MarketingInsideOut.com

Oh damn, looks like I’ll have to miss Ad Age’s gala new Small Agency Awards event, I’ll be too busy focusing on the Small Penis Awards followed by the Tiny Tits Gala. What is wrong with them? Why do they think that any agency would enjoy being acknowledged as “Small”? Can they really be that out of touch with anything beyond Madison Avenue? Why not Independent Agencies or Privately Held Agencies? Is there no other word you could think of besides small? But then I guess you didn’t spend a whole hell of a lot of time on the subject. I mean let’s face it there are only two categories in the whole damn show: Best Small Agency and Best Small Agency Campaign. Could they spare it! And, in reality, it’s not much of a show. More like a “contest”. You enter your stuff online and you read, either online or in print, whether or not you’ve won. Yeeehaaaa!

And how, by the way, did they make the determination to honor their puny brethren? Was it years of listening to agencies – with less than 75 employees – complain that Ad Age was dismissing them summarily to focus on every sneeze and fart uttered after lunch at JWT? No. It was a somewhat condescending comment made by a BIG guy at a BIG agency – yes, Bogusky is looking out for his itty bitty friends. He wants to be sure that the industry acknowledges the small guys – even though he hastens to point out that CP&B is “large”. What a guy. But I guess that’s what it takes to get Ad Age to pay any attention to a substantial number of agencies that they’ve deemed unworthy of a blip on their radar screen. Ironically, the only big thing in the new logo is the word SMALL.

One final question. If they’re claiming that “Small is the new Big” then where did those other guys go?

A few weeks ago in this post, I said I felt Dove and Unilever went too far with the Onslaught video. Good intentions aside, the hypocrisy was just a bit too much for me. I read several accounts of others who felt the same way. And tonight I ran across a a very visual example of the backlash.

This from Christine over at PSFK:

“Filmmaker Rye Clifton offers a response to the film, with a mash-up short of his own called “A Message from Unilever” (view it below). In it, he contrasts the contradictory messages put out by the corporation that owns both Dove and Axe, the latter known for its ads featuring scantily clad sexpots (whose parents apparently didn’t talk to their daughters before the beauty industry did) vying for the attention of horny Axe-sprayed men.”

The message here…Talk to your daughter before Unilever does.

From today’s NYTimes:

Google announced a partnership with Nielsen, the “voice of authority in measuring television audiences, that will give advertisers a more vivid and accurate snapshot than ever before of how many people are viewing commercials on a second-by-second basis, and who those people are.”

A small start, with a portion of the ad sales on the EchoStar DISH network (Google’s been selling these since May), Google can analyze the second by second results of who watched, skipped or changed the channel. And they can provide that data the next day…not days or weeks later. And now, by adding the demographic layer from Nielsen to the raw numbers, Google will have some powerful data that is immensely valuable to the advertiser.

Once advertisers have that kind of measurability from a single cable operator’s network, other cable providers will jump on quickly because advertisers will simply demand it.

Seems to be part of the strategy on the part of Google, and a good one. Google’s leaders are fearless and they are shaking up Madison Avenue. As Dave Morgan, founder and chairman of Tacoda characterized the Google approach in the NYTimes story: “Don’t shake up the market first on addressability, shake it up on measurability.”

Worthy objective, but not THE first.

I just finished reading an AdAge article about the environmentally responsible efforts by Versus cable TV network and Brooklyn Brothers.
“In what is believed to be the first effort of its kind, the Versus cable TV network and Brooklyn Brothers ad agency have just completed producing a campaign of TV commercials in a carbon-neutral manner…software system that tracks and quantifies the amount of carbon pollutants generated when making TV commercials with studio and remote-location film shoots.”

Bravo for the effort. Glad to see it. Hope more follow suit.

However, I knew I had read a story months ago about this same premise and was able to find that story again tonight.

Turns out, back in Nov 2006, Instant Karma Films, an eco-friendly TV commercial production company launched in July 2006 in Santa Monica laid claim to shooting the first carbon neutral TV commercial ever. The spot for Maybelline New York and ad agency Gotham Inc, was shot in Shanghai where Instant Karma recreated the streets of New York City. The spot featured actress Zhang Ziyi best known for her work in Memoirs of a Geisha and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

In addition to offsetting its carbon output and environmental impact through its donation and association with Carbonfund.org, Instant Karma Films planted 1000 trees for this production in its commitment towards environmental restoration. And is planning the development of a Carbon Calculator, in association with Carbonfund.org, which will determine the CO2 emissions your business or production will generate and allow you to offset its environmental impact.

When I wrote this post last week about my reaction to the latest Dove film, Onslaught, it seemed most everyone was praising it without hesitation. But I couldn’t.

While I respect the goal, the execution is south of the credibility line for me because I simply can’t separate Dove from Unilever and its many brands that perpetuate the beauty-is-everything stereotypes that are the core of the Onslaught message.

In the days since its launch, praise continues, but many have tempered it in the same breath…balancing praise with mention of the hypocrisy of the situation Dove finds itself in. From Bob Garfield’s AdAge review where he gives Onslaught a standing ovations but then goes on to say “Damn, if it just weren’t for the nagging hypocrisy of it all…. “What happens when Dove sales begin to flag and market share begins to slide? That will be the test of true righteousness. Does the “Campaign for Real Beauty” then get disposed of, like last year’s fashions, or dubiously “enhanced,” like a pair of fake breasts?” (Be sure to read the comments.) To this post from Stephanie Sage Smirnov of DeVries Public Relations. And this one by Danny G at one of my favorite blogs AdPulp. And there are more and more of this ilk daily.

In Wednesday’s LA Times there’s a story of a consumer group that has charged Unilever with hypocrisy “for running conflicting advertising campaigns — one for Dove that praises women and their natural beauty and one for Axe that the group said “blatantly objectifies and degrades” them. The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood launched a letter-writing effort on its website and demanded that the company pull ads for the Axe line of grooming products for men, which one online pitch says makes ‘nice girls turn naughty.’ ”

So I’m most assuredly not alone in the reaction I had when I viewed the new film. But at the same time I feel a bit schizophrenic because I admire brands that take the risk to stand for something meaningful. I wish more had the guts. Yet I (and others) am calling them out for doing just that.

The reality is that putting a firm stake in the ground in a situation where you’re not pristine means you have to be prepared to deal honestly and openly with a whole different kind of onslaught…today’s technology-enabled, consumer-empowered world. And be able to deal with question about your motives AND the inconsistent behavior of those you are affiliated with. It’s a challenge AND an opportunity. Will they be up to the task? I guess time will tell.

Via Adverganza

What would’ve happened if Apple’s classic “1984″ was focus grouped? Arnold found out, by asking people who’d apparently never seen the spot how they’d change it—and it involved putting Apple logos on the t-shirts of the huddled masses, and the recommendation that the spot: “Use real people, preferably without gas masks. Make fewer references to Nazism” and so forth. Only one focus group member thinks the spot should be produced at all. Arnold produced this as the intro film to the Boston Ad Club’s Hatch Awards, which were held last night, but that’s incidental.

They’ve stood (or sat) in line for hours. All across the Country. Some for more than 24 hours. All to be among the first to buy the iPhones that went on sale tonight at 6pm at Apple stores around the country.

It’s mind boggling to see the hype created over this product. I don’t remember ever seeing this much press or hearing this much buzz over any product before. Granted, it’s a really cool looking smart phone with a cutting-edge, touchscreen interface that can connect with WiFi’s, but it’s core function is a phone — (a $500 phone) and it’s exclusive to one provider.

But that is not slowing demand or desire in the least. And if I wasn’t locked in for the next 21 months with Sprint and if I hadn’t recently purchased a Treo, I would be in line right now. In fact, as I’m writing this I’m still trying to figure out a way that I can justify buying one and explaining to my husband why it was absolutely critical that I have one. So far, I haven’t come up with a good angle. And I’d suspect by morning, the first production batch will be sold out.

The demand and pure lust created for this product is a real tribute to the advantages of building such a loyal following that they become “brand evangelists.” Even if the iPhone only has a small share of the vast market, it will have an amazing heart share and people standing in line again when the next version comes out.

The ongoing saga of Julie Roehm….in the latest legal filing she’s flinging back mud at Wal-Mart.

According to this story in AgAge: “In a 42-page reply to Wal-Mart’s scorching counterclaim over her wrongful discharge and breach-of-contract suit, Ms. Roehm accuses Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott of ethics violations — specifically buying yachts and a pink diamond at “preferential prices” — via an improper business relationship during his time as VP-merchandising.

The filing also accuses other Wal-Mart executives of receiving gratuities that would be deemed improper under company policy. They include former chief marketing officer and current Chief Merchandising Officer John Fleming, as well as Raul Vazquez, now CEO of Wal-Mart.com, who as VP-marketing of that unit helped Ms. Roehm lead Wal-Mart’s now infamous 2006 agency review. “

Everyone is getting dirty in this one.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the concept of risk. I’ve never actively courted risk in my personal life and always thought of myself as a fairly risk-adverse person. I don’t partake in extreme sports adventures or seek out an adrenaline rush. A near miss with a semi on the freeway the other day made me realize that…frankly, adrenaline sucks.

But when it comes to the business of marketing, I find myself constantly redefining the concept of what’s risky.

It’s become clear to me that the opposite of risk in business isn’t security. In fact, not taking a risk is downright risky today because you’re likely to get flattened by a semi truck of status quo.

Albert Einstein once said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Obviously he wasn’t talking about marketing, yet a concept very similar has become ingrained marketing think…sanity and security is doing the same things you’ve successfully done before (over and over again) to get the same results. A company like P&G had it down to a science. But…the efficacy of that long-held belief is questionable.

Even P&G is now saying change is not only good, but mandatory to survive and thrive. And with change comes risk. But what’s the option? Obsolescence?

This quote from Bob Garfield’s Chaos Scenario 2.0 feature in AdAge really struck me…”Perhaps you believe that vast structures on which vast societies and vast economies depend do not easily lose their primacy. Perhaps you believe that the TV commercial and magazine spread — and radio spot and newspaper classified — are forever and immutable, like the planets orbiting the sun. Good for you.

Now, say hello to Pluto — the suddenly former planet. Forever and immutable, it turns out, are subject to demotion.”

But how do you demote the tried and true traditional thinking and approaches that are so very woven into the DNA of marketers and advertisers? Especially when many of those programs do still deliver results in the here and now. How do you get past the ‘if it ain’t broke right now, why fix it…instead let’s wait’?

Both sides of the coin say risk. Waiting is risky because by then it could be too late and/or too broken to fix. The ‘evolve now or become obsolete’ side of the coin comes with risks as well because no one really knows what the future holds.

I guess I put my ass on the line in the camp that says evolution is the lesser risk, even though it means moving forward and inventing on the fly without a lot of precedent as guidance. It’s pretty unnerving, yet all signs point to the tried and true as the road to obsolescence. And that ain’t one I want to travel.

After I downloaded the Joost beta a few weeks ago and watched some of the programming, I read several interesting articles about this Internet television service that was developed by the folks who brought us Skype. It’s pretty slick. Simple and easy to use.

It’s been in beta for several months and there’s been some chatter and question about its commercial viability. From my experience with it, I could envision some exciting possibilities to truly integrate rather interrupt with advertising and promotional messages. I was curious to see what the first execution would be and what advertisers would jump on board first.

In a story in today’s New York Times, both were answered. It looks like Coke, Nike, P&G, United Airlines, Microsoft, Sony, Unilever, Purina, HP, Intel, Motorola, Taco Bell and the Army are among the 32 pioneers in a three month advertising trial.

While some of the advertising will resemble the typical :30 spot, others are planning to experiment with ways that will take advantage of the true interactive qualities of the web by using contextual units dubbed hand-raisers. These small boxes will appear as the show is running and viewers who interact with the unit will see an overlay of content created for the advertiser. United could buy one of these hand-raisers during one of the National Geographic travel programs and enable people to book right on the spot.

Additionally Joost users will be encouraged to provide info about themselves and their interests which will enable advertisers to steer their ads to individual Joost viewers eliminating waste. You can get right to the people that are interested and not annoy those that are not.

It’s like DRTV on steroids.

Rumor has it they will begin public broadcasting next Tuesday, but Joost has not confirmed that start date — saying only that the introduction would occur sometime this spring.

It you haven’t already, check it out. Since it’s still in beta you need an invite from a current user to download it. If you want to try it, email me and I’ll send you one.