Marketing

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.

Share This

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/.

Share This

Folio just reported on a recent Magazine Day where there was much conversation about the future of magazines (Magazines 3.0) and print in general. The drum beat of bad news for the traditional print business has been steady as consumer eyeballs and marketing dollars migrate to events (live and interactive) and online (e.g., Web sites, video, social networking, etc.)

I was really struck by the juxtaposition of quotes coming from the conference. John Griffin, Chairman of the Magazine Publishers of America (and group President of National Geographic) is trying to put a positive spin on it, but he seems to be fighting a losing battle. He is hoping to be able to deliver faster “audience metrics” to compete with online and TV. Huh? How is getting MRI and ad readership scores quicker going to help compete against the web? There will never be a real and tangible way to tie a print ad in a publication like National Geo (with close and materials deadlines a month ahead of publication) to any measurable return – that fact is driving the migration of advertisers away from print media.

However, that is only one issue responsible for the decline of print media. The other is also mentioned in the Folio article. There are still existing hard walls between edit and sales in American print media. Check these quotes out:

“Advertisers want to borrow—or steal—the credibility and authority we have with our readers,” Griffin said. “And we want to give it to them” without threatening the credibility and authority, he said. “[At National Geographic] we’re always asking ‘How far can we go with this?’ It’s a contestant internal struggle.”

“It’s the single biggest point of contention within our company,” said Deidre Depke, Newsweek.com’s assistant managing editor. “The only editorial asset our magazine has is its content—for us to abandon that, and let advertisers do what they want with it, would be a big mistake.”

In sum: there is a holier than thou streak that runs though these companies and publications that goes beyond what is really necessary and required by consumers. But read this quote – it is excellent, and I think sums up how many marketers/advertisers feel today.

“[The line] has been self-governed and self-policed—you’ve put the handcuffs on yourselves,” Steve Sturm, group VP of strategic research and planning at Toyota Motor North America said. “The federal government, the state government, they haven’t told you to do it. You put up all these roadblocks” that other media don’t have. And a younger generation of potential readers, he said, “don’t play by the same rules you play by.”

Dead on. One of the things that I learned in doing dozens of reader focus groups and readership studies is that the readers don’t care nearly as much about the actual brand name of the content as the editors would like to think they do. Consumers just want good honest, credible and accurate content that helps them in some way or to enjoy for entertainment. No one cares about all the editorial awards or devotion to “church and state”. It’s all about leads, ROI and moving product for the savvy marketer, not having their ad appear across from “pure” award winning editorial. Think about American Idol – it is essentially a commercial for Ford, Coke, AT&T and iTunes wrapped in a talent show. It is a brilliant marriage of content and sponsorship. Consumers get content they love, and marketers get a private media channel for their brands.

Today’s consumer, of all ages, is extremely media savvy and knowing. They can tell the difference between marketing messages and content. Editors need to give the consumer more credit for understanding the dynamic between marketing and content. The prevalence of corporate sponsorships, product placement, content relevant Web ads and custom media have made consumers come to expect marketing messages and content together in one package. In fact, I would argue they find it more valuable.

A magazine’s key asset is its database and the relationship with the people in that database. That is what they should be leveraging to compete. Marketers are tired of renting media channels in print publications when they can own their custom media channels using original content and targeted content delivery. Print can still be a valuable marketing tool when used as part of a private media solution that provides value for the reader and targeted messaging for the marketer.

As Steve Sturm mentions, younger consumers have a whole different perception of media and content. Magazine publishers are going to have to make some hard decisions and quickly. The old way of doing business is gone forever.

Share This

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?

Share This

Much has been made of the efforts of conservative radio hosts to affect the Republican primary process. The right wing talker crowd almost uniformly and vocally supported Mitt Romney, the formerly moderate Governor of Massachusetts. Additionally, they railed against John McCain and Mike Huckabee with a venom previously reserved for Bill Clinton and Barbara Streisand. Question: does anyone else see the irony of a thrice divorced indicted drug addict, Rush Limbaugh, defaming a war hero and a Minister?

A deeper look tells us a lot about the changing media landscape and reinforces the fact that consumers are now in control of their media choices.

Conservative talk radio has been a successful media phenomenon, while attempts to recreate on the left have been a commercial failure. The energy of these shows are often fueled by the anger and resentment of listeners who are unhappy with the changes going on around them and the always present liberal (or enemy of the day) threat. Tune in for a while and you will hear they sure are against a lot of things: taxes, universal healthcare, affirmative action, gun control, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and secular progressives who are now apparently conducting a war on Christmas.

The success of these shows depends on conflict and ideological purity which is why they hate John McCain. Based on his past record, a President McCain would reach out to his friends across the aisle and attempt to create the solutions Americans crave. Voters in the primary elections are gravitating to McCain and Barack Obama who are least ideological and are the most pragmatic of the candidates.

Voters in both parties want real solutions and desire authenticity. That is one of the reasons why conservative radio could not deliver for Romney. Jay Severin, a radio host here in MA, turned his show into a four hour daily commercial for Romney (whom he said would be on Mount Rushmore as a President) and regularly spewed bile about McCain. Net result - Romney only beat McCain by four delegates in his home state on Super Tuesday, symbolic of his greater lack of traction among Republican voters.

The other reason talk radio could not influence voters is rooted in changes in the media landscape. Like the left-leaning network news, right wing radio used to be the only game in town. It was the place where people got their news, and where they formed their opinions. Not anymore. Now there are thousands of places to get information about the candidates and issues. Blogs and citizen journalists have flooded the Web, proliferating the number of opinions to choose from (Technorati tracks over 46,000 political blogs). Additionally, candidates are now using their own Web sites and private media solutions to speak directly to voters with their own media channel. Voters can easily find information and do their own research. It is tough to pass off Romney as a social conservative when You Tube is full of clips from his more liberal past.   Click here and here to see pro-choice Mitt in action.  It is also hard to misrepresent McCain’s conservative record when anyone can look it up themselves.  Between media changes and the current mood of the electorate, the conservative commentators are losing relevancy and influence. Not to mention the credibility issue they have after selling their audiences so hard on George Bush, on track to leave office the least popular President since Nixon.

The loss of credibility, relevance and influence has these radio hosts nervous and up in arms. Being a right wing commentator has become a lucrative media career. The radio shows are only the hub of a multi-platform brand that includes books, TV shows, Web sites and speaking engagements. In fact, I have hired Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham (me and Laura at the Rainbow Room, she was great) as dinner speakers for B2B events. A loss of relevancy and perceived influence could be disastrous for their media brands and personal income.

Twice in my career I was working on a formally powerful media brand that lost relevancy and influence seemingly overnight due to market and media consumption changes. It ain’t pretty to see up close, and once that mystique is gone, it is gone for good. This is why you hear some of these pundits, led by Ann Coulter, say they will vote for Hillary or Obama over McCain presumably to keep the conflict and anger stoked. Which do you think Ann is more concerned with, the welfare of American people or the bottom line of Ann Coulter, Inc.?

Share This

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.
 

Share This

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?

Share This

The proposed take over of Yahoo by Microsoft is a fascinating intersection of marketing, technology and advertising, with Microsoft motivated by its inability to compete with Google in search and online advertising.  If I were in Steve Ballmer’s shoes I would probably do the same thing, but this strategy is a classic example of fighting the last war.

Mergers in the tech world never seem to work out for a variety of reasons, but mostly because they forget about the customer or take them for granted.  These deals always sound good in the conference room where insulated executives pitch each other on stories of efficiency and synergy.  They think that one plus one never equals three, in some cases such as TimeWarner/AOL – one plus one equaled .75.

Trying to merge cultures, technologies, people and rivalries is always a mess, and the needs of and desires of customers always take a back seat.  It is always assumed that if “Joe” is a customer of Company B, and it is bought by Company A, then “Joe” naturally becomes a customer of Company A.  This is faulty logic – our man Joe has no relationship or loyalty to the new company, and may not even like them (remember the HP/Compaq merger).  The market has already selected Google as the de facto search standard by a huge margin.  Why they would think that combing the second and third place search engines would get people to switch.  The wisdom of crowds has spoken and it is not talking about the MSN network.

I have always been a big fan and heavy user of Yahoo’s content and email, but frankly, their search is not nearly as good as Google’s.  I have started the day with my customized myYahoo page and used their email service forever.  However, if a Microsoft-owned Yahoo tries to convert me to a Hotmail account, I am gone, and so will others who don’t want an email address that looks like it comes from an adult site.

Microsoft has to be very nervous about Google’s success and plans for the future.  According to the New York Times, MS is heavily dependent on sales of operating systems and Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook) for profitability.  In the last quarter alone their operating profit from Office was $3.2 billion on $4.8 billion in sales.  That is literately printing money and a business model they need to defend.

It is hard to imagine a time when corporate America won’t be using MS Office, but fast forward 10-12 years.  Do you really think we will all still be using packaged software that costs $400 a pop, or will we be using some sort of Software as a Service (SaaS) or ASP model?  Check out Google Docs and you can see they are moving in this direction.  That thought has to scare the heck out of Microsoft.  Not to mention mobile computing and other platforms where they are lagging behind.

Technology is a cruel business, where one moment you are the hot new thing, the king of the hill, and a minute later you are yesterday’s news.  Google will not be toppled by the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo.  However, one day they will likely be knocked off the mountain by a group of brilliant kids who get their start in a garage.

Share This

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.

Share This

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.

Share This

On Super Bowl Sunday, Fox will run 42 30 second spots taking in $2.7 million a pop. Marketers will spend almost $115 million in renting the Fox Super Bowl media channel. Add in production costs and agency fees, and we are looking at nearly $150 million spent on traditional broadcast ads during a three hour period. Here is my marketing prediction (game prediction below): The vast majority of this money will be wasted and it will be a poor choice of marketing tactic.

Next week we will look at some of the specific ads and discuss how that investment could have been better spent by creating a Private Media channel rather than renting the most expensive channel available.

To be fair, there is significant brand value in running these ads. You get tons of free press as wiseasses like me will be reviewing them the next day. Also, unlike the old days, you can now create a viral campaign around them with online video and other Web 2.0 tactics. However, the total cost of over 3 million for 30 seconds is insane considering what else you can do with that money.

Super Bowl Sunday has become a national holiday and many people watch the game with a group of friends who they really want to be with as opposed to other holidays when you are trapped with your relatives. Commercial breaks are used for eating, drinking, bathroom runs and socializing. You really don’t have the rapt attention of a room full a buzzed people, and they not in a shopping/buying mode.

Most of the ads are over-produced “branding” ads that do little to tell potential buyers the benefits of the product or service. Sometimes you can’t even tell who is sponsoring the ad until the end. This is when agencies pull out the stops to win awards and stroke egos.

Check back next week and the Think Tank team will let you know which ads we liked, which were a waste of money, and more importantly, how a Private Media Channel implementing any number of custom media solutions would have been a stronger, more measurable media investment.

Share This

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

Share This

The contrast between Romney and McCain is equally dramatic in their approach to media. Sen. McCain, who has limited dollars, created ads where he just looked into the camera, told the voter who he is, why he is qualified and what he would do as President. Simple, on message and benefit-oriented to the voter. Because he didn’t have much money, he went directly to the voters in a Private Media strategy. He could not afford a media channel, so he built is own. He went from town to town and sat down with voters who asked him questions. No big speech, just an honest dialog between candidate and voter. He also took advantage of free media, making himself available for any and all who wanted to interview him. All the while, he stays right on brand message. He also comes across as warm and human.

On the other hand, Gov. Romney, who has and raised tons of money, started advertising in NH almost a year ago – and ads never really told you who he was and what he believed. They were a recording of him running off a laundry list a shop worn items he would do as president – lower taxes, cut spending, stop illegal immigration, stop terrorism, etc. Stop me if you heard this before. It was the ultimate in marketing campaigns created by consultants and committees, who conducted a big media assault, and spent tens of millions of dollars renting media channels - to little effect.

When it became clear McCain was gaining on him in the NH polls, he went negative in a big way. Here in the Boston market we get all the ads aimed at southern New Hampshire, and I am not exaggerating to say you could not get way from the barrage of negative advertising Romney aimed at McCain both on TV and radio. They were dreadful ads – the old school “man/woman in the street” fake interviews. Mock serious profiles of local NH voters telling us how McCain’s positions will ruin the country and make it hard on plain ol’ folks to raise a family. They made McCain out to be a cross between Karl Marx and Abbie Hoffman. Does anyone fall for this? Is there anyone who does not look at these types of ads and think they are not scripted Romney supporters or actors? These ads did not contain a single reason why you should vote FOR Romney, rather than just against McCain. The Romney campaign spent all this money and didn’t tell the voter anything about their man’s positions, who he is or why he should be President.

As we know now, they did not work. In fact, exit polling clearly told us that voters felt Romney ran an “unfair” campaign. Whether it is politics or business – comparative negative advertising just does not work. I don’t think people respond well to negative messaging. However, the real reason it does not work is that you are not giving the buyer a clear, benefit-oriented message of what you can do for them. In any type of marketing messaging you must create a dialog of affinity and trust to lead to action. In this case a vote. John McCain’s Private Media strategy and brand proposition led to a win, and maybe the Presidency.

Share This

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.

Share This

As we head into the home stretch of the holiday season, I am thinking about two media images that are juxtaposed in my head.  The first is one you have all seen – the crazy rush of people charging stores like Best Buy and Wal-Mart.  Check out these clips from YouTube, the one from Best Buy was taken by their own staff  - priceless.  I don’t think I am going out on a limb by saying this may not be our finest moment as a country.  We in the marketing/media industry need to take some of the responsibility in helping create this insane frenzy over material products and the mania to buy the latest and greatest toy or electronic gadget for ourselves and our children.  The ad blitz starts right after Halloween, and it has turned Thanksgiving into a speed bump on the way to “Black Friday”.  That night the news is full of stories about people lining up at 4 am and acting like maniacs to get their hands on stuff no one really needs.  TV and newspapers are full of ads that make it seem like if you don’t get out there now and fill your cart you are a bad parent. 

The whole furor over the Wii is an eloquent symbol of this excess.  My 9 yr old nephew and 10 yr old niece HAD to have these – a $250 product.  Not only do their friends have them, but they have been exposed to hundreds of ad and media images selling them this video game.   My brother got my nephew his Wii and like a true New Yorker paid a $50 premium on ebay; my New England brother-in-law got his at list price for my niece by standing in line for five hours.  I love these kids more than anything, but this is just nutty.  I can’t even imagine how the conversation with my parents would have gone, asking for a $250 toy back in the seventies when I was their age.  I was more than happy with my anatomically incorrect GI Joe.

Don’t get me wrong; I am as much a capitalist as the next guy, (although my Fox News loving father-in-law has called me a Communist on occasion).  But, maybe things need to be taken down a notch. Do kids need to be sold and pitched all day long on the dozens of cable channel aimed at them?  The ads all have the same theme – if you don’t have product X, you are not cool and don’t measure up.  That’s a lot of pressure for pre-teens.

This brings me to the other media image – one that struck a cord with my personal sensibilities.  I came home tonight to a front page story in my local paper about the dire conditions of food banks across our region and the county.  Local food banks are at an all time low in donations and an all time high in demand.  The reasons for this have been well documented – out of control energy costs, the credit crunch, foreclosures, rising health care costs and a stagnant economy.  It is going to be a tough winter here in New England, as skyrocketing heating oil prices will force many people, especially those on a fixed income, to make hard choices between heat, food and prescription drugs.  Add to this the monetary pressure of the holidays and you have a sad situation. 

So, take a break from buying and going to parties and donate either time, food or cash to your local food bank – every town and city has one.  There is a great one in my town, Beverly Bootstraps, and I will be bringing them a donation on my way home.  Or check out this new site www.redefinechristmas.org that makes it easy to donate money you may have used for gifts to worthy charities, and it has a viral element to pass along the message to friends. It’s the least we marketing professionals can do in return for our role in making Christmas and Hanukkah an orgy of spending and excess.
 

Share This

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.

Share This

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.

Share This

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.]

Share This

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.

Share This

I sent the link to my last post to the very marketers I was talking about.  Not surprisingly, they commented and added to the list.

This comes from Tracey Passuello, Director, Digital Marketing & Sales Promotion at Portfolio.com.  Tracey is part of one of the coolest media launches of 2007, Portfolio from Conde Nast.  I will have to write about it soon, but it becoming one of my favorite reads.  Check out the October issue if you have not yet seen it.  

Let me frame it out - “By the blank stare you are giving me I figured out that you didn’t understand a word I said so maybe I need to stop throwing every buzz word I know out and actually speak English”

What’s our play? - “I have no idea what to do in this area so you better figure it out”

It goes in the bucket - “I have no idea how to do this task so I will put it into a file and pray it goes away”

It’s time to flip the model - “damn if I know what to do”

These come from Laura Mastroberti, Manager, Advertising Research & Marketing at Newsday Long Island, one of the largest daily newspapers in the country, and the paper I grew up reading.  They have recently redesigned their web site.  Check it out here.

We need to think economies of scale – “Less money, more work”

This is going to be so much fun – “Fun for me because I don’t have to do it, you do”

I think you’re on the right track – “You missed it by a mile; try again”

Do you have more to share?  Send them in and we’ll post them.

Share This

Like Rudy Giuliani, I make an effort to be direct and to the point. It saves time and I think you should let colleagues know where you stand. I know it sometimes makes people uncomfortable, but I believe in being up front and honest rather than hiding behind niceties and not speaking my mind. It certainly cuts down on miscommunication. I prefer working with people who are direct, and it is a personality trait of a good marketer. Being able to express yourself clearly and persuasively is what marketing is all about anyway.

I have a group of friends and former colleagues in marketing who I bounce ideas off when I am looking for input. They always give me good feedback, and the best marketing people I have known are frank, honest and not always looking to spare feelings. If you want to be successful in marketing, you better have a thick skin. The bad marketers I have known are mealy mouth corporate survivors, who rarely say anything of substance. They are also masters at repeating other’s ideas as their own. As a service to Think Tank readers here is a guide for translating business weasel phrases during those painful conference calls and meetings.

Term - “ThinkTank Translation”

1. We can divide and conquer - “Please do my work for me”

2. We need an off-site meeting  -  ”Let’s stick our head in the sand somewhere else and have a dinner on the company”

3. Special Projects - “It’s cheaper to keep him around for a while, also see #15″

4. He’s not Strategic - “He’s not smart”

5. She’s more Strategic - “She can’t get things done”
 
6. I don’t have the bandwidth - “I don’t feel like doing it”

7. Let’s take it off line - “Pipe down until we are off this call”
 
8. Please take ownership of this - “Take it off my plate, it’s not of interest to the boss anymore”

9. Let’s form a task force - “I need some ideas I can steal”

10. We don’t have enough marketing suppot - “Need a scapegoat for bad sales”

11. Revenue is down year over year - “We have a product no one wants”

12. It’s a good thing - “Someone got screwed and it’s not me”

13. We need a new branding campaign - “I can blame the last guy for a while”

14. It needs more white space - “It’s mess, take it down a notch”

15. “Strategic” or “Strategy” in job title - “No longer useful, but friends with the boss”

16. I am working on it - “Have not even started it”

17. Town Hall Meeting - “Propaganda for the masses”

18. Realigning assets - “Swingin’ the ol’ axe”

19. Let’s get back to what we know worked in the past - “I have no new ideas”

20. We need to be entrepreneurial - “No more car service, free drinks or room service”

21. I need you to be a team player - “Sorry, no raise this year”

22. Nice to put a face to the name - “I thought you would be better looking”

23. She presents herself very well - “Babe”

24. My bad - “I screwed up, but using street language makes me cool”

25. It’s not about the money - “It’s always about the money”
 

Share This

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.

Share This

I re-learned a valuable marketing lesson at the AI conference about audiences and keeping an open mind. Some of the speakers wanted to present keynote sessions where people would sit together in tables of 10 and do interactive exercises together. No big deal, but we were sitting 450 people and it just didn’t make sense to me and my B2B/Technology events background. We strongly suggested doing it our way, but eventually relented and reset the room in rounds with materials for a brainstorming exercise. Well, the attendees loved it, and it fit right in with their democratic and participatory ethos. The lesson is one I should have remembered – put yourself in the mind of your customer and keep your preconceived notions to the side. One of the great dangers in marketing is to default back to what worked in your past. Every situation is new and times change rapidly. Approach every situation with a fresh eye and blank slate for the best results. Besides, “That’s the way we have always done it” is the worst phrase that can ever be uttered by a marketing professional.

Another interesting note – one of the speakers in the conference was an old friend and boss, Nancy Newman who is now a V.P. of sales training at Yahoo! It never fails to amaze me how life and careers takes twists and turns. It was great to see her and she was her usual funny self. When she made a few AV and logistics requests and I jumped right back into employee mode and made sure they got done for her, pronto. Nancy was the Publisher of PC Magazine and I was her marketing director back when it was the size of a large phone book in the pre web 90’s. Never in a million years could I predict that I would see her 10 years later at an Appreciative Inquiry conference my company was producing. She was joined in a standing-room-only presentation by her Yahoo! colleague, Kim Bennett. Over drinks at the evening reception Kim told me she was a stand up comedian on her rare breaks from working at Yahoo! That is what I love about face to face events, none these conversations would have happened online or in any virtual world. There is no substitute for human interaction. Here is something the internet is great for – sharing a video of Kim’s stand up act, on Yahoo! Video, of course. Click here to check it out, and enjoy.

Share This