor in the race was a media bias for Obama and against Clinton.  This manifested itself in a mainstream media that seemed to be openly promoting Obama, while gleefully participating in the steady stream of sexist comments and jokes aimed at Hillary.  It was open season on petty analysis of her appearance, emotions and of course, the comments about how she came across as a bitchy woman.   Take a few minutes to check out these clips.   One is a brilliant piece from the Daily Show and other is a home grown video from YouTube.  Both illustrate numerous examples of the mainstream media taking sexist shots at Hillary.  It is sadly comical to watch a bunch of middle age white men (Mike Barnicle, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchannan, Wolf Blitzer) make statements that essentially says that Hillary is a shrew and a harpy who men don’t want to listen to because she sounds like a nagging wife.  Makes you wonder how happy these guys are at home.

In addition, journalists such as Keith Olberman of MSNBC and Frank Rich of the New York Times all but anointed Obama while never missing an opportunity to take a shot at either Hillary Clinton or John McCain.  By the way, making fun of McCain’s age is also fair game, and even sometimes the injuries he received as a POW.  Obama’s lack of experience and a real record and his relationship with Rev. Wright received as close to a free pass as you can get in today’s 24/7 media.

Try and imagine what would happen if these same middle age white male commentators used jokes and negative stereotypes about Obama’s race in the same manner as they did with Hillary Clinton’s gender.   When anyone even hints at race, such as Geraldine Ferraro, they are treated like a pariah.  Remember when a bunch of guys showed up at a Clinton rally held up signs and chanted “iron my shirts”.  It was laughed off as a prank.  What if it was an Obama rally and those hilarious frat boys were yelling “shine my shoes” or “fry my chicken” Not so funny, is it?  In fact, it is horrible.  However, it is hard to argue it was much different in terms of negative stereotyping.  Unfortunately, this gender bias affected the way the race was reported throughout the primary season.  Next, we will take a look at how media bias may have shaped the race.

Last week my city, Beverly, MA held an election that may offer a small preview of this November’s election.  Here in the Massachusetts we have a wonderful law to reign in government called Proposition 2 ½ passed by referendum during a tax revolt in 1981.  Here in the bluest of blue states we have a segment of people who love their taxes.  It basically states that property tax can’t increase by more than 2.5% per year, except if the people in the town vote to over ride the law for a specific reason.  In our case it was to help fund the school system that is running at a deficit due to the usual suspects – increasing teacher healthcare and pension costs, unfunded state and federal mandates and exploding special education needs.  If it passed, the average homeowner would pay roughly $190 more a year in property tax and one of the six elementary schools in town would be saved from closing. 

It was quite a battle, a real steel cage street fight.  What struck me was the anti-government venom.  It was aimed at the Mayor, School Committee, City Council, Teachers Union and anyone who even walks by city hall.  There was also a generous helping of class warfare as the working class and seniors resented the upscale moms who led the fight for the over ride.  One of the leaders of the over ride movement made the classic marketing mistake of saying it would only cost “a latte a week” to fund the tax increase.  Oh boy! Talk about not knowing your audience.  That statement became a rallying cry from the working class people who wouldn’t go inside a Starbucks on a bet.  The moms (and some dads) were dubbed the Latte Divas by the anti-tax people who fought it out on the Salem News web site message boards.  I would read the forums and the anger was palpable.  The parents were advocating raising taxes “for the children” or our property values would plummet and the city would become a slum overnight.  Opponents ranted back about how unions, the government and entitled parents were ruining America, and how they can’t afford another cent is this bad economy.  Over rides for schools usually pass in small affluent bedroom communities, but in economically diverse Beverly (pop. 40,000) it was crushed 63% to 37%.  And, a real class division opened up in once cohesive community.

It was a fascinating look at how social networking and web 2.0 tactics shaped the debate.  The pro over ride parents (Yes! For Beverly) had their own blog, Facebook page and email distributions; and the forums on the local newspaper sites became ground zero for battles pitched by people from both sides using anonymous screen names.  Some of the postings were pretty mean, and would never be said if a real name had to be attached or it was face to face.  It is much easier to work up some real anger when hiding behind a made up name that can’t be tracked.  It got me thinking about the nature of these anonymous posts which are found all over the web on all types of sites.  Does the anonymity produce true and honest feelings that are hidden by social convention, or is it an excuse to be rude.  There is something freeing about putting the usual political correctness aside, but debates can escalate quickly.  It is an interesting situation for companies who host these types of forums, especially when someone can be slandered on your site.  Monitoring your site is a must to protect your brand.

In addition, I could tell that there were some “PR plants” in there spouting the talking points from each side.  I don’t think many “average citizens” know the intimate details of municipal finance, collectively bargained teacher’s contracts and academic studies on the benefits of lower class size.  There were more than a few people with not so hidden agenda’s passing themselves off as John and Jane Q. Public.

This local battle may be a microcosm of the upcoming Presidential election. We will hear some of the same issues and charges from both sides.  Elitism and class division, education, taxation and the economy will be issues out front and center.  2008 will be the first web 2.0/social networking presidential election.  The ground war is going to move from mainstream media ads and direct mail to the web in a big way.  The blogs, video sharing sites, forums and online fundraising are going to be humming.  This may help Obama and his more youthful supporters, but the same tools can also make any scandal viral or misstep magnified.  We are in somewhat uncharted media waters, and as the cable news talking heads like to say “only time will tell”

Kimberly Jackson and I both wrote about the same topic this week, independent of each other, so here is a short introduction and both postings.  We were both taking a look at a private media channels created by personalities that are aimed at our respective demographics.  Oprah is for Kimba, the influential working mom and community organizer, and Howard Stern for me and my adolescent sense of humor.  While the content of each private media channel is very different, the net result is the same – a high affinity environment of trust.  Time and time again it is proven that in today’s media jungle the best way to get your marketing messages across is to pair them with original content that connects with your target audience.  Oprah and Howard may not have much in common, but they understand the power of intent based marketing as well as anyone today. 

No one in media today understands the concept of private media channels better than Howard Stern.  At first, his much trumpeted move to Sirius Satellite radio seemed like a way to get out from under the thumb of FCC and their constant monitoring. However, Howard had something more in mind than the freedom to drop an occasional f-bomb and in-depth stripper interviews.  Back in the prehistoric early 90’s he dubbed himself the “King of all Media” because he was successful on syndicated radio, did a highlight show on E!, had best selling books, and an autobiographical movie.  He was in all media, but they were not integrated and he was essentially renting channels from huge media companies who owned the shows and profits.  He now has two dedicated stations on Sirius (soon to be merged with XM), his own web site and Howard TV which is an On Demand pay service.  All three platforms are tightly integrated, and users pay for the radio show and TV shows, while the free web site is a promotion for both.

The radio channels are interesting because they create a unique environment for the show.  There is a news operation to report on news about the show and characters; and each day there is a wrap up show to talk about the events of that day’s show.  Each show is treated like breaking news on the radio, TV and web site.  It is very addicting to tune into – you get immersed in a parallel world Howard is President and Fred, Artie, Robin, Gary and the huge cast of characters are the cabinet and members of Congress.  The wrap up show is like MSNBC for the whack pack (Howard’s most loyal fans that have become part of the show). 

The net effect is a very high affinity environment that produces two sources of revenue – subscriber fees and advertising/sponsorships.  At a time when it is getting difficult to get people to pay for content, Stern fans are happily forking over money to be able to be a part of his private media channel.  Additionally, the integration and cross-promotion is critical to creating the feel of a private media channel.  Howard Stern may not be to your taste, but there is no denying he has been a media pioneer for the past 25 years.  Keep an eye on him, and you will get a sense of what the future of media channels may look like.

Have you seen the Oprah Network lately?  Number one ranked talk show; hit magazine; satellite radio; oprah.com… all complete with enough content to fill the digital divide.  She shares her wisdom including what we should read and eat; how we should live our lives for the ultimate fulfillment; how we should decorate; who we should help, admire, adore or vilify.  Can one person really be so well rounded, so educated, so omnipotent that she can maneuver the masses with such finesse?

It’s no secret that authors hope to be hand picked for her outrageously popular book club series.  Sure, past endorsements include well-known’s such as Faulker, Tolstoy and Angelou, but many lesser-knows have been vaulted to stardom (or purgatory) with the same passion.  Whether it is Jeffrey Eugenides discussion of children born with both male and female sexual organs in his novel Middlesex or the Gabriel Garcia Marquez with his politically charged love story in Love in the Time of Cholera, these authors become the preference of many mommy book clubs in the US.  Equally, the backlash experienced by James Frey, author of A Million Little Pieces, originally billed as a memoir turned out to be a wild work of embellished fiction.  Oprahs’ anger at being duped resonates for him today as he publishes his next work Bright Shiny Morning.  Every interview for his newest effort seems to begin with his previous experience on Oprah. Her condemnation and distaste for his dishonesty will likely follow him for the rest of his publishing career.

Manufacturers and retailers pray for the Oprah nod of approval.  Last week, Oprah did her Favorites of Summer in which each audience member won lots of her hot picks for hot summer items.  Audience members received gas grills, clothes, CDs,  make up, etc. – you could tell the few men in the audience had no idea what was going on when Oprah announced the theme of the show, while their female counterparts jumped up and down in anticipation of their forthcoming booty!  Tummy Yummies were on her list and I would love to see the sales spike reported for this company who designs pretty tees that also minimize the not-so-rock-hard tummies!  

Cover Girl Lash Blast Mascara also got the thumbs up.

“This was the first time anybody’s come to the offices with a scientist to explain how [the makeup] works,” Gayle says [Oprahs BFF Gayle is also on staff at Harpo ]. “This is the scientific explanation: A dual polymer system keeps the mascara from migrating underneath your eyes. That’s code for it doesn’t smudge.”  

Did we really need a scientific explanation for how the mascara works?  Oprah gave us one and maybe that is the key to her success.  She takes nothing for granted in quest, not even the fact that we just buy mascara without understanding its unique merits.  Marketing tip here?  Never assume that your product it completely understood by your target market, no matter how main stream or simple.  Oprah doesn’t.

Her endorsements reach further than store shelves.  This year she has thrown her support in the presidential race to Barack Obama.  I wonder if Barack was forced to pick one supporter out of his many backers, if Oprah would out rank John Edwards in importance. She might even make a great vice-presidential candidate!   Her endorsement on Larry King may be one of the most pivotal moments in the dog fight between the potential first woman/the potential first African-American to seek the Presidency of the United States.  Her weight, no pun intended, may just prove to be what tips the scales in the democratic decision making process.

The Oprah network reaches far and wide.  Her influence is felt in so many categories.  “Self help” or “help others” she can influence us by providing what we see: the whole story.  She investigates, reports and summarizes those topics for which most Americans, especially American women, have neither the time nor the resources to research.  We put our faith in Oprah.  We believe what we see on her couch, in her pages or on another media platform.  We rush to spend our time and dollars, and even our votes with a confidence that if she says it good enough, it must be.  Maybe it is the humble beginnings, if a poor black girl who had many speed bumps throughout her life can become a media mogul, then amazing things might happen to us regular folk too.  Maybe it’s that she just calls ‘em as she sees ‘em and for us that simplicity of message resonates.  Whatever it is, there is not doubt, that in Oprah we trust!

The cable giant bought Newsday on their home turf of Long Island for $650 million after a bidding war with Rupert Murdoch and Mort Zuckerman.  When billionaires place that much value on a local newspaper (albeit in a lucrative market), maybe the demise of newspapers is not as close as we think.  It is fashionable among media pundits and bloggers to pile on the newspaper business and declare it done for.  They always point to the fact young people don’t read newspapers and get their news on the web.  Has anyone bothered to ask what the newspaper subscription rate has been historically been among young adults – I bet it has always been low.  Not a huge priority at that stage in life.  And, what happens when these hip kids who have no use for newspapers and land lines get older and have kids, houses, careers, etc. 

I do agree that some of what newspapers currently do is obsolete.  National and global news is a commodity – either online, on TV or from the wire services.  Having it appear in a local newspaper serves very little purpose to the reader, who has probably already seen or heard the story in another more immediate platform.  For newspapers to succeed in the future they need to think locally – people love local news – the more local the better.  Reading about politics and tragedies in foreign lands is important but it really has little effect on the average person’s life.  However, they sure do like reading about their own slice of life in their town and region.  These stories have a real and emotional connection, and who doesn’t like keeping up on local gossip.  I may not know all the facts of what’s going on in Darfur or the real difference between Sunni and Shiite; but I know the gory details of an upcoming property tax increase vote in my town and the story of the kid up the street who was arrested for drug possession.

To take it one step further, instead of expending resources by having international and national news bureaus, redeploy those resources into good old investigative journalism on the local level.  Some of the best work from a newspaper is when they uncover crime, corruption or some other injustice in their backyard.  The Boston Globe did a great job this year exposing Mitt Romney’s illegal alien gardeners and some questionable ethics from the current speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representative, Sal DiMasi.  Newsday has a long history of doing that on Long Island, and I hope the new owners will be committed to that tradition.  There is real value in providing this type of content and service to a community.  And, it builds readership affinity for the advertisers, most of which are small local companies who do not run big web or TV campaigns, and rely on the local paper to get their message out.

The local angle is why I think the Cablevision/Newsday deal will work.  They can create an integrated media channel (print, web, cable, events) for readers and the local advertisers who want to reach them. In addition, Newsday now has ownership by people who actually live in the community and have a vested interest.  The days of the big remotely-owned newspaper chains and the homogenization of news that it brought may be over.  Maybe it is time that the local paper goes back to the future and becomes a major player in their community.

Although still the number one show on network TV, American Idol has seen a steady rating decline this year to it’s lowest totals in five years.  Many theories have been offered  - lackluster contestants, people growing tired of the format, a general post-strike decline in viewership to name a few.   I would suggest another reason why the show has generated almost no buzz this year and people are tuning out.

In the past AI has been a masterful example of combining content and sponsorship.  In this age of permission based marketing, they came up with a formula that was compelling to fans while providing companies like Coke, AT&T and Ford a great marketing vehicle.  Once this show became a huge hit – the producers and FOX amped up the tie ins and revenue opportunities.  They produce records, concerts tours and TV shows.  The voter results show was expanded from 30 minutes to an hour to sell more commercials.  And, they added more promotional deals with iTunes and with “guest mentors” who had new albums to hawk.  Slowly but surely, the marketing and advertising overwhelmed the content portion of the show and this year was the tipping point.  For example, the addition of an AT&T sponsored segment where “random” fans call in to ask questions is nothing but filler and painful to watch.  You almost expect Ryan Seacrest to come out one night wearing a sandwich board with an ad for Maaco Auto Body shops.

I am a fan of the show, but felt like I just spent two hours a week watching an infomercial.  The desire for promotion really hurt the perception of this year’s contestants by forcing them to sing songs by artists who are not relevant to today’s audience.  Two weeks of Beatles songs were a bore – for today’s kids, it does not mean that much, and for those of us over 35, we have heard them a million times.  Then they moved on to Dolly Parton, Mariah Carey and Neil Diamond –who shockingly, all had new albums and tours to promote.  Can anyone name me three Dolly songs? Mariah has more #1 hits than anyone – but are any of them remotely memorable.  However, the highest rated show on the unintentional comedy scale was “show tunes” week with Andrew Lloyd Webber. 

You get the feeling it all about driving sales and playing it safe for the sponsors.  It is just a little coincidental that contestants who are different (i.e. possibly gay) or edgy (tattooed) find themselves gone early and the bland survive.  The success of the incredibly boring and cloying David Archuleta (known as the “Gasper” on Idol fan site Vote for the Worst.com) is symbolic of that trend.  He may be the single least entertaining person on television.

For the show to be successful past next year, the producers really need to examine the balance between content and marketing.  While we often profess that content based permission marketing is the wave of the future, AI is a cautionary tale of what happens when the mix gets out of balance.  I know we are all in business to make a buck, but guys, take it down a notch or you will kill the golden goose.

According to a recent Junta42/BtoB Magazine study, almost 30% of businesses marketing budgets are allocated to their own content. That means, instead of creating an advertisement that runs along side traditional media, businesses are developing and executing their own content, essentially being their own media.

Can I hear an Amen?

Look, there will always be interruption-style marketing, or what a recent BusinessWeek calls “attention-deficit” advertising. According to the article, “Marketers, only too aware that consumers are ignoring traditional ads, have adopted the ‘more is more’ approach and have begun advertising everywhere – in taxis, fitness clubs, and hospital waiting rooms.”
This will never stop. Some people will self-choose to become walking billboards and, outside of corporate design standards, some locales will look like Times Square on steroids. As long as there is product to sell, this will never stop.

But there is another way, a “higher road” per say, which business marketers are starting to get. 30% of a marketing budget is a huge number. Businesses are beginning to understand that the creation of valuable, relevant and compelling content may, ultimately, be the best way to drive long-term revenues and profits.

Let’s get this straight: Businesses don’t create their own educational content to be nice, they do it to make money.  The creation of content marketing within an organization may be one of those few areas where doing the “right” thing for your customers actually makes you more money (Toyota Prius and Waterfree urinals come to mind).

Why Now?

Even though the art of content marketing and custom publishing has been going on since the dawn of time (but formally recognized when John Deere launched their customer newsletter to farmers, The Furrow, in 1896), some media-types overlook why content marketing is beginning to skyrocket.

It all has to do with consumer control. Because of technological advances, today’s consumer (your customer) can control everything they engage in. In the past, consumers were “forced” to watch television commercials. TiVo proved this wasn’t a necessity. In the past, access to content was relegated to the elite few who had subscriptions to media sources. Google has democratized content to such a degree that literally anyone can find everything from anywhere in the world.

Today’s buyers engage with advertising when they choose to. The marketer has lost any and all control they might have had in the past. Without control, what’s a marketer to do?
From this perspective, the solution is easy: As a business, if my customers are going to ignore my ads, I must deliver them valuable content so they pay attention to me. This is the reason why 30% is just a starting point. In less than five years, it may be 50%…possibly more.

Exciting Times

If half or more of marketing budgets are dedicated to custom content, one thing is inevitable: the quality of content will continue to increase. Corporate content, in order to get the attention of customers, must be as good as or better than any content you’d find in mainstream or trade media.

Hard to fathom? Not really. We are still fighting for our customer’s attention, but instead of annoying them with a million unwanted messages a day, we’ll be strategically targeting an important piece of content, at the appropriate time, that makes the customer more intelligent, or makes their lives easier in some way.
In order to accomplish this task, businesses will reach out to the best journalists and publishers from around the world, from local to global, to help them deliver a valuable message to their customers. There may never be a better time to be a writer than right now. Forget being the chief editor of the Wall Street Journal, go to Microsoft, Cisco or P&G.
Exciting time indeed. Prepare the way.

Joe Pulizzi is founder and chief content officer for Junta42. Junta42’s Match product is a free resource for marketing professionals to help them find pre-qualified content marketing assistance. Read more of Joe at http://blog.junta42.com/.

Crocheted doll hats off to American Girl Doll (AGD) for some of the most effective marketing I have ever seen. Bringing new meaning to managing supply and demand, they have targeted the heart and soul of the most competitive purchasing segment in the US: the pre-teen girl. In a fashion that I admire and embrace, AGD has surrounded their target audience (and their target’s CFOs—the moms) with a true 360 degree marketing approach. They embrace print, events, email, destination marketing and a new twist, hair styling. Simply put, American Girl Doll has created a private media channel to talk directly to their customers and prospects. They truly own their media channel rather than renting traditional ad space.

To see this media channel in action take a trip, curious marketers! AGD calls it “Shop, Play, Visit, Watch”. There are so many ways to interact with this brand and all roads lead to profit. The dolls represent historical figures or exact look-a-likes of your little princesses. They represent different nationalities, races and abilities. They are designed to be aspirational as well as inspirational. Dolls and the endless supply of outfits, furniture, pets, accessories and equipment can be purchased online or at one of the specialty American Girl Doll stores in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas and Atlanta. The clothes fit the dolls and they have matching outfits and pj’s for the big girls too! But don’t just shop at the stores! Stay and have lunch with your little look-alikes. Get your hair done, and the doll’s hair, too. Just make sure to keep the credit card in hand.

They have created a custom magazine to talk directly with their customers. For $23 the American Girl Doll magazine will entertain while building loyalty and preference, six times a year. The content is written with the target in plain sight, including: party planning; crafts; activities; even girl-to-girl advice for those 8-12 years old. The custom media component is complimented by “more magazine fun online” including compelling puzzles, quizzes and games from “the magazine on FUN”. Whether filling Felicity’s Wagon, visiting Kaya’s Mountain Escape, or helping Molly grow a garden, the online activities are designed to be educational and wholesome. Given the challenges of monitoring children’s online usage, moms generally welcome sites and activities that embrace these qualities. Our little American Girls can spend their most valuable pre-teen resource, their time, devoted to this brand. The smart ones even figure out how to get their mom’s most valuable resource, cash, committed as well. My Mom-sense is that $23 seems a reasonable subscription offer for hours of fun and reading for this integrated print/web product.

The entertainment continues with DVDs and feature-length films in theaters, generally inspired by the many books written about these 15 inch tall beauties. Trailers of the movies can be previewed at http://www.americangirl.com/ .

As a mom, I am taken back to my own youth, when Barbie and her friends were the hub of my universe. Nurse Barbie, Wedding Barbie, Beach Barbie, Doctor Barbie… ah the options were endless. My friends and I worked our parents with a finesse that would impress a diplomat for a new doll or ensemble. Maybe it was just that our parents knew that a new outfit, complete with teeny weenie high heels could keep us busy for hours of healthy imaginative playtime. As wonderful as Barbie and her buddies were, they were limited to dolls and accessories, and their promotional opportunities were limited to running ads on TV and in magazines. My daughter’s choices seem to have so much more depth and dynamics and AGD can own their media channel. Because they use media and technology to surround their customer, AGD has built a much deeper relationship than I could ever have had with Barbie.

As a marketer, I marvel at what this Barbie in the “post advertising age” strategy has accomplished. Their success is unquestionable and the future looks bright. My next question to my clients: can you shop, play, visit, watch and live your brand? If you can’t yet, is it a possibility? What are the components that can be added to your existing strategy that will compliment the existing plan? And what can we all learn from a doll about private media channels?

There have already been a million reviews of the creative, and that is not our goal, but rather to take a Private Media/Custom Media look at the efforts.

One of the big themes was Web tie-ins and promotions. Google/You Tube  offered a special package which was a smart option. When you are spending $3 million for 30 seconds of rented TV time, it is a no brainier to buy a package from the premier search engine and video sharing site. My Space and other sites also promoted how you could recap the commercials online after the game. Many (but not enough) of the commercials invited you to a special Web site with mixed results. This was the whole focus of the Go Daddy campaign where they teased you to go on line for a lame Junior High joke about Danica Patrick and a beaver. Embarrassing all around, and did nothing to persuade people to use their domain buying service.

The other theme was the overall level of violence, anger, mayhem and gross outs. Puking babies, hearts jumping out of a chest, people sucked into a jet engine, face mauling badgers, and Justin Timberlake being beaten senseless. I haven’t even gotten to the politically incorrect and just plain offensive – making fun of foreigners, unattractive women and creepy clowns. I am a pretty insensitive guy, and even I was offended at some of this stuff.

Mayhem has been a theme for a couple of years now. I can only guess that this is what happens when big agencies try to make news rather than practice good marketing. They are trying to outdo each other and be outrageous to break through the clutter. This is classic example of agencies talking AT customers rather building a relationship and imparting information that could be used to make a buying decision. The whole Super Bowl ad culture has forgotten the purpose of advertising and marketing is to actually sell products and services.

What struck me the most about these ads is how all those marketing dollars could have been used more effectively. Here are just some rough ideas on how to better spend $3,000,000 using content based private custom media solutions.

1. Mining your customer and prospect database to create a quarterly magazine or newsletter with customized content to build a relationship of trust with your customers.
2. A frequent buyer’s affinity program aimed at your best customers to get them to spend more money and convert them to life long customers.
3. A series of interactive webcasts where you can give customers and prospects great information while creating a two-way dialog.
4. A custom Web site packed with content and an online video series with a viral component to build excitement about your brand and turn customers into brand evangelists.
5. A series of face-to-face events to get yourself closer to your customers. There is no substitute to getting your prospects to actually touch, feel and try your product. This works for both consumer and business offerings. If you want someone to try a new version of Pepsi then get it into people’s hands in a fun atmosphere. That will convert a lot more customers than a commercial that rips off a 1990’s Saturday Night Live skit

Two Ads I Really Liked

I thought the ad for the Audi R8 did the best job showing you the product in action and creating excitement for a new car. First they get you hooked with a parody of the Godfather. They even used an actor, Alex Rocco, from the original film. (He played Jewish gangster Moe Green, the bullet in the eye guy from the scene where Michael settles all family business). After getting the viewer sucked in they tease the car in action, which was impressive to say the least. The only reaction you can have is “Wow, I have to know more about that.”

The other ad I really liked was the Coke parade ad. While Pepsi tries to be cool and trendy, Coke takes a timeless, classic approach with cartoon characters. It was creative, fun and multi generational, using Charlie Brown, Stewie from Family Guy and Underdog. Just putting those three together was inspired. The best part was in the end poor old Charlie Brown gets the bottle of coke. It was a feel good, affinity building moment that stood out in a sea of mean-spirited commercials.

I am also compelled to mention that my media flavored NY vs. Boston Super Bowl game prediction was right on the money. The lesson – When Hubris comes up against Karma, always take Karma and the points.
 

In a year packed with mostly forgettable ads, there’s one company people are still berating, for the second year in a row, for airing the Super Bowl’s worst ads.

We expected it – and CEO Vin Gupta promised it. Last year, the salesgenie.com ads “positively impacted” business to such an extent that Gupta followed the same tact this year. He even conceptualized the commercials and wrote the dialogue himself.

It’s not the bad accents, uninspired “storyline,” or even the crappy animation. It’s that the company came off looking cheap and low quality. And if the commercials made you curious enough to visit salesgenie.com, you’re in for a sorry surprise. Their Web site only enhances the low brow corporate image displayed in the television ads.

Moreover, isn’t it ironic that a company that specializes in sales leads – targeted selling to a qualified audience – would be so untargeted in their own sales campaign? Sure, they might have reached a million salespeople through their Super Bowl ads, but how many people who don’t give a damn about anything sales-related, saw those ads? Nearly 100 million – the waste was incredible. And for the $6 million spent on animated panda bears and evil bosses, they could have created a content-based, targeted private channel in which they actually create a relationship with their real prospects. How did a sales lead company, a company that sells to salespeople, miss that?

I love football and I am a huge Pats fan. I have also worked in advertising and marketing for 20 years. So as you can imagine this year’s game was for me a BIG disappointment! It wasn’t just because my beloved team crashed and burned on what was to be their coronation in the Hall of Perfection. It was because these were some of the worst Super Bowl ads ever. My viewpoints about to be expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. They are observations of a focus group of one: a Super-fan/Super-mom.

Reality TV culture has infiltrated our commercials. Kina Grannis won the Doritos-Idol contest and while I was prepared to hate it in the same way that I hate reality TV, I was pleasantly surprised. She has a beautiful voice. The tune was catchy. I didn’t have to cover my children’s eyes as it played or mute the language. I am glad Doritos is giving an unknown a chance but I am not sure it would make me buy high sodium, high fat snack foods for me or my family.

Careerbuilder.com, which seems harmless enough of a company, was a loser for me. Bloody hearts jumping out of shirts; sweet little fireflies being consumed by spiders, now this is the stuff that bad dreams are made of! The Super Bowl is a family event and we watch it with our kids. Did we not learn a lesson when Janet’s wardrobe malfunctioned? Like all good parents, when your kid is turned off you tend to follow suit in solidarity. The only thing this ad accomplished was make me happy that I like my job.

Salesgenie.com should be taken out back and have bamboo shoots stuck under their fingernails. My kids were questioning if that was mocking an entire community. (Remember, schools teach cultural sensitivity these days!) Ling Lings Bamboo Furniture, Ramesh and his Widgets and I Dream of Genie were not only bordering on political incorrectness, they were just dumb. Come on, do we really think Ramesh is going to save his job and provide for his seven kids because of 100 Sales Genie leads? The ads were insulting at best and patronizing in the least.

On the other hand, I loved the Tide-to-Go Interview. My Talking Stain was funny, memorable and like the stains on my kids’ clothes, it gets my attention. I went to mytalkingstain.com (completely inspired by Office Max and the Dancing Elves of holiday fame) and couldn’t wait to upload my kid’s photos. Children love to see themselves on-screen, e-mail their likenesses to their grandparents and all the while I am interacting with a brand. I already buy Tide, but this reinforces my relationship with them. Today Tide made me laugh in addition reminding me of their key product attribute—they clean clothes. That little value add, a smile during a crazy day, can go a along way for a mom.

I am grateful that I didn’t have to explain erectile dysfunction or Viagra to my kids. But in general, I was underwhelmed with the quality of the ads and messages. I was uninspired by companies who waste millions of dollars and opportunities to communicate a real message on silly cartoon characters that tell me nothing about the benefits of their products. I am disappointed that my team wasn’t super and that the ads for the most part were super-boring.

I am not usually a fan of broad-based, brand advertising because they usually try too hard to be clever or sexy without selling the product or the benefits to the buyer. However, I love the recent Bud Light ads with the “Dude” guy. If you have not seen them, check out this YouTube link and this one which has football theme - and Fox’s Joe Buck.

In some ways this breaks all the rules of classic advertising. They do not give any features or benefits of the product, or even try. They barely even show Bud Light. Not exactly Ogilvy on Advertising. However, the product they are advertising is not all that good – in fact it is a poor excuse for beer. Bland taste, too much carbonation, and I don’t think it is possible for a grown man to get a buzz off of low cal version of the classic Bud. Trying to sell the quality of product would not have credibility since no one really thinks Bud Light is a great tasting beer.

So why does the ad work? On one level, it is well done and funny. It taps into the non-verbal relationships most men have with each other. There is no need for talk, when a well placed situational “dude” will do the trick. The camera work and the melancholy piano are perfect creating a unique environment. The casting is excellent – he is the classic everyman in his late twenties or early thirties. Everyone knows a guy like him from work, school, or the local bar. He sits in a cube, wears inexpensive clothes and lives with a roommate in a low rent apartment. He is just a regular guy looking to have some fun with his circle of friends.

It works because they create affinity with the brand. I have a more positive image of Bud Light because I get a kick out of the commercial. In my head, I know the beer has not changed, but they have created an emotional connection.

Affinity and likeability are critical when creating and promoting a brand. At King Fish we profess that affinity leads to trust, which in turn leads to a customer taking an action. In a Private Media solution we use original content in a preferred environment to create that affinity, trust and action. In this case, Bud Light created that relationship by using content that speaks to men on a non-verbal, emotional level rather than trying to tell them the beer was superior tasting. A smart strategy when selling something that is basically a commodity.

Will this commercial lead people to buy more Bud Light? Even more, will it get people talking about Bud Light, creating a groundswell of awareness and brand equity? I bet it will, and I can’t wait to see what they do with the Dude guy next.

Barack Obama has won the South Carolina primary by a big margin and trounced Hillary Clinton among voters under 30. The battle between Obama and Hillary has been positioned as a battle of race and gender, but I think there is something else at play. The real showdown between Obama and Hillary Clinton is generational. Hillary is the classic boomer, 60 years old, highlighting her 35 years of experience. Obama is of the next generation – only 46, and looking forward. Newsweek recently wrote a cover story declaring that this election will be all about 1968 and reliving those old battles. I could not disagree more. This contest symbolizes the generational change and will have major implications for media and marketing strategy.

Generational conflict has been much discussed over the years. I would consider the classic boomer generation as 1946-1959. They are now between 62 and 49, and their earliest influences are from the 60’s and early 70s. Generation X (1960-1975) is now between 48 and 33 strongly influenced by the 70 and 80’s. Let’s put generation Y at 1976 and 1998. These are 90’s internet generation. The millennials are 1998-present.

For the past 20 years the boomers have dominated and the Xers have been the kids and up and comers. Now the boomers are heading into their 60s and retirement. There is a major shift as the Xers move into leadership positions in government, business and academia. This is instructive because each generation’s early experience forms the way they view the world and interact with media.

Like Barack Obama, I am a Xer and just turned 44, which coincidently is the median age of current voters. That means 50% of the people voting in 2008 are younger than 44. Do you think they care about 1968? Let me be so bold to speak for my generation: we are so done with the 60’s. Thanks for all the protests, but we are worn out hearing about Woodstock, sit-ins, burning draft cards, ERA marches, the Beatles, Haight Ashbury, and free love. Enough already, it is time for change (maybe Obama is on to something). Reliving these tired battles has given us 16 years of gridlock and partisanship with our two boomer Presidents – Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and their counterparts in Congress. Future historians will likely look back at boomer-rule and see missed opportunities and failed leadership.

Here is a brief review of the early years of my generation’s memories: The end of the Vietnam War which we essentially lost, Watergate and Nixon’s resignation, a 12 year bear market, skyrocketing crime rates, double digit inflation and mortgage rates, and two Presidents (Ford and Carter) who were more famous for being made fun of than their accomplishments. Oh, and when we got to college – AIDS. That sure put a damper on free love. If it was not for bad news we wouldn’t have had any news at all.

This timeline of bad times led up to the turning point election of 1980 which brought us Ronald Reagan. He was the first President I voted for and campaigned for in 1984. He was enormously popular among young people in the 80s – today’s thirty and forty-somethings. It is easy to forget the job he did restoring confidence and strength in America. While the boomers continue to cling to the memories of JFK and RFK, we will always have Reagan. Our collective image is of Reagan staring down the Soviets, cutting taxes, joking after being shot, and comforting the county after the Challenger accident. He was a strong leader who projected honesty and optimism.

Barack Obama is a very skilled politician and as the first Xer to run for president, he is modeling himself more on Reagan than he may let on. His campaign brand symbol is an O that looks like a rising sun over a field – Morning in America. He also cleverly mentioned how Reagan was a transforming figure while dissing Bill Clinton at the same time. His target audiences for those comments are those 60% or so of voters under 50. The last few years have been tough; you could almost make an analogy to the late 70’s. The time is right to restore confidence, bring hope and change. Sounds like an Obama campaign speech - and one from Ronald Reagan in 1980.

I will counter Newsweek’s argument. Forget the 60’s, they are heading to the cut out bin of history. Whoever captures the mantel of Ronald Reagan will be our next President. This week on Meet the Press, John McCain sounded like a latter day Reagan, preaching a strong foreign policy and mentioning Reagan’s name several times. He reminds me of him with his genial manor and self depreciating humor. After winning in Florida last night, he is the front runner, and may be endorsed by former Reagan justice department official Rudy Giuliani at the Reagan Library.

We are down to the final four – will it be a turning point election with the Reagan-like change of Obama and McCain or more of the same with either Mrs. Bill Clinton or George Bush’s Harvard Business School classmate, Mitt Romney? If I am right about branding and generational shift, it will be Morning in America again. If I am wrong, wait til 2012.

Generation X may not take control of the White House in 2008, but, Xer’s are now settling into control of major corporations and of course of both mainstream and new media. And right behind them will be the even more tech savvy, online centric generations. Youth culture defines American culture – we are looking at a group of people who have declining loyalty to the mainstream media world and refer to print as dead tree media. These are not people who will respond to old fashioned traditional advertising and branding messages. How are you going to get by their texting, IPODS and TiVOs? The next generation just may be known as the Private Media generation.

As someone who has spent the past 20 years moving back and forth between NY and Boston I look at this game with an eye toward the fierce rivalry between the two cities. The personalities and cultures between the two areas are very different for places so physically close. It really is Athens (Boston) vs. Sparta (New York).

The usual psychic balance between the two cites is out of whack. NY usually has the upper hand, but now it is all Boston. Between the Red Sox, Patriots, and Celtics, it has been no contest; even Mitt Romney has put a beat-down on Rudy Giuliani. It is a bleak time in the Apple with the Mets collapse, the Knicks a laughingstock, and the Yankees embroiled in the steroid scandal. Wall Street has taken a beating and rumor has it that annual bonuses have dipped below seven figures. Gucci belts are tightening and the Hamptons real estate market is suffering. The horror of it all.

Bostonians are enjoying their time on top, and they should. The usual New England reserve and passive-aggressiveness has given way to front running, gloating and self praise. Those fine qualities are usually the province of New Yorkers, not the descendents of Cotton Mather and the Puritans. For the past year, I have had the pleasure of watching the Boston media glorify the Red Sox and Patriots in ways you can’t comprehend. Sports lead the newscasts more often than not. The first 20 minutes of Sunday night’s Channel 7 News was devoted to video of the Patriots boarding buses in Massachusetts, and deplaning in Arizona—gripping journalism. It is just a matter of time before major roads and landmarks are renamed after the holy trinity of Jonathan Papelbon, Tom Brady and David Ortiz.

To follow up on the Athens vs. Sparta theme, hubris has set in. The Boston fans are treating the Super Bowl as a formality on the way to crowning the Patriots as the greatest team of all time. This attitude set in around October when they were running up the score on opponents and the rest as been a coronation. Could Tom Brady’s injury be a symbolic Achilles heel? His ankle has received more media scrutiny than any body part since Janet Jackson’s exposed breast.

Just a feeling that this hubris will may come back to haunt New England. New Yorkers are ready for some Karmic payback and what would be better than ruining the perfect season? There is something cosmic about facing Eli Manning, whose brother Peyton ended the Patriots season last year in the AFC championship game

I have seen every Patriots game this year, and I think they are wearing down from the pressure and grind of the season. Their offense has had trouble with aggressive, blitzing defenses which the Giants feature and the Giants’ offense put up 35 points on the Pats defense a few weeks ago. The Giants are on a mission, have nothing to lose and know they can play with them. The Patriots, who are the far better team, go into the game knowing that if they lose, they will go down in history as failures to some extent. That’s not fair, but the unfortunate truth in today’s all or nothing media culture.

I’ll take a lot of grief for this prediction, but I have a premonition about the ongoing Greek tragedy between New York and Boston.

Sparta 27 - Athens 21

There are some interesting marketing lessons to be learned from this week’s Republican New Hampshire primary. It is ironic that the Harvard MBA and businessman, Mitt Romney, may be conducting the worst political branding and advertising campaign seen in some time. He has all the advantages – especially money – and lost to Sen. McCain by five points. Comparing the marketing strategies of these two candidates illustrates a few fundamental marketing and media truths.

What is a Brand? Brand is a promise of what the consumer gets when they purchase your product or service (or vote). The brand proposition is the foundation for any product, service or candidate. The McCain brand is clear and consistent - he is the war hero turned Senator who is both a maverick and straight shooter. He tells it like it is, and fights for what he believes in - even at political costs. McCain has taken positions on Iraq, campaign financing, immigration and taxes that often puts him at odds with mainstream Republicans. And he does not care. His primary goal is to do what he thinks is the right for the American people. He has no trouble telling voters what they may not want to hear, and does not pander to interest groups. McCain’s brand scores high on measures of likeability, authenticity, compassion, honesty and foreign policy experience.  Like him or not, you know what he stands for and what you are going to get.

Contrast that to the Romney brand. Is he the moderate Republican (pro choice, pro gay rights, pro gun control) who ran and won the Governorship in Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states, in 2002? Or, is he the hard right conservative who is now running for President in 2008? Like the businessperson he was, he changes his sales pitch based on the prospect he is trying to sell. Because he has changed many of his positions and seems to pander to the right, he loses in the authenticity category, which does not help him in the honesty department either. There have been a few examples of when he got caught stretching the truth about his past (he exaggerated his hunting background, and there was a sketchy claim about his father marching with Martin Luther King).

The bottom line is no one really knows who he is, and what they could expect from a President Romney. What is the brand promise? I get the sense he is running as someone who he not, but rather as a conglomeration of focus group-tested themes.  My hunch: he is not as hard line as he comes across, but feels he must project that image to win the Republican nomination.

Here is some free and unsolicited marketing advice to Mitt Romney to repair his brand: toss the consultants and ad agencies and just tell the American people what you really believe and how you will make their lives better and safer if you are President. Keep the message clear and consistent.

Additionally, try and show some empathy and compassion. Nobody likes a good-looking rich guy who demonizes immigrants while they are mowing his lawn. By all accounts you’re a nice person and good dad. Let people see that side of you, and make some jokes at your own expense – loosen up.

You are running to be President of the United States - all of them. Don’t worry about the approval of the religious right, Fox News, Rush, Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity. Americans are anxious to move past the 16 years of red state/blue state bickering we have had. Be the guy/brand that can bridge the gap and get people talking to each other. Time to take a hard look at your brand, the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire have and opted elsewhere. The clock is ticking; you only have 30 days left if you want to be President.

My 9 year old daughter is really coming of age. She is eagerly paying attention to the events that take place around her each day. Much to my chagrin, the television has become a new source of information for her. Last week while watching the morning news, a segment was done on Hillary Clinton and highlighted a key turning point in her life. Evidently when Hillary was young she wrote a letter to NASA asking what exactly she should do to prepare herself to become an astronaut. Their response was to “become a man, there are no female astronauts”. This was clearly a pivotal moment in her life and she swore she would not let having the wrong plumbing get in her way. Ever.

Upon hearing of this great injustice, my daughter decides to pummel me with questions:

 “How do you get to be the President? Why is it such a big deal for a girl to be President? Why hasn’t there been a girl President? Are you going to vote for her because she is a girl? Are you going to vote for her at all? (And totally unrelated but due to the follow up story on the news) Why is Britney Spears in the hospital and how did her little sister get a baby in her belly?”

This was all before coffee!

I realized at that moment that the reception to marketing messages begins at home. Marketing especially to women, is wrapped in so many more communications that just magazine ads and TV commercials. It smacked me in the head that my daughters, my friends, my mom, every female out there is being bombarded by news and politics and that even in the best of objective journalism, there is always the “spin”.

For the record, I addressed my daughters concerns in order:

1. We elect a president by voting, it’s called an election and the one with the most votes wins.
2. It’s a big deal for a girl to be President because there hasn’t been one yet and I have no good explanation why there hasn’t been one yet!
3. I am going to vote for the best candidate not because of their gender but because they are the most qualified and I haven’t made up my mind yet.
4. Britney clearly doesn’t have a Mom as wonderful as you do and if she did, neither of the girls would be where they are now! (My own personal marketing effort with a target market of 3: two girls, one boy).

Hillary is a brand. So is Britney. We don’t even have to use their last names. They are catapulted into our lives on TV, in tabloid headlines and on entertainment Web sites. We watch every move they make, their stumbles and triumphs replayed for us over and over. If you miss it on the news, catch it on YouTube. It is symbolic of our times that two such different women share opening headline status on the Today Show.

Hillary has thrown herself into the boys’ club house. She is showing us what the potential leader of the free world looks like in lipstick and heels. She needs to be careful that her skirt isn’t too short or her blouse too low.  She mustn’t be too sensitive or she’ll be accused of playing the “girl” card. She has to find the perfect balance between diplomat and bitch, “first lady” and “first lady President”. She wants to be seen as capable and tough and yet wins market share when she is moved to tears in a public forum.  Positioning her is one of the most delicate marketing challenges ever seen in politics.

Britney is a brand too. Here is what women learn from her message: This is what you don’t want to become; this is what you don’t want your daughters to become; this is what happens when it all goes wrong. Her life, a bizarre combination of soap opera and reality-series, illustrates for us what happens when the fairy tale goes awry. Sweet child turned child-star: makes it big in a success story that could only happen in America, and then implodes with the same super-sized fanfare she received during her well documented rise to fame.

Two American Dream stories as told by the media on all fronts: two women who have left their own unique mark on this moment in history. The woman who would be President and the Pop Princess who would fall from grace. Watching the contrast between these two brands illustrates how complex is it to raise kids, especially girls in this age of media saturation.

I hope my daughters turn out more like Hillary than Britney, but mostly I am hoping that they will build their own American Girl Story and they will turn out to be just really good women.

We often talk about Private Media in terms of for-profit corporations directly talking to customers and prospects by owning their media channel rather than renting time and space from large media companies. One of the many benefits of the private media approach is that the owner of the media channel gets to control the message – both the content and distribution.

We now see a rapidly growing movement where individuals are also creating private media channels – pretty easy with today’s Web 2.0 technologies. Between social networking sites and video sharing, anyone can create a private media channel with minimal effort.  All of the Presidential candidates are well down this road, and almost every rock star, actor and athlete worth their salt has their own Web site, myspace page, and has posted videos on YouTube for an interactive dialog with fans. While the primary motivation is promotion, it can also be used to communicate directly with fans, enabling the personality to control the message and environment while getting their message out there as fast as possible. One of the key rules of crisis management is getting the word out quickly and framing the conversation.

How many times on TV have we seen someone yell at their lackeys in anger, saying: “the press will have a field day”. (By the way, a field day is an opportunity for unrestrained activity, not a day of sports competition at school – thanks Encarta.) In the past, celebrities and companies were dependent on their PR machines pitching and spinning stories to the press and having no input as the press edits and positions the story. Once a negative story gets into the 24/7 news cycle it is well out of your hands, and indeed a field day ensues.

We are now seeing famous people taking their message directly to the people. When Rosie O’Donnell was battling ABC and Barbra Walters over her job on the View, she posted video blogs on her site for her fans and the media to pick up and replay. Rosie’s private media channel told her side of the story quicker than the Disney/ABC PR team could tell theirs. Baseball’s Roger Clemens did the same thing when responding to reports he used steroids. After a few days of silence he posted a video on his site and on YouTube to deny the allegations. He will appear on 60 Minutes this weekend, but he has already gotten his message directly to the public bypassing the 60 Minutes film editing room.

The newest private media channel took me by surprise – The British Royal Family has premiered their own royal channel on YouTube. This is where they posted the Queen’s annual Christmas message and other clips and archive footage. When one of the oldest and most traditional intuitions in the world embraces private media, it is clearly an idea whose time has come.

Consumers of media and information need to watch these videos with an attitude of buyer beware. This is an unfiltered message, which does not have the benefit of a journalistic screen – no fact checking or follow up questions.  On the other hand, there also no agenda or bias from the journalist or media company. This is especially attractive to polarizing and controversial figures such as Queen Elizabeth II and Roger Clemens. It bears watching how this trend will develop – as we can assume that more and more notable people and companies create their own private media channels.

How will the traditional media companies adapt? Will consumers put as much faith in messages directly from the sources, rather than through journalists? My guess is that we will come to expect the direct message from our actors, singers, athletes, politicians and corporations. It will be incumbent on corporations and others using private media to keep the content benefit-oriented and information rich when speaking to their customers and prospects rather than a sales pitch. With the right content, a private media channel can be more powerful than any ad or PR effort will ever be.
 

It’s only December 20th, and we have already had a near record amount of snow in Salem, MA for this month. And technically, it’s still fall. How cool is that? The roof in our 100+ year old converted mill building has been leaking steadily for the past three days, while the work crews have been racing to fix the problem before our forecasted rain this weekend. I have no doubt they’ll make it right.

The streets from Boston up to the North Shore are a bit tough to navigate; sidewalks are narrowed by the trenches dug for pedestrians by shopkeepers hoping to attract last minute shoppers. That incredibly gray concoction of ice, snow, cinders and sand fills the street edges, so we leap from street to sidewalk, hoping to nail a sure-footed landing. And before long, the mess will melt, and we’ll forget the minor hassles of the winter.

With just a few weeks until the presidential primaries get under way, the candidates are looking to score final points for voters. The home stretch is in sight, and now that they’ve exhausted selling points on Iraq, oil, healthcare, the mortgage crisis and the economy, we’re moving into profile pieces on candidates often aimed at their faults or past missteps – the epitome of who-cares content.  The candidates are also wrapping up their apologies to one another for negative debate comments and attack ads.   And, we see the mainstream media is playing their game of building up candidates to knock them down later.

Will people vote based on new information dredged up on personal religious beliefs, positions on infidelity, unflattering pictures and rumors of health problems – I really doubt it. But thankfully, the months of cheap shots, negative campaigning and accusations of flip-flopping will shortly give way to a 2-person race that hopefully will sharpen the two candidates’ messaging and start positioning us once again as a world leader. Our new President is faced with the responsibility of repairing our image with other countries, and he or she had better plan to make this job one. I have confidence that they will.

From New England streets to the voices of our candidates across the country, listen for it and you’ll be amazed: people are upbeat, and they’re generally positive. There is an overwhelming sensation of hope and an effort of goodwill that I haven’t observed for some time. Can the Christmas and holiday season have that great an impact on people? It can. And it is working.  Life can be tough, and every person out there has their own personal challenges. Most of them can be overcome, but some will not. That’s what we’re dealt, and so it goes. But as we head into a new year the county is eager for a positive change and a new attitude. Take a look and see for yourself.
 

This recent Boston Globe article does a nice job out outlining how media companies and advertisers are dealing with the DVR phenomenon.  Currently, 20% of US household have one, and that is projected to rise to 35% by the end of 2011 –representing 40 million households. Of course, the issue is the fast forwarding and skipping of commercials.  Once you own a DVR, your days of being a slave to the TV schedule and watching endless commercials are over. 

The fact that 40 million affluent household will be skipping commercials is not good news to the ad supported networks and cable channels.  Nor is it great news for ad agencies that create and run commercials for their clients over expensive “rented” media channels provided by the networks.

The article points out several fixes and solutions the networks are trying to force people to watch commercials by running fixed logo, making some programs so you can’t fast forward them; and coming up with commercials within the actual program.  I will predict right now that all of these will all fail because of one basic fact – the consumer is now in control of their media choices; and they do not want their TV watching interrupted by commercials that have no relevance to them.

Try this small personal experiment and it will bring it to life for you – watch two hours of network TV shows that you usually watch and are basically aimed at your demographic.  Take note of the commercials and keep count of how many are:

1. Of completely no interest to you and something you would never buy for any reason.
2. Of such poor marketing quality, you don’t even know what they are selling or what the benefits of the product being advertised are.
3. Advertising a product category you do buy, but it is brand you would never switch to because you are satisfied with your brand or you don’t like the brand advertised.
4. Advertising a product you already buy or plan to buy.

I will wager that 90%+ of the commercials that you see in that two hour block will fit into one of those four categories.  Think of the wasted dollars spent reaching you and others who are skipping the commercials or don’t care about them.  This type of advertising is a vestige of the past when broad based media – TV, radio, magazines and newspapers were the only option.  You could do some audience targeting via MRI, Arbitron and Nielson, but it is more art then science, and the waste is incredible.  Also, this type of advertising has little or no accountability.  You really have no idea how and if it works.

The big media companies and ad agencies have a vested interested in keeping this system going even though it is not an efficient use of the client’s marketing dollars.  Granted, there is ego involved here on the client side – marketers and their CEOs like to see their ads running on famous shows where their family and friends can see them.  It’s like those corporate branding ads that run during the Sunday morning news shows.  Please write to me if you can name a greater waste of marketing dollars. 

We are heading to an inflection point in the advertising/marketing business where companies are going to eventually put a stop to spending their money in this manner.  They will turn to custom and private media solutions to generate new leads and create a meaningful dialog with customers.  The technological change over the past 10-15 years (Web, wireless, DVRs, iPods) has changed the game for the delivery of media and marketing messages.  Broad-based advertising has its time and place, but some of that money being spent to create glitzy commercials could be redeployed to market to the company’s database.  Companies who master their customer and prospect database can own their media channel rather than rent it; and create specialized private media communication and content for their best customers and prospects.  Owning your media channel will provide a tangible ROI for the bottom line rather than a commercial that rents network time and where the clear likelihood is for a skipped, ignored and expensive message.

In this Monday’s New York Times, David Carr writes about print magazines and how they fit into his overall media consumption.  Read the article—he makes the case that there is less and less time for print and publications like The Week will thrive in the web era with its style of short articles and quick hits of the week’s news.  He may be right for some people, but I don’t agree.

To me, the strength of print is the long article and thoughtful analysis. I can get quick AP type headlines and news on the Web all day long. In fact, I do—I monitor the major news outlets on myyahoo.com feed all day long. In addition, I make time for the Boston Globe and the New York Times print editions to get behind the news stories and personalities. I also make time for Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, The New Yorker, Portfolio, Inc. and Boston Magazine. What I get from each of these is long form, in-depth journalism that I would not tend to read online. That may change someday, but for me and probably others my age, nothing can duplicate the environment and affinity you get with your favorite magazine. What I love about magazines is discovering and learning about something I had no idea I would be interested in; or a unique take on an old topic.

For example, this New Yorker story about Rupert Murdoch buying the Wall Street Journal by long time journalist and media analyst Ken Auletta; or well known tech writer Steve Levy writing in Newsweek about Amazon.com and the future of the ebook.

That being said, the magazine industry faces enormous challenges as a marketing vehicle as we move into the Private Media era. Of the magazines I read each week—I could recall only one ad through unaided assistance—the back cover of the New Yorker had an ad for the Mercedes C series, a car I really want to buy in the spring. It is ironic; the only ad I remember is a product I was already sold on.

The case for print advertising is a tough one to make. It is neither actionable nor measurable to the advertiser, and it is the classic example of “interruption” based advertising. The ads are only relevant to a small amount of people who have an interest or ability to buy that particular product. Each week my reading is interrupted with dozens of very expensive ads for pickup trucks, minivans, video games, outdoor camping equipment, energy drinks, credit cards, after dinner liquor and pharmaceuticals that I will never, ever buy. The amount of marketing dollars wasted reaching prospects in the manner is mind-boggling. And by the way, is this the way to have a dialog with your current customers?

Print publishers face a huge challenge—how to stay relevant and profitable at the same time. Most smart publishers are far down the road to becoming multi-platform media brands with strong online, video, events and lead generating offerings. They need to get to a point where the print product is no longer the center of the universe. This evolution will only accelerate over time as most consumers under 35 are online focused and will not have the attachment to print that us middle-aged people do.

However, a stumbling block to the future is that these media companies are stocked with people who have spent their entire careers in print and still see the Web as an ancillary product. And, because print still drives profits, most media company compensation plans are skewed towards selling print ads. I love this quote from Felix Dennis, owner of The Week, and founder of Maxim magazine.

“The American magazine industry has been massively overstaffed for years and years. It is one of the most inefficient businesses in the history of the world. And you know what? The chickens are coming home to roost,” Mr. Dennis said. “They can sit around the campfire listening to the scary noises out in the dark, wondering where it all went, but what I would suggest is that they take some of the chickens, skin ’em, and stick ’em on the campfire and start eating.”

This sentiment will resonate with anyone who spent significant time working for a traditional old line publishing company. Their staffing and business models are still heavily weighted to print, especially in management and sales. Print sales reps still make huge salaries compared to people selling online media and event sponsorships—does that still make sense? Grab a copy of any consumer or trade publication and take a hard look at the masthead and you will be amazed at the layers of management (thick with VPs, EVPs, SVPs and Extra Special Super Terrific VPs) and the people with titles (anything with “Strategic” in it) that look like what they are—old timers and buddies hanging around at big salaries. Add this overhead to rising costs for paper, production, circulation and postage and you have some significant costs that must be covered by print advertising’s declining margins.

I share Mr. Dennis’s opinion—it’s time to blow up the internal structures of these companies and realign assets and people to reflect the new reality of the multi platform, Private Media world. It’s time to bite the bullet and come to the realization the long term future is not a print dominant world. They need slash costs and hire and reward the people who are driving online, video and event products—not the risk-adverse print veterans who are waiting for the “good old days to come back”. Time and progress only move forward, get on the bus or be run over by it.

The moms market is one of the most lucrative targets for marketers – some estimates have it pegged at well over $1 trillion, and keep in mind that moms have influence over more than 80% of a household’s purchasing power.

While it seems like it would be easy, Mom Hunting isn’t always as simple as it appears. They are right out there in the open, but the competition for their attention and time is fierce. They are not just filtering information for themselves, but for their families, their homes, their schools and committees. How do you capture the attention of this valuable gatekeeper?

Traditional business to business marketing has a few key strategies that have worked well: Targeted events, trade magazines, trade shows, email newsletters, online videos, and web casts. All of these can help persuade potential clients to see the wisdom of selecting a certain product or vendor. These techniques can also work for mom with one critical caveat: the content and format has to absolutely be developed with the mom in mind.

Example: If you are having an event for moms, you have to plan the event with the perfect balance of information and resources - you must factor in the babysitters! Holding an event for moms in the daytime without offering a strategy for the kids would be a clear statement of your lack of understanding of the challenges that these moms face. In a recent Working Mothers Conference, produced by King Fish, the event was not only extremely well attended, but even the moms who did not take advantage of the babysitting service appreciated the offer and said so in their post event comments.

For ducklings, a multi-platform mom-marketing effort for Albertsons/Shaws  supermarkets, the content at each turn supported their tag line: “a little help along the way”. For the magazine element of the program the editorial was developed with the busy mom in mind.

Recipes had a handy shopping list that included minimal ingredients that could be prepared quickly and enjoyed by all palates. The editorial content acknowledged the fact that most moms are short on time and prefers not to cook different meals for finicky eaters. This approach appealed to the readers and kept them coming back to the magazine.

Balancing this type of editorial with actionable information that speaks to the busy mom’s day to day existence was also part of the content plan. By the way, it’s not always about the kids and the spouse, how about something for a little mom time. Quick beauty secrets that were whipped up with grocery store products were always a hit!

Also, keep in mind the power of the mom’s networks, and how much time they spend communicating with each other. Recently I received a video of Anita Renfrew, (viewed over 10 million times on YouTube) the mom who sings the “everything a Mom says in a day” to the tune of the 1812 Overture, in less than 3 minutes. (Over 25 moms sent me this link knowing I would enjoy it.) With this song she captured the hearts and minds of countless moms. Every one of us who, while wiping the laughing tears from our eyes said, “I wish I wrote that!”. We say it the same way we wish we had developed the “Baby Einstein” series of educational tapes for kids. As though we know we COULD have done that, because it is so simple and so obviously true. If a marketer can develop a viral campaign that includes this level of entertainment with the right content for moms, they will have a success. That will be a brand that spreads faster than a germ in a pre-school class!

Hunting this big game sounds easy on the surface, but take a tip from your mom who likely said to you as a kid, “it’s the little things that make a difference”. It is the little gestures wrapped around the well conceived content that will lure the mom and keep her coming back. More importantly, you will start to build a dialog of trust and affinity with a new or existing customer.

There is a remarkable group run out of the University of Massachusetts’ McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies named Give Us Your Poor. Leading this group is a driven and truly committed guy named John McGah (left) - and if you don’t know that name, chances are you will soon.

John has led this program for several years, and aims to not just raise awareness of the homeless, but lobbies Washington to implement legislation that will begin to eradicate it within the decade. And he’s not alone.

Through nothing more than a powerful determination, John has gathered powerful business executives, politicians and now includes musical artists contributing to a new CD to bring their voices to today’s present realities of homelessness. And these are not B-list names.

The recently released CD features work by Springsteen, Seeger, Bon Jovi, Bonnie Raitt, Keb’ Mo, Mario Frangoulis and Mighty Sam McClain. It’s even made ABC’s nightly newscast on Friday, November 9th when Natalie Merchant was named person of the week for her work with Give Us Your Poor and was profiled during a recording session.

John has harnessed the power of media to raise awareness and funds to drive the next chapter of Give Us Your Poor. Among the biggest names and voices recording today, artists have contributed their original work and energy to this cause, and it’s coming to Boston Friday November 16th at the newly renovated Strand Theatre. If you’re from the Boston area, this will be an amazing night; come learn more about the organization and hear some incredible music from Natalie Merchant, Mighty Sam McClain, Mario Frangoulis & Buffalo Tom (for ticket info, click on this link ).

Note:  King Fish provides considerable pro bono work for the Give Us Your Poor organization, as they do for other 501c(3) non profit groups as part of its corporate mission and employee contribution program.

Can a journalist build strong content brands on the Internet, pretty much all by himself? GigaOmniMedia founder Om Malik thinks he can. Malik’s 18-month-old, low-to-the-ground blog network still isn’t profitable, but it’s close. And that’s because he’s doing a lot of things right.
 

The former Business 2.0 reporter staffs it sparsely and hires freelancers to work for peanuts.

Malik keeps overhead low by outsourcing his ad sales to Federated Media, which takes between 30 and 40 percent commission on ad sales.

Om invests nothing in his umbrella brand, GigaOmniMedia, focusing instead on his sub-brands and the individuals who staff them. GigaOm, a leading voice on mobile and wireless technology, is Malik’s strongest. His NewTeeVee brand, is also a hit: next week more than 300 paying attendees will attend NewTeeVee Live, a face-to-face event in San Francisco. NewTeeVee’s web traffic is skyrocketing thanks to smart reporting and analysis from Liz Gannes, the daughter of a former Fortune reporter and widely respected in her own right.
 

I got a kick out of Malik sparring with CNET CEO Neil Ashe last week at Rafat Ali’s Future of Business Media conference in New York. Ashe referred to Malik’s offerings as “fast food,” low on editorial nutrition. Malik responded by saying “fast food is not necessarily junk food,” retorting that the world doesn’t need big, faceless meta-brands anymore. Instead, readers want highly targeted content environments led by personalities who post often and inspire audience contributions, driving page views and word of mouth.

Malik cited the example of Rafe Needleman, chief blogger on CNET’s Webware site. Claims Malik: Needleman has more clout in the marketplace than CNET itself. Om overstates his case. But he’s right that, in this age of blogs, community and social people, “bottom-up” branding works a lot better than top down.  The takeaway: every brand is a content brand, and content brands need a human face. It can be a collective face, or an individual’s. Consumers want to be spoken with, not spoken to, by voices they trust.

[Disclaimer: CNET Networks is a paid subscriber to Sam Whitmore’s Media Survey, as is King Fish Media.]

The news has broken and Don Imus a.k.a the I Man will be returning to the airwaves on WABC NY for the same company that syndicates Sean Hannity.  So, we can only assume that syndication is around the corner.  Just six months after his career was left for dead by the conventional wisdom pundits, he is coming back; and ready to settle a few scores.

To be up front – I am a long time listener and fan of Don Imus.  I started listening to his show as kid in my Dad’s car in the early 70’s.  I listened to his show almost every morning from 1993 (when syndicated in Boston) through his dismissal in April, and I watched the MSNBC simulcast as well.  I loved the mix of somewhat juvenile edgy humor and high minded political and literary discourse.  I enjoyed the way he would shift from a nasty/funny song parody to a serious political conversation or review of a new book.  Also, you saw a side of people like Pat Buchannan, Tim Russert and Jeff Greenfield you didn’t get from them during their “real jobs”.  The show became a staple in my daily routine and often the way I got my news.

Clearly, Imus crossed the line with his comment about the young ladies at Rutgers.  The rich, famous and powerful are fair game, but 20 yr old hard working college students are not.  I wish he didn’t say it, but it shouldn’t wipe out all the good he has tried to do for people over the years, and the business success he brought CBS, NBC and his many sponsors.  He deserved a slap and suspension, but not to be fired.

It is well documented how Imus came under fire in a barrage of hypocrisy, political correctness, corporate wimpiness, and general media piling on that seems to be the fashion of the day.  How Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson got to be the arbiters of what is right in America is maddening and best left alone.  However, it was not shocking that these two publicity hounds went after Imus like raw meat while giving rappers and hip hop culture a free ride for using the same words.

What I found most disappointing and dispiriting was the way the sponsors, NBC’s Jeff Zucker and CBS’s Les Moonves caved like a cardboard suitcases within days of the story catching fire.  These two big traditional media companies knew what they were getting into with Imus.  In fact, his CBS Radio contract called for him to be “edgy and provocative”.  Regular guests who went on his show to hawk their books bailed on him in the sanctimonious hand wringing that followed.   I was so angry, I haven’t watched MSNBC since this happened, and have switched my allegiance from NBC News to ABC.   I was not alone - read the comments to this blog post and check out this site to buy Save Imus t-shirts.

I also knew he would be back – I figured by early 2008 at the latest.  A couple of reason why it was a no-brainer that he would be back in the saddle in today’s media world.

1. He has a loyal following representing a built-in audience waiting to come back and listen; and more importantly patronize any sponsors who come back.  There are always going to be struggling radio stations that will take a chance at capturing this revenue.

2. His core audience of middle age white people was probably not all that outraged at his comments.  Not to say they condone what he said, but it was no worse than the usual equal opportunity beat downs on the show.  While what he said was bad, they are just words, he didn’t kill anyone.

3. He has a track record with sponsors – isn’t that what radio is all about – selling stuff.  The man knows how to move product.

4. Companies like NBC and CBS don’t control the media world anymore – they have become like any large conservative public corporation – pumping out safe stuff for the masses.  They don’t want Imus or Howard Stern working for them anymore – too risky for next quarter’s earning report for Wall Street.  That is why we get multiple versions of CSI and Law and Order and pap like the new Bionic Woman and Kid Nation.  There has been zero buzz about the new TV season.  Have the major networks ever been less relevant in the lives of Americans?

The lesson, boys and girls (an Imus phrase) is that it’s ALWAYS about the money.  Sponsors fled when Sharpton and Jackson threatened boycott which in turn made CBS and NBC abandon someone who had been loyal and successful for them.

The dust has settled and the attention deficit disorder media are on to other things, the coast is clear for Imus to return because there is money on the table to be made from sponsors desiring his affluent audience.

As we say in New York – money talks and bullshit walks.  See ya’ later Al, Jesse, Jeff and Leslie – the I Man rides again.

There was a report out of Gartner late last month that estimated between 46 percent and 83 percent of Internet browsers/visitors/whatever-you-want-to-call them now engage with “consumer-generated content” at least once per month.

Gartner’s definition of this content includes blogs, podcasts and wikis as well as all manner of rating systems, recommendations and user reviews.

Not surprisingly, teenagers were more likely to engage with these sorts of media. Moreover, the percentage of U.S. adults who engage in this type of content at least once a week was lower than their counterparts in either France or the United Kingdom. Gartner suggests that this may be due to the novelty factor abroad.

Separate, but similar, research from In-Stat earlier this year likewise points to an impending explosion of worldwide revenue from what it calls “user-generated content,” most notably videos you’d find on YouTube. Last year, it figures $80 million in revenue was attributable to this stuff. By 2011, however, it predicts sales of around $1.6 billion.

For creative types like myself, the sorts of people that the business side increasingly consider as just so much overhead, these numbers are both scary and scintillating.

I don’t know of any journalist, no matter whether their work takes the form of a lengthy feature article, a video dispatch, an opinion column or a review, who doesn’t love hearing from someone who is reading or watching what they have to say.

I’ve had people walk up to me in airports to take issue with something I wrote, which is a little scary from a privacy standpoint. But from a professional level, it’s a thrill. “Hey,” I think, “THEY READ ME. They care.” Because, after all, most journalists get into the profession in order to touch people, in order to share information. In the world of print, our words mostly went into this void. Lots of guesswork went on. Focus groups were conducted.

Online, of course, everything has changed. I receive daily statistics for the green technology blog (“GreenTech Pastures”) I write on ZDNet. In an instant, I can see how many people are reading about certain topics; which strike a chord and which fall flat. The rating and comment system, meanwhile, tells me if I’m doing my job thoroughly enough. Often, I will think of an entirely new subject to write about as a result of a post. Or, I’ll kick myself to do a little more research if I’m missed an angle.

In my past life as the editor of channel news publication CRN, I made more contacts as a result of my editorial columns and video Webcasts than any other activity during my close to 18 years of covering the high-tech distribution channel. Because I had opened myself up in some way, readers felt like they could approach me.

Which brings me back to the real point of this column and the question that publishers love to ask themselves when staring at spreadsheets that detail declining print advertising sales: Is this shift toward user-generated content a long-term phenomenon? Can the voice of our users/readers/visitors replace editorial resources? Can this movement be “monetized” in some way?

The answer to all of these questions, in my opinion, is a qualified “Yes.” But before you go firing all your writers and content creation folks, here are some simple realities.

As Gartner notes, many folks (especially adults) participating in the user-generated media movement aren’t actually creating what we’ve come to accept as “content.” That is, a story, or a video dispatch or a photographic montage. It’s important to remember that “content” in the user-generated media movement can be many things. It can be ratings on stories, feedback dialogues about a product or services, or about the most popular searches on a Web site. The fact is, though, people come to sites for a reason. And SOMEONE needs to be giving them that reason. We currently call those someones “editors” but they’re increasingly taking on the role of community “moderators”—monitoring feedback, analyzing trends and creating more reasons for the dialogue to continue.

Then there’s the whole matter of time. I don’t know about you, but keeping up with my Facebook profile and my LinkedIn Network contacts is very time-consuming. I visit both horribly infrequently, mainly because I have a real-life husband and a real-life hobby (a cappella singing) that takes up plenty of my non-work time. I haven’t even dreamed of setting up a MySpace page yet and my blogs (yes, plural) are challenging to update on a regular basis. Personally, I believe there is bound to be an adjustment.

Full disclosure. I LOVE magazines. I love touching them, looking through them, curling up with them on the couch. That will never change. But I also find the ongoing transition exhilarating. I feel like what I write is a better reflection of the community I’m interacting with; that, in turn, generates more feedback.

I believe that what most people look for in their media experience—an honest voice. And honesty, I believe, is what user-generated content is all about.

Nike and others have discovered that they can increase customer retention and affinity by communicating directly with customers rather than through traditional “interruption” based media. Companies that use Private Media and permission based marketing techniques are seeing positive results; and are shifting their advertising budgets away from big media companies to direct interactions with customers and prospects. This Private Media strategy has been at the foundation of King Fish’s approach since its founding, and continues to be successful for our clients.

I thought this fact and quote from the story was very powerful:

Last year, Nike spent just 33 percent of its $678 million United States advertising budget on ads with television networks and other traditional media companies. That’s down from 55 percent 10 years ago, according to the trade publication Advertising Age.

“We’re not in the business of keeping the media companies alive,” Said Trevor Edwards, Nike’s corporate vice president for global brand and category management.  Mr. Edwards says he tells this to many many media executives. “We’re in the business of connecting with consumers.”

Read this story from a New York Times article illustrating how Nike and other leading marketers are using Private Media and bypassing traditional media channels.

This is just the beginning of what will be a long term shift in strategy.  Thanks to advances in wireless technology and the maturation of social networking web tools, we will see more and more companies speaking directly to consumers without the filter and expense of media companies.  This does not mean that traditional media companies will disappear by any means.  However there will be a shake out and only ones with the best relationship with their readers/viewers will survive.

I confess that for me, presidential political races are right up there with American League pennant races. After 175 games or so this season with the Sox ultimately victorious over the Rockies, I can switch gears to the race for out next President.

In 1999, I worked on the John McCain campaign for the Republican nomination in Massachusetts. It was wildly interesting to be a small part of the election process, and one of my top experiences was meeting and speaking with the Senator for several minutes as he prepared to give a speech in rural New Hampshire to about 100 local citizens.

Fast forward to 2007 and an election where campaigns are increasingly fought through video and other electronic means. Some videos are professionally produced by the campaign staff and worthy of Cannes consideration and others are clips from cable TV that rely on humor to help us remember what ought to matter in a candidate - service to our country and strength of character.

 The great thing about video is that there is always another side to the candidate they hope you don’t see, but the video camera is always on and can capture awkward moments. In this example, while I like to think he was in fact reading notes, however, that may be a tough sell.

Or you could see his humor being lost on an audience of students asking about age.  On the other hand, voters are getting a raw glimpse of John McCain that they would not see on the Sunday talk shows. .

The Senator likes to talk straight, “warts and all.” And our media’s there to capture every word, every slip, every sound bite. The new web video culture gives candidates the opportunity you speak directly to the people without the filter of traditional media. It also gives campaigns the ability to post positive clips of their guy, and negative clips of their opposition. But while watching the quick-hits and sound bites, don’t forget to peel back the onion a bit, and look at the qualities of character, integrity and service in all of the candidates.

I hate Volkswagen. No, I take that back. I loathe Volkswagen.

Now, mind you, when I purchased my 2000 VW Passat seven years ago, I was in love with it. The sunroof, the luxurious leather seats, the Tiptronic transmission, the deep blue exterior – I was in heaven. I felt like I was driving a truly magnificent piece of German machinery.

Then, two years into my ownership of my beloved chariot, and, coincidentally, at the end of my warranty, things started to go wrong. The check engine light came on. I took it in to be fixed. They turned the light off and told me nothing was wrong. It came on again the next day. I took it in. They turned it off and told me nothing was wrong. Rinse and repeat for five straight years.

I’ve had the secondary air pump replaced three times and it needs to be replaced again. The dealer’s current explanation for the check engine light’s annoying glare (and deafening beep if I accelerate quickly) is that I drive in puddles, which is causing water to get in the pump. I told them if their cars couldn’t withstand the rain, I’d be better served investing in a goat to transport me to work every day.

Curiously, there is one thing that has prevented me from pushing my car into the sea. It arrives in my email inbox every month and despite my addiction to deleting emails, I don’t delete it. Rather, I open it up and read every piece. It’s the monthly VW newsletter from my local dealer, rife with articles about the newest 2008 Passats (“offering more value than possibly another any European sedan,” I am pleased to read) coupons for oil changes and tips on where to find the best fall foliage.

I love this newsletter. I’ve read every one, top to bottom. I click on every link, poring over the articles on engine upgrades, photos of the newest models, and pieces on where to go whitewater rafting. I mentally calculate what it would take to trade my car in for a new Jetta or Toureg. Temporarily, I forget how frustrated my car has made me, how I routinely beg friends and family to steal my car in the night, how I’ve denied the car its overdue inspection sticker for the past three months. Every month, I want a new one, a better one, one that will whisk me away to the best theme park in New England.

I’m no stranger to custom publishing. We create customer retention newsletters just like this at King Fish Media. In fact, our work for Compass Bank just received a MIN award for integrated marketing. I know this is all created for my demographic. But, working for a marketing firm, I usually feel I am immune to marketing methods in my personal life. I’m surprised at how powerful one piece of communication, so carefully crafted, so compellingly put together, can make me want to take another drink from the tainted water fountain. But, it does. It’s working. Quality, relevant content delivered to the right person can clearly have a magical effect. VW has created its own private media channel for me and for my fellow VW owners, using custom content to help build a high-affinity relationship for customer retention.

So, now it’s only a matter of time before I walk into my local dealer with a problem and walk out with a beautiful new solution. For two years, anyway.

I had a Professor in Business School who tried to get his students to give opinions and thoughts in clear language, and to speak our minds. He hated hedging and generic terms —he would say “no weasel words” when some tried to give him business clichés as an answer. I used to think of him when stuck on mind numbing conference calls that were grossly common when I was working for large companies. These calls were a cornucopia of political positioning, name dropping, calendar filling and butt kissing—that’s not how I roll. Truth is I spent most of them on espn.com and exchanging witty IMs with like-minded call participants.

The modern world has created a whole vocabulary of politically correct, soft and non-offensive terms which is symptomatic of our times. Fear of lawsuits and current educational trends have made all of us careful of what we say so we don’t offend or make anyone slightly uncomfortable. Politicians are the worst at this type of safe talk. I used to love watching Meet the Press and presidential debates, but don’t watch much anymore. No one ever says anything interesting. All they do is repeat the same focus group-tested, carefully constructed statements that are designed not to get them in trouble or offend any special interest group.

In the entertainment world, when people come along like Rosie O’Donnell, Don Imus, Kathy Griffin and Donald Trump, people gravitate to them because they shoot from the hip and say what is on their mind. However, as soon as they cross some arbitrary line they get smote down with a great fury and vengeance. Because not many people want to take that risk, we get a steady dose of Ryan Seacrest, Carson Daly, and Regis and Kelly. Dull, boring and vanilla.

I am rooting for Rudy Giuliani to win at least the Republican nomination. Anything can come out of his mouth at any time and speaking his mind is in his DNA. I relate to Rudy because we both grew up on Long Island, where people are not shy about telling you what they think—whether you want to know or not. Contrast him to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney who come across as programmed machines from that old Yul Brenner Westworld movie. The question is: how will America feel about this choice of verbal and personal styles? Let’s take a look at recent experiences of the voters. (Rudy and me at a corporate event)

For eight years they had Bill Clinton who debated the definition of the word “is” as he was being impeached for lying about a girl. He was followed by George W. Bush who fudged his way into a war by linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11 with no proof. I may be wrong, but I think the country may be ready for a straight talking Long Islander in the White House.

The amount of media available to consumers has grown dramatically, but the irony is there is not enough content to fill all those cable channels, radio stations, Web sites, etc. The new network TV season is upon us and history tells us we will have 2-3 hits and mostly misses. I am not the only one who scans hundreds of cable channels and can’t find anything to watch—unless you enjoy shows on house flippers, close-ups of plastic surgery or reality competition shows. It’s hard to believe that the net result of 5,000 years of cultural development is “Dancing with the Stars.”

One of the implications of all this time to fill can be seen most clearly on the cable news channels and “fake news” shows like Entertainment Tonight and Extra. They are fake news because they mostly consist of pre-packaged PR from celebrities promoting new TV shows, movies and music. It always cracks me up to see the release of a new Justin Timberlake album covered like the Mideast peace talks. The entire concept of news and news cycles has changed—maybe not for the better. Coverage of the adventures of Britney, Paris and Lindsay has been over-the-top relative to their importance. Our parents had the Rat Pack, we had the Brat Pack and our kids have the Skank Pack. The amount of air time devoted to these reprobates’ every move is mind-boggling compared to other real news that gets the short shrift. 

I actually felt bad for Britney Spears when her performance and physical appearance were trashed after the MTV VMAs.   The shear  volume and nastiness of the attacks surprised me. She was called fat and out of shape by legions of fat and out of shape commentators.  She looks pretty good to me, but I am not a fan of the emaciated/heroin addict style that seems all the rage today.

Do people really care about certain celebrities to an extent that justifies the volume of coverage; or do we pay attention because they are constantly exposed to us —a Zen riddle for sure. How much of this is driven by the fact that these news and syndicated shows have oodles of time to fill and sponsors to keep happy? It must be working because we keep getting more of this coverage across TV and the Web.

These media outlets have become addicted to the “Big Story”—it drives their ratings. It could be Imus, Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith, or a political scandal. It always takes the same predictable arc—round the clock coverage and the trotting out of commentators and “experts” to endlessly comment, usually rehashing a limited body of actual facts. Whole careers are being built out of being a cable news talking head expert. That is how Star Jones got her start. The net effect is an acceleration of the story and a piling on of coverage that often outweighs the real significance of the story. This acceleration ultimately helped do in Senator Larry Craig—the story went from a brushfire to an all out inferno in 24 hours. Let’s not forget that blogs and You Tube act as kindling wood and lighter fluid to spread the flames.

 The “crime” he committed was pretty minor, and you could argue he was entrapped. However, non-stop coverage (and being easy pickins’ for Letterman, Leno and Stewart) focused on the prurient aspects of the story, and the juxtaposition of him being staunchly against gay marriage. The Republicans quickly calculated the cost of supporting him was too great to bear, especially since they would not lose the seat. He was toast within days of the story breaking. Thirty years ago when we were in a non-Web, three network world, the outcome may have been different. Now we live in a world where the cable news channels need to continuously feed the beast. Heaven help the person who gets fed to this insatiable monster.

Lately, I’ve been categorizing my editorial consulting work as “corporate journalism”—the practice of creating balanced, fact-based content for marketers. It’s a more authentic alternative to the usual PR drivel and marketing fluff that companies have traditionally used to annoy customers, journalists and other target groups. The content can take many forms: white papers (reported with real-person interviews, not made-up quotes), articles, blog posts, video, etc. —all the stuff you’d see on a typical media site. The content development work is also similar to traditional journalism: understand the target audience (customers vs. readers), identify the experts (internal and external), and get them to help you tell the story (through interviews or direct contributions). The result is more engaging, more believable marketing communications. (And it’s a good next career step for disgruntled, aging journalist types.)

I take no credit for coining the term. I first heard it from David Churbuck when talking about the time we spent together at McKinsey helping to re-do the company’s knowledge management platform (a Herculean task). He may or may not have borrowed the phrase from the 1999 book “Beyond Spin.” From the publisher’s description:

In Beyond Spin, three experts detail the techniques of corporate journalism—an ingenious communications model that hinges on open, accurate, and strategically weighted reporting inside a corporation. 

I wouldn’t go so far as calling the practice “ingenious,” but corporate journalism is an important step away from traditional PR/marketing. Churbuck takes a broader view of the concept than the book’s apparent (I never read it) focus on internal mar-com; he uses the phrase to refer to the lens through which companies must view external communications as well:

Organizations need to report upon themselves with the objective eye of a journalist, holding any statement or action up to the same skeptical, unconflicted scrutiny that an outsider would hold, to determine how it will sit with the most important segment of its public—its customers.

I found another good post on the topic at Contentious.com, this one dating back to 2004:

It takes courage on the part of the corporate communications/PR people to step beyond the simplistic goal of persuasion—to acknowledge and address controversy, shortcomings and skeptical or critical perspectives without being dismissive. In short, to try to fairly present more than just the preferred corporate view.

Random end note: Google “corporate journalism” and the Wiley book and Churbuck’s blog entry both trail a 3800-word Noam Chomsky Q&A with Radio Havana on conformist subservience, building a better world, and Cuba’s courage in the face of the repressive American superpower. I’m still trying to make the connection.