CK's Blog

Indeed Southwest is Nuts! if they think that any ad campaign or email blast will ever convince me they care about my safety.

I originally posted on this here.

And I tried to keep my mind open.

No longer.

Sorry, I've tried to remain open about Southwest's (alleged) negligence--and forget any credibility I might have placed with the FAA--but Southwest's reputation is just shot (cracked?) with me.

They needn't send me anymore emails saying how they take safety seriously or post to that affect on their blog (thanks to Paul Soldera for the link). Be the cracks in the fuselage 3.3 inches, 3.7 inches or 4 inches, I just cannot comprehend how keeping their fleet in circulation--now to the tune of 60,000 flights without inspections not "just" 1,450 after they knew of the issues--trumps safety.

I get that people need to get where they're going. But the point is that they actually need to get there.

And, again, you get what you pay for (even when you pay bottom-dollar).

When it comes to mass transit, convenience, price and comfort are important. But safety is not only at the top of the pile...it needs to be the cost-of-entry. I can't imagine what it feels like to work for Southwest now knowing that while you were part of a flight crew taking care of passengers...your employer didn't care enough to take care of you, either.

As for the FAA? A very big, very sad joke of an agency--as they absolutely share the blame.

PS: Those inspections? According to Southwest they take 90 minutes per plane. Yeah, I'll happily check more email, stuff my face with (yet) another airport burrito and flip through another trashy tabloid for the 90 minutes while I wait for my flight.

Update (03.14.08): In today's Wall Street Journal, Southwest's CEO Gary Kelly concedes: "I am not satisfied we are as compliant with maintenance requirements or as safe as we could be." Article here.

Update (04.03.08): Now Southwest has hidden safety problems. And the FAA let them. Article here.

Reduced to a selling agent (er, uh, a "fan")

Look at my smart, fetching and long-time colleague David Berkowitz over there. This, a colleague friend whom I brainstorm with, value his opinions and ask him to review my articles before they publish.

Why?  Because of the trust I have in him, and his professional judgment.

(He is also the marketer who got me blogging folks.)

Now he's plastered above a DVD rental-joint banner (full story here). And at the same time--and for about five hours straight--my professional and personal principles just see red.

(No, of course he didn't "allow" this, nor was it intentional).

A very good convo is over at David's place. I suggest you check it out when you have time. Rest assured, I have hit the legal limit of comments allowed from one person over there, until 2009.

My hope?

That the future doesn't look like more of this. (but I do hope to see more of David).

My fear? That it will.

I just can't get out of my stubborn head that the responsibility is on us--yes, us as marketers--to better guide the other marketers. I see it as a precedent-setting time where we can, in fact, do a lot of good and make a lot of money.

But not this way.

PS: A day ago is the first I got wind of this tactic as I can't "see" over at FB anymore.

PPS: To any company reading this that does not understand what's "wrong with this picture," I will happily and free of charge have an insightful call with you about using these tools to create value and create a stronger medium (not a dollar-store bonanza). That is not a sales strategy on my part--let's face it, I'm NO "FAN" of such gimmicks as above--I'd just like to explain how to contribute instead of contaminate as we forge ahead. It's called long-term, customer-centric thinking...and it works like a charm ;-).

These petitions just aren't doing it for me. So I deleted my Facebook account. Actually, they won't let me delete (only "deactivate"). So they're probably still selling my data.

I'm just not OK with the new Facebook marketing practices, or their efforts to 'lighten' them. Or the way they've handled it. To me--and this is solely my own take--this business model doesn't qualify as "innovative". More like creepy, arrogant, annoying and nothing I would say any good things about.

And I would never, ever, not for all the money in the mint, advise my clients to follow such practices. It's socially irresponsible marketing and that bell is a bugger to un-ring. So instead of signing petitions and the like, I've deactivated. To be sure, I tried to delete.

But you can't do that.

So I guess you can never opt-out of Facebook? (Seems consistent at least.)

What's really telling? I went to delete and it gives me a whole host of "Why are you leaving?" options to choose from. Ten of them. Not a single one cites the privacy issue. And wouldn't you think that maybe, just maybe, Facebook might have seen even one of the millions of posts, articles and comments that are railing against them and add that as an option? Uh, nope.

Wait, we all know that, most of the time, people won't take time to comment--or explain why they're discontinuing their use of brands...so wouldn't they want to know the percentage of user attrition over these practices? Um, nope.

Rest-assured, I will continue to (actively!) participate in the marketing community through my blog, your blogs, community-oriented programs, contributing at The Daily Fix and, of course, my new home over at Twitter (which I'm thoroughly enjoying). I'm not "going" anywhere...it's just that I won't be on Facebook. Too bad as I was finally starting to get the swing of it and I liked leaving some silly messages on your walls.

Insofar as the "reason for leaving" submitted to Facebook, I wrote this under "other":

"My reason for leaving wasn't mentioned in the 10 options above...how can that be? So I'll give it here: you need to keep focusing on your users, instead of focusing on how to manufacture WOM (otherwise the WOM that is created becomes a lot of angst and jokes about you, see?). And making us opt-out is nearly as laughable as it is deplorable (opt-out was a 90s fad; it never will come back "in style"€).

But if you guys actually do read these, then here's my biggest tip: You did a really good job of creating value and innovating through opening the platform (bravo!). But trust is a high-ticket item to win back. Unfortunately most don't learn this...until after they've lost it. (tsk.tsk)"

Valeria wrote a well-researched piece (it's like a portal to all recent news on FBook, truly worth the read) and in it she hit on this:

"Let me spell it out for you: if you push a recommendation unknowingly (you are being broadcast), or are being compensated to give it, is not the same as sharing a review because you are passionate about a product or service and they exceeded your expectations. I think we can do better than that. The true holy grail is one that will manage to help market and sell products and services and at the same time respect that the people it seeks to engage can think for themselves."

I concur.

PS: And yes, I still feel the same way about loaner cameras. Some things just never change :-).

PPS: A great article--from last month's Fast Company--portending this intentional decision is here. It's actually a great article on the value of opening networks. The problem? Here's the info. right from the mouth of their newly hired marketer:

"It is only day 67 for Palihapitiya at his new job when we sit down to talk, but he already sounds like a true believer. While cagey about details, he isn't shy about the potential he sees for targeted ads to fill Facebook's coffers. He madly sketches on a notepad, drawing a fine distinction between demand fulfillment (I want a cheap ticket to Hawaii. Now!), which the Internet has become quite good at, and demand generation, the shape-shifting set of marketing messages that conspire to get a consumer to want something. That, he says, is where he sees serious money on the table. "Facebook users are more engaged with each other," he says. "Aren't you more likely to be interested in what your friends are doing?" Google, which focuses by and large on demand fulfillment, is a $160 billion company. "For every dollar that goes into fulfillment, there are hundreds that are spent on generation," he says, particularly by the big brands. So what could Facebook be worth? Five times Google? Ten times? "Could be," he smiles."

Sorry Facebook, you'll have to "conspire" without this marketer. I'm going to focus on creating value for customers--so that they authentically "buzz" about offerings--instead of treating them like commodities.

PPPS: Oops, almost forgot! In the last 24 hours my purchasing history entails: (2) MP3s from iTunes (one was an old Psychadelic Furs tune, the other was by the Pixies), (1) tube of Colgate toothpaste and (1) Kashi granola bar. Colgate and Granola bought offline, at a local NYC deli with the brand name "Deli".

'Twas not the vampires that killed Buffy after all (just a bunch of blood-sucking lawyers )

A few guilty pleasures I enjoy in life.

One of them is the annual Buffy midnight Sing-a-Long in NYC's West Village at the historic Waverly Theater (it's a sing-a-long because a special Buffy episode was a clever musical).

It's like the Rocky Horror Picture Show...except it's Buffy The Vampire Slayer.(My post from last year's Buff-fest is here.)

But this year I won't get to go. (sad face)

First, let's get the usual question out of the way (long-time readers of the blog know I'm an avid fan).

"Um, you watch Buffy, as in that vampire slayer chick, CK?"

Yes, Buffy as in Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV Series. But the show was never really about vampires--you had to be a viewer to understand--it was about smart story arcs and complex characters. (Don't believe me? Ivy league Oxford University has run classes and written theses on how brilliantly complicated the series is :-).

So why won't I be going singing this year?

Because Fox went and rained on our musical parade and deemed us breaking the law. To be sure kids, there were no illicit drugs or debauchery at this event. (I know, damn.) There were a few vampires, though. But they were very nice; some of them even gave me candy and demon finger puppets.

All told, it was a mix of ages with people from all over the tri-state area who didn't necessarily have much in common. No matter, we came together to share a tremendous experience--and from a marketer's viewpoint, you couldn't manufacture a better brand opportunity.

For a retired series, no less. But no more.

According to CNN: "The TV show didn't exactly die when the show and its demon-fighting heroine went off the air three years ago. Driven by a fiercely loyal following, fans put together the sing-along event, a la "Rocky Horror Picture Show," where people turn up for midnight screenings of a musical episode of the show, often dressed up in costume as their favorite characters.

That all came to an end this week when the studio that owns the rights to the show got wind of what was going on. Lawyers for Twentieth Century Fox Television, a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., told a licensing company that had given the green light for the sing-along events that it had gone beyond limits of the show's licensing agreements.

The event's organizer, Clinton McClung said he had sought and received a licensing arrangement from Criterion Pictures for the events, but Alexander said those permissions went beyond what Fox allowed.

Now, McClung has had to cancel a costume party later this month as well as about 10 shows in theaters around the country as a result of the cease-and-desist order. He said he has already taken the sing-along event to 15 other cities, where it has mainly sold out."

According to Fox: "There are plenty of legal ways for fans to enjoy Buffy, but this particular event is not going to be possible at this time."

According to CK: I understand there exist licensing laws and policies (which, again, the organizer had worked to clear). But I also understand how a show is nothing without its fans..and now you've ticked-off those loyal fans, and chosen a very poor choice in wording. With shows sold-out in multiple cities and with your army of lawyers--um, and publicists--you could have figured out something (even Universal came to their senses and caved last year).

And what Fox needs to understand is that by virtue of holding these events, the fans produce:

• After-market revenues: These fans keep a show that has been OFF THE AIR FOR SEVERAL YEARS high in the hearts and minds of fans old and new (read: we buy more DVDs and crap because we still love the series...these events make us remember just how much and we show our love by, you guessed it!, buying more of your crap).
• Fan WOM to promote NEW shows: Fans who unite often ask, "Hey, watcha watching to fill your Buff fix now that the show is off the air?" (read: those fans promote other media properties of YOURS while at these events. Yup, a highly sought-after "engaged" audience who trust each other's recommendations happy to recommend more of your shows).

So this move by Fox produces (1) bad publicity, (2) bad blood (had to go for a pun!), (3) exudes bad business sense and (4) makes no brand sense.

As for this ticked-off fan, I will buy no more Buffy crap from Fox. I'll just make (illegal) copies from the friends I met at last year's event and prove myself a deviant.

And to Clinton McClung, I say: you rock for all the work you put into this. I know it wasn't a moneymaker but a passion of yours, and we fans heart you for it. And this marketer is so proud of you for taking it to the press (NY Magazine interview with McClung here).

PS: Want to see fan armies in action? Just look at all these posts saying how "Fox hates its own fans," "What a great way to lose future fans," and "Lawyers are evil" (at least for once they're not saying that about marketers!). And there are hundreds more spewing disgust for the studio. Monumentally stupid move. You can sign the petition right here.

This is the best that the best city on earth could come up with?

I'm very let down with the new NYC campaign (the spot is below, RSS readers go here). I don't understand what "This is New York City" is supposed to convey. I certainly understand what "The city that never sleeps," "The Big Apple," and "The city at the center of the world," communicate.

But "This is New York City" doesn't say anything. In Spanish it translates to "Welcome to New York."

It's a platform that's blah, blech and boring.

And NYC is none of those things.

You know what's great about this city? Where to start...the energy, history, culture, savvy, vibrancy and diversity...just to name a few attributes.

And these are all very real.

Yet, as you can see in the spot, the tourism bureau has animated it so it looks like a theme park (a really bad theme park at that). They put wings on the Chrysler building (wtf, is it supposed to be Big Bird?) and Lady Liberty looks like a big dork waving at you. Lady Liberty is majestic, not a moron. I'm not sure what to make of that bobblehead Yankees pitcher. Yeah, let's give the Red Sox another reason to laugh at us.

At least when tourists come to the city they can say "It''s even better than in the ad!"

And you don't hear that a lot.

To think of all the advertising brilliance this city boasts and comes out with this.

So if you're ever wondering what $30 million dollars will get you in NYC, now you know.

Sorry world, as a New Yorker I take the mediocrity to heart (another thing about this city is just how much heart it has...which is why the "I HEART NY" slogan will always convey NYC). Come visit this great city I call home and you won't be let down ;-).

Why are you telling me that you're going to be great...in a FEW YEARS?

All names and references to actual company have been deleted from the following. Mainly because I feel badly for them (please know this is from a major player that has a budget and, apparently, a lot of new brains on board). They've also advised me they're going to change the digital space.

I point that out because I know you folks haven't heard that before. 

Dear CK:

It’s an exciting time for CompanyWithoutAClue (CWAC). With three recent hires hailing from top-tier e-commerce companies, CWAC, has poised the division for significant growth over the next few years.

(OK, so in a few years this will be newsworthy?)

Illustrating the company’s focus on elevating its digital commerce business, TalkingHead#1 has brought in world-class talent to help drive innovation, operational excellence and a best-in-class consumer experience in the digital space.

(OK, so, again, in a few years you'll be innovative?)

New team members TalkingHead #2, TalkingHead #3 and TalkingHead #4 have rich and varied backgrounds in merchandising, strategic planning and innovation development at past companies such as Blah, Blah, Blah and Blah.

(OK, I have a list of amazing clients that I can name-drop and a bevy of experience in disciplines both miraculous and myriad, too. But my clients only care if I yield results for them in the near-term, not a few years from now.)
 
Let me know if you would like further information on these new team members, or if you’d like to speak with TalkingHead#1 to get an inside look at CWAC.

(I'll pass on the interview, I've a busy marketing practice and I respect my readers' time too much. But I will use this "outreach" as learning example.)

Questions for you smart marketers:

#1: Where do I enter into this correspondence? No, really, where is any benefit, hook or reason for me to care listed in this correspondence? I'm looking for just one.

I shouldn't have to look.

#2: More importantly, where is anything valuable for YOU lovely readers in this correspondence? B-to-B marketing is about pinpointing our customers needs and problems.

And then always going one BIG step further--and solving THEIR customers' needs and problems.

What most turns my smile upside down? Everything I've pointed out is marketing 101. I know there are steep learning curves in this Webby x 2 world...but if you don't grasp the basics, then all the world class talent and innovation are for naught.

And I mean all for naught right now...not a few years from now.

In this Age of Conversation it's a "show don't tell" world. I know it seems ironic and all but so long as you have something to show then it's at that point to start telling others--and telling them what it means to them.

May not be innovative but it is effective.

In their defense, at least they did get coverage on my little blog. So maybe I am just a puppet after all ;-).

Free speech ain't free...and apparently, now it's really creepy

Just innocently minding my own business reading through some brainy blogs and I'm hit with this blunder of a business model--as David Reich explains on his blog:

"There's a new pudding that makes my stomach a bit queasy.  It's called Pudding Media and The New York Times wrote about it yesterday.  The company, based in Silicon Valley, just introduced a web phone service that will allow people unlimited free calling.  But there's a catch, which is what makes me nervous.

In exchange for free phone calls, Pudding will listen in on your conversation to see what you're talking about.  Voice recognition software will pick up on key words or phrases and then send you ads, by email or directly to your computer screen, based on what you've been talking about."

Please tell me this will go away. Or mocked immensely and then go away (so that unlike Britney, it doesn't come back).

According to the company's CEO "Pudding Media had considered the privacy question carefully. The company is not keeping recordings or logs of the content of any phone calls, he said, so advertisements only relate to current calls, not past ones, and will only arrive during the call itself."

So you bother me DURING my call? When I'm actually trying to have the conversation?

The CEO also thinks that young people, the group his company is focusing on with the call service, "are less concerned with maintaining privacy than older people are."

Whether or not young people want privacy isn't the issue--an arrogant assumption, btw--the issue is that you're a grown-up preying upon them in the name of "targeted advertising."

And that's really creepy.

I've said it oh so many times before, but here goes once more: Marketers, just focus on creating, innovating and maintaining exemplary products, services and experiences. You'll be amazed how your markets will gladly give you their time, money and loyalty without your needing to waste precious ad dollars stalking them.

They might even call you.

PS: The way this company validates this model? They pass the buck with this gem, "Pudding Media executives said that scanning the words used in phone calls was not substantially different from what Google does with e-mail." Gotta love it when a new company defends themselves by using another company's pesky practices...instead of promoting itself on its own merits.

I do not understand this whole "un" thingie (psst: clients don't either)

I've seen several companies and conferences refer to themselves as "unagencies" and "unconferences." And I just gotta ask, why in the Web 2.0 World, with all we've learned on basic marketing principles--from the Web 1.0 World--are we creating categories that only mean the opposite of the other?

That isn't innovative.

Especially when these new offerings, businesses and business models have so much more value than just being the opposite, or the "un" (antithesis?), of the other. Being the opposite places the focus on the competitor not the innovator. It makes the client scrutinize whether or not you really are the opposite, and how very opposite you really are...and how much of a risk that really is to them.

I'd rather they be focused on benefits not differences (if your difference is meaningful than that benefit will shine through). And while I've heard clients say "I've hired an interactive agency," or "I've hired an SEO agency," I've not heard them say "I've hired an unagency." (Though I admit I'd love to hear it as it would give me a giggle)

When we're the opposite of something then, sure, we give our clients a base to start from...but then it gets murky. They think, "Well an agency does creative, or media planning, or direct marketing...so this outfit, I guess, doesn't. I know what they don't do but, wait, what is it that they actually do?"

I assure you both types of companies do marketing, they may just use different models and media.  And I certainly assure you this, both are judged on the very same criteria: to get the client exposure so as to get more customers so as to up the bottom line.

Unless I've lost touch and all of a sudden clients want un-revenues.

Take me, I have a set of competencies that I've built a (small) business around. I'm often told, "You're not like other consultants." OK, cool, I'm different (notice the client is saying that, not me). But I don't refer to myself as an un-consultant. I've just always referred to myself as a marketing specialist (and sometimes, a marketing hippie).

Now take Red Bull, innovators of the "high-energy drink" category. They specifically wanted to avoid the "cola" category, but they didn't go with the "UnCola" because when 7UP used that it fell flat (especially since 7UP is, in fact, a carbonated cola). If I don't want cola? Then I'm likely gonna head for a Poland Spring (the premium water category) or grape juice (the fruit juice category).

But I'm never, ever, gonna say, or think in my most private of thoughts, "I feel like an uncola". Nope, I'm going to be much more specific than that. And opposite isn't specific. It's just the opposite of something that is specific.

A book without paper isn't an unbook...it's an eBook (and a book on tape is an audiobook). A website that is dynamic and two-way isn't an un-site.

It's a blog.

My point is that if you're going to forge brave new frontiers and create new categories, then get more creative--and far more meaningful--than just un-something. Why? Because you're better than just being the opposite of another, unworthy you're not ;-).

PS: Oh, and the unconferences I've attended? Delightful as they were, they were still a conference...as people still congregated at a certain designation for a common purpose to confer about a specified subject matter...it was just that the format was revamped. And I still had to pay to get into it. So opposite it truly was not.

So next July 13th I'm gonna wake up and suddenly want to be harassed again?

When I (joyfully!) signed onto the national Do NOT Call Registry I was thinking that I was guarding my phone number against telemarketers.

Forever.

I come to find out today that the sign-up was only good for five years. (Swear I remember being told otherwise...CNN reporters don't remember being told this either.)

To me, opt out means opt OUT...until I want to opt back IN. Be that time one year, five years or, in this case, infinity x that many years.

Not sure who thought that I'd want calls again in 60 months. And I bet I don't even get an email reminding me in June that expiration is quickly approaching.

Yes folks, even though we're not pesky marketers the word "marketer" is quite evident in the word "telemarketer." So it's no small wonder that many innocent consumers associate us with them.

If anybody sees any petitions on getting Do Not Call to get its act together, please inform me. They do have a "file a complaint" feature but that's about all I've found.

Perhaps it's only me and this 5-year hiatus from being harassed makes sense. But I really want them to lose my number.

For how long? For as long as forever takes.

PS: Is there a way for me to opt OUT of pop-up ads, banners on my screen that say "to keep viewing this ad click here," and all those incredibly annoying magazine "blow-ins" asking me to sign-up when I've been a darn subscriber for over a decade? I'll happily take a break from any/all of these for five years.

I'd be a sour apple, too

Background here.

And to think I came this close to getting an iPhone two weeks ago...as a gift no less! (no, not a gift so I'd post about it). But I passed it up for the time being as I'm just not sure how much I'll use it and I have a long-standing beef with AT&T (and they become your carrier if you want the iPhone).

If you haven't used one yet they're just as cool as they look and it had me mesmerized for hours. It's genius in its look, feel and apps.

That said, I didn't even think to make a call from it ;-).

But I feel sooo badly for all those people I saw standing in line for the iPhone's premiere here at the NYC store. Sure, I can see a price drop to be more competitive with other offerings.

But in 6 months. Not 3. Wait, has it even been 3 months yet? Isn't it more like 2 months?

And $200 is a significant (!) drop in price. Ouch.

Due to its trove of enthusiasts, Apple needs to step far more lightly when it comes to caring for its early adopters and loyalists. Why? Because Apple is just not like other brands.

Or, maybe now it is.

Sorta kinda relevant: Whilst in San Francisco a few weeks back I went to the Apple Store. And you know what I couldn't understand? In their "theater area" there were a lot of people in seats talking apps back and forth but no one at the podium (they didn't have tutorial sessions scheduled for several hours). Ya know, like an Open Mike (Open Mac?) for users when tutorials aren't being held.

I asked a couple of the people why they didn't go up to the podium and share with the crowd what they were sharing with the people sitting adjacent to them. Just seems natural being it's The Share Economy. Plus, giving your enthusiasts a voice only makes them voice their love for you and your product even more.

The crowd thought it a great idea since they do that anyhow sitting in their seats. So I asked one of the store employees why they didn't let the users teach one another between sessions (surely users have new things to teach us, no?). He was very affable and said, "Huh, I don't know the answer to that question." So it sorta kinda killed the "Apple Store Experience" for me. Guess I like hearing from customers more than employees at the genius bar.

Update (couple hours later): Thanks to Neil for alerting me to this Open Letter from Steve Jobs...I understand they're going to give iPhone customers a $100 "store credit" but, with all honesty to readers, I'm running out the door and read it quickly so if it's a "rebate" then I agree with that. If, however, it's a store credit for future purchases, I don't agree with it (and I'm not sure how much one can get for $100 at the Apple Store, I would think it's a great way to get us to buy another iPod/etc.). I'll check back and read the fine print better; for now I just wanted to publish the link. And notice how Jobs hits on 'trust' in the letter...yep, trust is paramount (and it ain't worth losing over a few months of waiting to rollout, IMO).

Lose the "cool," keep the carpet (and take care of your brand).

NOTE: Agency name intentionally omitted from this post. I've much respect for the work of this company (though I can no longer say the same for their own marketing savvy).

In recent weeks, my colleague and I visited the headquarters of a highly reputable, long-standing, top-tier agency. I'll do my best to recreate the "experience" here.

We enter a multi-million dollar skyscraper located on an upscale New York City avenue next to several famed NYC landmarks. Folks, we're talking money. In fact, the amount of money to rent a walk-in closet in this building for a year would buy a nice vacation home + small ranch + ivy-league education for a large family.

Our first stop is to go through security. This serves two purposes: we need clearance and we need to be directed to which of the dozen elevators will take us to the agency. We leave the luxurious, art-filled atrium, ride up the elevator to our destination and step off the elevator into a cavernous, cold, under-construction office space.

The thing is, the agency's headquarters wasn't under construction.

It was intentional.

They had removed their carpet to reveal uneven, porous concrete floors. And they had ripped-up their ceilings to create a "raw", exposed look (but did so with vinyl or something which doesn't look authentic, it looks like an expensive way to look inexpensive). The lobby area of the agency was two-floors high and the only color was white.

There was this odd bar with no one at it (being it was a headquarters for a global agency, not a night club). And there was a huge planter.

Without plants.

In fact the only sign of life was the delightful receptionist who explained that they're trying to look like the edgy downtown agencies. My question to her..."Why?" (Btw, there is a problem when your receptionist admits you're "trying to look more like the cool downtown agencies.")

It didn't come off as cool, it came off cold. In August. And when I think of this  particular agency I think uptown upscale, not downtown dirt cheap.

I've been in many of the smaller shops they're working to emulate and I assure you they are not housed in skyscrapers nor do they have security stations (you just walk in off the street). They're lucky to boast one elevator (not twelve). And the reason that most have exposed pipes? It's not to look cool, it's that they make a realistic choice between redesigning their space and making payroll.

Most peculiar of all?

There was an itty-bitty waiting area for clients. Multi-million dollar clients, mind you, forced to squeeze onto a small couch and a chair (unless they want to wait at the unmanned bar?). If I were a multi-million dollar client looking for an Agency of Record I would seriously wonder...how can they figure out my brand...when they've failed so miserably at their own?

Here's the reality: this behemoth's strength is that they're a behemoth. They're mature with decades upon decades of experience and results. They've worked themselves ragged to climb to the top rung only to (intentionally!) downgrade their perception to a category that pits them against smaller shops (who serve smaller clients).

Again I ask...why?

Here's the biggest hypocrisy: this agency can't afford to take on the smaller clients of many of those edgier shops. It's a fallacy to think they would even entertain the same RFPs (in large part because of their high office overhead). Even odder is that they could have rented an edgier office space downtown more cheaply than gutting this one.

I'm always amazed when it's not the competition that hurts the brand but the very people in charge of protecting it. The lesson? When striving to look relevant, cool and edgy it's best not to wind up looking really foolish. Go back to branding 101 and focus on who you truly are...as that's what makes you truly great.

And for cryin' aloud, keep the carpet.

Toying with customers: promotions for puppets

Back story here and here.

I've no problem rewarding loyal customers with free goodies. In fact, I love giving stuff to customers--and Customer Advisory Boards--who give us their time, attention,feedback and loyalty. Pre-releasing products, or giving out product samples, to a targeted set of top customers/enthusiasts is a great reward...but only when we're truly rewarding them.

That's why I like the Sci-Fi Channel blogger relations program. It rewarded top sci-fi bloggers (i.e. customers)--who ALREADY blogged about their programs--by bringing them on-site to their studios for a week to meet Sci-Fi show writers and stars. After all, a show is nothing without its fans so that reward made a ton of sense...and offered further value to the bloggers' audiences because the bloggers could share their experiences--in their own words--with their readers. Yep, that program was truly relevant and rewarding (and long overdue).

Now, do we marketers hope that when we reward our customers we'll keep those customers? Absolutely. Do we hope they'll give us feedback so that we can optimize our products in the near and far terms? Absolutely. Do we hope those treasured customers...who treasure us...will spread the word to their colleagues, family and friends? Absolutely.

So should we provide them with "here's messaging points for you to use when you help spread the word about this product"? Absolutely NOT.

Why praytel? Because then we've gone from reward to to manipulation. That's not caring for customers and fostering brand evangelism. That's using your customers to be your talking-point puppets. WOM and evangelism flow naturally, these acts can't be forced.

And toying with them is no way to treat valued customers.

Net/net: One cannot create brand evangelists or manufacture WOM. Companies can only encourage evangelism by providing exemplary products, services, programs and experiences--and delivering on these fronts consistently.

So if you're gonna give then give. After all, you're already getting their time, attention, feedback and business. Alas, so many want shortcuts (and puppets).

Shout: This post was inspired by David Berkowitz who gave me an email heads-up on this program. Btw, David actually nudged me into blogging in the first place, not sure if you folks know that. Actually, I'm not sure if David knows that. So blame him if you don't like my blog so much (but if you like it feel free to tell me ;-).

Vick didn't let us down. The NFL did.

The unconscionable acts of cruelty that Michael Vick inflicted upon dogs has prompted me to sign many a petition. And I was relieved to learn that most of them yielded enough participation to support good outcomes.

Nike dropped him.

Reebok dropped his apparel.

Falcons suspend him while they waited for the verdict...a suspension that I agreed with as I wholly support that "man is innocent until proven guilty."

The man pleads guilty (and finds Jesus).

Again, the man pleads guilty and OPENLY admits to the despicable harm he's caused for who knows how long to who knows how many innocent animals.

And then the Falcon's owner says it's not in the franchise's best interest to drop him.

They did, however, ask for their $22 million back.

According to Arthur Blank, the Falcons' owner, "We cannot tell you today that Michael is cut from the team. Cutting him may feel better emotionally for us and for many of our fans, but it's not in the long-term best interests of our franchise."

Actually, upholding ethics--and raising the bar--IS in the long-term best interests of your franchise.

Folks, Vick didn't let us down (he's just a sick twist). The NFL did.

Some agree, many I'm sure will not...but I think this is a grave day for the NFL, the fans and Falcon teammates. Bad marketing move. And an even worse ethical one. I expected expect better.

Thanks to WashPo's Feinstein for urging: "He's forfeited his right to be a hero, to hear those cheers anymore."

If anyone knows of any current petitions against the NFL please just leave the information in the comments. I've signed many through the ASPCA. Thanks so much.

Note: Here's some excellent commentary on the broader issue by Emily Deschanel, celebrity advocate/spokesperson for the US Humane Society.

I'm still not chasing your waterfalls, but the industry sure is (yup, I'm the crazy).

I'm either crazy or, perhaps, I'm that crazy little voice shouting "folks, the dude (emperor) has no clothes!" Maybe I best shut up and money-up from companies who long to create all-too-human, if oh-so-hollow, positioning strategies (cue-up the pretty waterfalls, wontcha?).

Problem is I wouldn't respect myself. And yet, ironically, I come to find out today that Dow's campaign is all about respect.

Yup, "Dow Chemical Co. has a modest goal for its corporate ad campaign: to be acknowledged as the largest, most profitable and most respected chemical company in the world."

Oh how I wish I could just leave that one alone. Darn't, I've already talked Dow--a convo, mind you, where most disagreed with me--but that behemoth is just forcing my little hand. And since BtoB will not add commenting functionality (I've asked thrice), I'll need to talk it on my turf.

(psst: my original post on DOW is here, along with the commercial where you'll learn how water is made and how water falls really pretty).

Um, no comprendo. Please tell me WHAT the company is doing--not what they're SAYing--to better the human element (not just trying to look better to humans). For that matter, I can't tell you how much I'd also appreciate your explaining what, exactly, the "human element" is.

A work of (manipulative) art. The ad's writing? Extraordinary. The cinematography? Transporting. Watching these spots I yearn to trek across sand dunes and make love under waterfalls. But I leave them with a sour not sweet taste in my mouth for Dow.

How does one change...from the outside? Change is a word that's used a lot in your campaign. But I don't see any internal change, just external messaging. So the lessons your campaign have bestowed are that (1) hydrogen and oxygen bond to form water (see commercial, readers) and (2) afforded enough literary brilliance we needn't really change just say we've changed against nice background music. I again wonder why I spent that money on graduate school.

Falling for it? They're falling all over it. I'm not so much surprised that the business-intended audience loves this campaign (and consumers, to boot). But I am amazed at the industry salivating over it. We're marketers after all, so my thinking is that we see through the strings, ponies and prose. Yet we highlight this campaign as a best practice. Maybe the waterfalls did it for them, too?

Why yes, I work for Dow...do you come here often?!: According to the piece, Dow CEO Andrew Liveris reckons the campaign will be successful when "A Dow employee in a bar anywhere in the world can tell the guy next to him where he works and get the response, "Oh, Dow. That's good."

To the CEO I ask, this is your barometer? You spend $25 million on an external ad campaign (not internal organizational alignment) to get your ivy-league troops to feel secure enough to talk chemical companies when out socializing over beers? For the record, my barometer is that they'd feel proud talking their employer while not intoxicated.

Using charity as a crutch: I love charity and charitable endeavors..but find it particularly concerning when companies use them to compensate or obfuscate. According to the article: "Dow is addressing the litany of problems one at a time. To emphasize the need for clean water, the company is sponsoring a worldwide relay race with the Blue Planet Run Foundation. Ads running in magazines such as The New Yorker and Harper's are headlined, "This summer, 20 runners will cross four continents to bring someone a drink of water."

How does running a sponsorship solve any of the "litany of the world's problems?" How's about sponsoring an irrigation system instead and "running" that water to people in need of it? Insofar as your PR efforts, perhaps solve that pesky little issue with Amnesty being that's consistent with humans (thousands and thousands of them).

Companies may lie, but numbers don't. Dow's stock has surged 29% over the past year. Wow! Interesting that competitor Dupont--sans the use of waterfalls--has shot up 20%, too. Isn't it coincidental how a climate-out-of-control world makes for good returns for chemical companies? Also of note: Dow's brand equity increased by 25%. So brand equity is alive, well and, judging from what they spent on the campaign, bought at $1million a percentage point.

Alas, there will be wins for all. Dow will be the talk of bars and the agency--apart from being on the AOR short list of other companies seeking respect, like coal and oil--will win awards and be able to show how advertising gave this company its groove back (maybe this can be their new theme song?).

Writing this post I've been approached by a publisher who wants me to review a book on the "elements of persuasion." How's about we review a book that marks an end to persuading (and masquerading through waterfalls) and shift focus on adding real value (not more hollow ads)?

Nah, that would be crazy.

Crappy Convos (but good lessons)

My what an interesting sh*tstorm happened whilst I was away at play. What's my take? Well, first off, I wouldn't take the diet pill that's at the center of this debate because the side effects are, um, crappy (sorry, couldn't resist, but you really should proceed with caution...and an extra pair of pants.)

But extra pants isn't the point.

The point is: should we encourage our colleagues and friends to comment on blogs that we produce for our clients?

Unless it's a blog that is authentically of interest to others...than no, I don't advise it. And personally, I don't feel right asking any of you fine folks to comment on anything that I'm being paid for. You are so generous and give me so much every day. Heck, because of all your great advice I'm able to do better at work I'm paid to do. (have I said THANK YOU lately? I need to say that more!)

However, if it were a blog on a certain genre of music that I knew my friends liked, or a certain piece of technology that I knew colleagues were interested in than, sure, I would definitely pass it by them.

Why? Because I naturally (authentically) would anyhow.

But in most cases I've found that the blogs produced by clients are not relevant to our friends and colleagues. It's a case of poor targeting...and targeting is a core rule of marketing. While generating comments may be an ice-breaker, if they're not authentic comments than they don't really advance convos. They just add comments. I think in terms of quality vs. quantity (and relationships vs. rankings).

Net/net: it's our job as marketers to create products/services/experiences and blogs that are of high enough value to encourage comments and conversations all on their own...not to generate false interest.

Oh, one exception: If I produced a blog for a nonprofit client that was doing good acts for humankind, animalkind or earthkind (not bottom-line kind), then I might reach out to you fine folks and ask you to check it out and spread the word. Yup, I have a weak spot for good acts.

(and I promise there wouldn't be any unpleasant side effects :-).

Trust (and opinions)

Full story with links is here. (caution: it's a long post, but worth the read).

Is getting (paying?) people to mention your catch-phrases in a catchy, sneaky way in their blog posts the same as advertising?

Yes.

Wait...No.

Advertising is obvious. Sneaky is just sneaky. (Until it gets outed. And then it's just silly.)

Is sneaky wrong?

Yes.

Would I ever do it?

No. (Heck I won't even accept advertising on this blog. Speak at PostieCon. Or accept freebies for loaned periods.)

Is advertising on blogs wrong?

No. Bloggers put a lot of time, thought and trouble into maintaining their sites. I can understand receiving monetary value from that time, thought and trouble. But for me, I just never want anyone to worry or wonder if my opinions are influenced by anything other than my opinions--however right or wrong you find my opinions to be. I get paid through the value of learning from and meeting you fine folks. (Plus my blog is prettier without ads.)

Why is this stuff so darn important to me?

Because I take trust so seriously.

Which begs the question...can one take trust too seriously?

I certainly don't think so.

Why?

Because trust is the single most valuable asset one can have (be it a person or a brand). It's equivalent to respect and you have to earn, and be worthy, of trust. Unfortunately, many companies--and many people--don't realize how important trust is.

Until they lose it.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

What's so great about McDonald's? Its food (consistently) makes you fat (and happy).

Confession of a marketer (and a female who thinks carbs are both evil and heavenly at the very same time): I have never and will never buy from McDonald's to watch my weight. In fact, going to Mickey D's is viewed as a treat for me to scarf some greasy, salty fries and a hot fudge sundae. Yum.

And the happy meals rock. Even in my 30s, how can I not like a meal that purportedly makes me happy? No, it's just not possible.

But I always know this kind of food needs to be the exception not the rule. Why? Because if it were a habit I'd have the equivalent of two happy meals for hips (and then it's true that I wouldn't be happy). So here's my marketing question for McDonald's:

Why are you trying to market AGAINST everything that you have GOING for you?

No parents shouldn't be feeding their kids your stuff everyday (uh, duh) but you don't have to buy into that as it was never, ever your brand promise. Your brand promise was and is consistency--and NO other company does it better (maybe equally good but not better).

I will say that for cheap food your prices have gotten high but it's still a consistently fast, fatty food experience. That's what has made you great. Stick to it. The health stuff is up to consumers. All that YOU are responsible for is to state how much fat is in your foods--clearly, regularly and...you got it!...consistently.

Plus, not matter how freshly a hamburger or french fry is made (not microwaved) it's still food that's bad for people--and if people don't understand this then our society has an education issue, not a marketing one. Trust me.

Why do I say all of this? Because I care about your brand and I fear you're not (I also say this because you do a lot for charity and I really respect your good works there :-). But it looks really silly when you work to rail against all that makes you so very great. I respected who you were as it was true to brand...not sure if I respect where you're going.

All told, I'm looking forward to the info. this week from other bloggers who will cover your new mommy blog as I'm focused less on your blog, much more on your brand.

A question and a correction:

Finding a few good (wo)men: From USA Today, "McDonald's dubbed the program Mom's Quality Correspondents. The moms were picked from 4,000 applicants by Arc Worldwide, a promotions specialist."

Does anyone else find it interesting that they picked 6 moms from 4000 applicants?  And that they GOT 4,000 applicants? Wowsa. Um, how large is a potential juror pool for landmark trials where lives are hanging in the balance? Would we get 4,000 applicants? Yep, McD's is one brand with a lot of pull.

My BAD: I stand corrected, no blogging here. Also from USA Today: "The women will be journaling — not blogging — says Starmann, meaning consumer responses to their comments will not be posted on the site. But the six mothers are free to respond to consumers or to post comments on other blogs, she says. They also will appear in videos at www.mcdonaldsmom.com."

Then why not allow the McMomma's to just blog? If you're gonna take the plunge, then dive on in. You've consistently been a trailblazer. So, like, blaze!

A word of advice before I part (what good is a rant without a clear action point?)

Just stay true to you. You never set out to be a healthy alternative, you set out to deliver the same fast food experience on a consistent basis. And you delivered, baby. What's more? Man alive do you guys know real estate (you're better at "location" than Trump is, though Trump's true gift is spotting counter-trends). Much to be proud of so don't lose focus now.

Let Subway go after the healthy food positioning. This marketer implores you: please stop going against brand....if you want to reposition then launch a new brand, don't kill the old one. If you keep going this route it won't be the public that kills your branding--it will be you.

What's that? Oh, you're welcome for the great advice--a world of thanks for the great happy meals and, more so, for your terrific charity initiatives in which you've been a total trailblazer. And if you promoted THAT gem more than moms and other people would forget about the fat...I for one like doing good just by eating a meal that makes me happy (so I assume others would, too).

Mirror, mirror on the wall (the destructive nature of labels)

Let me start off by genuinely thanking David Meerman Scott for inspiring this post (and David Reich for informing me of this in the first place). And let me also say that I genuinely like David Scott (and David Reich). David M. Scott and I have had a terrific email dialog and he is one heck of a positive guy (and his book is getting great reviews).

Which is why I've been so perplexed at his labeling me "notoriously egotistical and vain".

OK, so he didn't call ME egotistical and vain he labeled ALL bloggers as such...and, bless his heart, I don't think he meant for me to take it so seriously. But here's the thing--and this applies to ALL marketing and ALL of life: Labels have very serious implications. They're destructive. No good ever comes from them. And, more often than not, misperceptions are widely perpetrated as a result of using them. Which is why I (strongly) advocate not doing so. It discredits people and the medium.

The irony? I actually wished he'd only called me those things. Why? Because too many on the 'outside' will now form a clouded judgment of what's really going on 'in here'. We've now separated "us" from "them" even more (sigh). Why's that? Because when we label a group we make them less 'human' and more 'judgment'. Especially--and I cannot stress this enough--in a new medium where new practices and new perceptions are pivotal.

See, we can touch on commonalities or audience attributes (e.g. demographics, psychographics) but when we place labels, or strong judgments...on 15 million people running 70 million blogs...we promote misperceptions--and we all know that perceptions are many times the reality. So many people will now attach an "egotistical + vain" label to many bloggers--and me (gasp!)-- instead of understanding the share nature of this economy.

Personally speaking? All I've witnessed--in a field that is very focused on getting ahead and growing egos, mind you--is a whole lot of generosity. Want a recent example? Look at my previous post where I asked for feedback from you smarties to help me do better on an account: you guys and gals didn't think twice about helping out. It's what we do for one another.There are countless examples of this including Paul saving my butt from making a big mistake on an account last year when I would have used the wrong messaging and ran a real-time Q&A for me with the target audience he had access to inside his agency...and he NEVER once boasted about it on his blog (hence, no ego). And of course I can't begin to thank this community enough for the outpouring of support during a personally difficult time (that was selfless, not selfish). Truly there are too many examples for but one post.

So let's be really careful when we label and judge: especially when we do so in front of audiences who don't know this environment. Actually, let's just not do it. This medium may seem old hat to us but it is new as a newborn baby to (most) others. I want "them" to feel invited to interact with "us" (c'mon in the water's great!)...not daunted or intimidated (our hearts and minds are FAR bigger than our egos!).

PS: I also thank David for giving me an excuse to post the vain witch from Snow White on my blog (as I've always wanted to ;-).

My problem with advertising (and chemical companies)

This happens all the time. I see a breathtaking, transporting ad like the one below and at the end of the darn spot I wonder what the heck I'm supposed to do with it.

Am I supposed to feel good about a chemical company because it's now introduced "the Human Element"? Umm, I'm not a rocket scientist or chemically savvy in the least but you aired it on broadcast TV--so I'm thinking I should readily get your message. And what message am I to understand by telling me how hydrogen and potassium bond?

Am I the only one who finds these ads unclear? Is DOW now going to help humans? Are they going to be more humanly minded? Perhaps it's an ad to make the DOW Board of Directors smile? Because it just makes me shake my head.

Yo, DOW: you're gonna have to do A LOT more than an exquisite series of ads to make me feel warm, fuzzy and all human about your chemicals. Your sustainability pledge smacks of being trendy, not responsible. Like, in addition to being more environmentally aware, don't spend millions on these ads but instead start some "human element" initiatives--perhaps college sponsorships, restoration projects and the like--that make good on your "human element" promise. Though, to be fair, this ad promised nothing.

Which is exactly my problem with so much advertising--and why I'm so adamant about correcting people when they assume I "work in advertising." (I know, as if marketing has a better rep.)

Oh, and if you want to be all human a blog is a really good idea. I don't think that all companies should blog (but all companies should listen). However, being that you've gone all human it's a good idea to use technologies that get you closer to those very humans. Yeah, you'll get a firestorm of haters but at least you can begin talking with them instead of talking how hydrogen and atoms and stuff bond. (If you have a blog, I'm sorry I missed it, but this human found that element too hard to find on your site.)

Net/net: Commit yourselves to humans, not human element ad campaigns. That's a decent mantra for your marketing efforts, actually (you're welcome ;-).

Btw, I caught this commercial while I was watching an amazing show on the History Channel about the end of the world. I do not think it was a coincidence since they talked about chemicals a good deal. But even though the show was talking "chemicals," I don't think that was necessarily good targeting for these ad spots. Why do I say this? Because when the show spoke of chemicals they did not talk highly of their effects upon the world. I wonder if the CMO of DOW knows where her/his human ads are running. If they're listening, now they do (you're welcome :-).

Anyhow, the ad below is nice (RSS readers go here). Also, here is a very hard to watch backlash to the commercial in case you're interested.

As with T-Rex, so too with Ticked-off users

Remember Jurassic Park (the first one) when they were creating only female dinosaurs (or were they creating only male ones?) and then they found eggs for itty-bitty baby dinosaurs? I remember well the scientist saying...

"nature finds a way."

They were talking of how, against the odds and given no way to procreate, those critters figured out a way to do just that. After all, animals--all species, actually--are rather clever and determined when they want what they want. In this case they wanted survival. But in the case of some very angry Digg users, they wanted a voice (since they're always given a vote).

And you know what? Ticked-off users find a way, too.

In the VERY interesting story about some very ticked-off Digg users, that Paul details here--really, go here as I'm about 10-minutes new to this story--it seems that management at the oh-so-democratic site Digg, where users vote on the popularity of the articles, had to delete an article