CK's Blog

Psst! Both your brands AND your social media programs must provide distinct sets of value to your markets. Yep, Both.

A social media presence is important for today's brands and yields various points of ROI for brand marketers. (I've published an exhaustive (!) list of the many value points here.) But still there seems to be a big enough misunderstanding by enough companies, that it warrants some clarification.

You see, it’s not only how your brand creates value for audiences offline but how your social media initiatives and involvement creates value for audiences ONLINE. Value that complements your brand's value proposition... but value that is both separate and distinct.

In fact, your audience should receive value from your social media programs even if they do not purchase your brand. Why? Because that value will encourage them to discuss, recommend and perhaps even purchase your brand.

For example, if I visit a blog by, say, a professional services company and it provides me with thought leadership--be it a new methodology, new viewpoint or new set of tips for handling age-old challenges--then I have received value from their blog (and I might even hire the company or refer the company to others).

But if that blog were merely a regurgitation of their press releases and product pitches? Then I would receive no value (and their perception would decrease in my mind). No-brainer, right?

Wrong.

You'd be amazed how often brainy companies blunder this principle.

The BIG Shift

Recently I met with a group of professionals who don't work in the technology sector and are just starting to dabble in social media (or perhaps it's more accurate to say they were just starting to dabble in the idea of using social media). The group I was speaking with were curious about all the buzzwords and hype they keep hearing. More to the point, they needed to better understand how these technologies affect them and their specific business environments.

As I explained to them, what we’re witnessing, and navigating our way through, is The BIG Shift.

While this shift is bolstered by technology--both Web 2.0 and other tech innovations--its effects cut across all industry sectors, be they professional or consumer. You see, Web 2.0 technologies are remarkable because they shift content creation and control from marketers to their markets. An unlike all other media, people, not profit-driven companies, fuel the growth of this space. In this era, consumers aren't waiting on companies to "get it" or get on board. Nope. Empowered by these tools consumers are fully equipped to move ahead all on their own.

From influencing the purchasing decisions of people located all over the globe... to building active communities and establishing mass movements... our markets are now leading us.

Via these technologies we're now able to reach more of the world, so geographical borders are of little relevance--with the voices of the so-called little guys reaching (and influencing) many the world over. Equally compelling, while technology levels playing fields and make for a world that’s more “flat,” the global connections and relationships that these innovations enable make for a world that feels, and seems, much smaller.

Web 2.0’s growth is fueled by REGULAR PEOPLE, not profit-driven companies. You'd be amazed how many professionals do not understand this fundamental principle--so please tell all your friends.

Other media, through their offerings and services, target regular people, but social media is comprised of them. In fact, Web 2.0 is the only set of media that places the dynamic tools of creation and communications in everyone's hands.

Sure, twitter is growing by leaps and bounds. But even more extraordinary, as pointed out in last week's Time article, is this:

"In short, the most fascinating thing about Twitter is not what it's doing to us. It's what we're doing to it." (The exact same thing applies to Facebook and other platforms.)

More to the point, when companies launch Web 2.0 initiatives the success of them rests on whether they can engage enough regular people to contribute to their platforms, and tell others to get involved with them. Those audiences might be consumers or professionals but, I assure you, they are by and largely regular people.

And, as I've said again and again (and yes, again):

The story is not that social media enables us to connect to the world. The story is that, given access to one another, the world is now actively connecting (and swapping stories).

Regular people. The vast majority of them using FREE tools. To freely voice their likes, dislikes, rants, raves, passions, preferences, pain points... and, yes, a lot of what they're doing/eating/watching on TV at that exact moment.

Think of it this way: just as there would be no television networks without programming created by studios and no magazines without columnists and reporters, there would be no social media if not for the people using these tools to (1) create, innovate and share content and (2) building communities and networks around their interests.

So where we needed CBS to fuel broadcast TV, Life Magazine to fuel print magazines and Amazon/eBay/Google to fuel Web 1.0, we need the everyday tweeters, diggers, MySpacers, Facebookers, commenters and bloggers to fuel social media. Ergo, unlike all other media, every day folks (regular people) don't just consume this space's content, they create it... and in turn, power this space.

Now, will companies lose money in this space? Yep. Many will falter at their first attempt and a bunch of offerings will never get off the ground. But this notion of a "Web 2.0 bubble bursting and dying!!" would mean that people, like, millions and millions of them, would suddenly *poof* burst--and worse, die. 

Marketers, welcome to the 'New Transparency' (and if you think that means "full disclosure" then you're missing the full story).

In the Web 2.0 environment, when companies are marketing with social media, you’re bound to hear the word “transparency.” And you’re bound to hear it a lot. Thought leaders exclaim “Transparency is critical!” because people appreciate honesty. Actually, they downright expect it.

For example, if an employee from a company that sells, say, trucks, start participating in online forums that are discussing trucks and the employee starts chatting up how a specific truck (that their company manufactures) is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the employee doesn’t disclose--nor does the employee make it obvious--that he works at that truck-manufacturing company, then the employee has not been transparent... because he has not been up front about his truck-promoting agenda.

And that’s a BIG no-no (both online and offline). Further, by not disclosing any product bias or affiliation, it not only reflects poorly on the professional, but far more so on the company for which the professional works. It's a rule that all companies should abide--because when we disclose there is no deception, or question thereof.

Plus, if you don’t practice transparency in your communications, you’ll eventually, and many times quite quickly, be “outed" for not being transparent, since you did not fully disclose your position or agenda in your marketing programs and communications. And this is when controversies, backlashes and boycotts ensue, which place the reputations of both brands and companies at great risk. It's simply not worth the negative consequences. To be frank, it's not even an option for companies worth their salt given it's so highly unprofessional.

But that is not where the implications of transparency in this new era start and end. Nowhere near. The 'New Transparency' is not limited to employees (and promotional representatives) disclosing their professional affiliations to brands, it extends to users disclosing their personal experiences and perceptions with brands--and doing so in front of your entire brand audience.

Want to master high-tech marketing? Start by going really low-tech.

Over the past three years it has been a sheer pleasure to write this blog and, more so, to learn from all the brilliant minds who publish so many great blogs. In so doing, I'm afforded the advantage of participating in a dynamic professional community that is constantly teaching me new ideas, remarkable insights and breakthrough methodologies. I even learn new ways to tackle age-old problems.

And in an economy based on sharing--with its fervent exchange of ideas, expertise and knowledge--my learning curve is constantly at full tilt as I'm gleaning so many different views and viewpoints. I grow, and my work grows better.

But even in my avid personal use of these media, and in my use of them professionally, one thing I know for certain is that nothing... not a single thing... can replace the value received through hands-on, face-to-face training.

No amount of books, blogs, conferences, e-conferences, ebooks, checklists, podcasts, position papers, Webinars or Web tools can equate to the level of impact that on-site instruction and professional guidance yields.

(And if I’m wrong on this premise? Then not only am I owed a whopping sum of cash back from college tuition fees, but business school owes me a mountain of money back, too.)

A book doesn’t answer you. A blog might not be able to answer you right away, or address the specific challenges you have at that moment. A conference is a space where you are but one in an audience of many. And during a podcast, you can’t interrupt the professional to clarify a complex point... you can only rewind the podcast and hope that you grasp that point when listening to it a second time. Or a third.

Oh the things those (fear!) demons make us do. The only thing more dreadful? The things those demons make us NOT do.

I've come to the realization that I'm not a marketer. Or maybe I should say I'm not only a marketer. Over the years, my role has evolved into 2 parts marketer + 1 part guide + 1 part therapist. 'Twas not intentional. But it's certainly called for in these disruptive times.

Because in transitioning companies to social media requires my tapping into all these roles. Why? The short answer is: fear of the unknown. Marketers now find themselves in uncharted territory that's defined by change and rife with ways to falter.

And hey, that's scary stuff.

You see, Web 2.0 (aka "social media") is more than a set of new technologies. Conversely, social media heralds an entirely new era that places customers in control because it puts dynamic media tools within everyone's reach. As a result, it changes so much of what marketers have learned up until now--and has companies of all shapes and sizes scrambling to keep pace with consumers. My how things change, and quickly so.

Exciting times? Definitely. An age that's ripe with revenue opportunities? Most definitely. Scary era for marketers? Definitely x infinity!

So while the marketer and the guide part of my role helps me teach companies the opportunities and best practices, and facilitates the necessary shift in their mindsets, the therapist part of my role is laser-focused on their fears. Because fear tends to make us not act, instead of take action. And we want companies to be proactive in their use of these new tools, not paralyzed by their fear of them.

Thus, it is here where we let the (fear) demons loose. Oh if only I had the budget to stream some CGI graphics where I could simulate demons encircling the room... maybe one day.

To get it right, start with asking the right questions.

I've written posts aplenty on how imperative it is that marketers--before diving into social media--truly understand this environment, both the tremendous opportunities it poses for companies and the best practices it demands from them.

Because Web 2.0 isn't just a shift in one's media spend but a shift in one's mindset. 

In recent months, I've also posted on how much upfront work is necessary before you get to the actual work of building out your social media presence and programs. Because while many things have changed in this new era, the need for a solid strategy and strong plan absolutely have not.

And a strategy warrants due diligence which means marketers need to do their research, assess their options, address their challenges... and come to a lot of answers. Yet, to get to the right set of answers you need to ensure you're asking the right questions.

(While this may seem obvious, you'd be amazed how often companies, even though they don't plan to fail, do fail to wisely plan.)

So, on that note, I've created a set of questions, organized by category, that can serve as a nifty checklist for companies when approaching this space. But it covers a lot (!) of ground so I've published the list on its own page right here.

(Happy Planning)

Whether or not you like these tools doesn't matter (it NEVER did). What matters is whether your markets do (it ALWAYS has).

I've been seeing (and mainly hearing) several of my very brainy colleagues talking about how they find so many Web 2.0 tools downright inane. To be fair, many label them "just plain stupid."

Last week alone I spoke to 3 of my talented peers about this subject and was astonished at their stance. I was not astonished at their personal preference-- hey, use the tools or don't, I don't care as that choice is certainly not mine to make or impose upon another. It's up to each and every person. Oh how I love choice.

I'll only suggest my colleagues use these tools when I think they might find value in them... and if it were me, I'd be happy that my colleagues wanted me to participate since it signals that they value my opinions and like my company.

But what's astonishing (read: myopic) is when they take their personal preferences and apply those to their markets. And that's when I become mouthy.

Because we shouldn't be speaking for our markets, we should be listening to them speak to us--be it through their feedback, media preferences, product consumption and so on.

Making Sure Your Brands Don't "Boob" With Markets

A business can easily charge more when a person super-sizes their meal. Yet it's not so easy for companies that charge more due to a person's size. And a company can charge higher fees for users needing more bandwidth when hosting multiple Web sites. But it becomes very tricky when a company scales its prices according to personal width.

One certainly pays more for an SUV than a hatchback because the SUV isn’t only richer in features, it’s more robust due to its sheer mass. And we don’t mind paying more for products that are of a genuine (or perceived) higher quality than those of lower stature… just look at the price of any branded product on your local supermarket shelf compared to the generic one it's stacked next to.

In air travel, people now have to pay a premium when toting more of their stuff on the plane, or they get a discount for not using as much cargo space with their luggage. And while that has outraged some, it’s nothing compared to the heat airlines are facing in attempting to charge a higher price of plus-sized passengers that need more than one seat during their flights—even though that airline only has so many seats to sell during any given flight, and cannot otherwise recoup those costs and losses.

And that brings us to the recent debacle on boobs. Or, more specifically, the pricing of some bras supporting them.

British retailer Marks & Spencer, known for its reasonably priced lingerie, began charging more—as much as $3 USD more—for bras sized DD and up. And their brand met with some mighty backlash from their market.Find out the scoop, and all the marketing lessons when facts give way to feelings, over at my most current column at The Daily Fix. Oh don't be a boob... hop on over there right now.

Sheeple, Kings, Popularity Contests and the Platforms that beget them.

Seems I’ve spent the past week a split personality. On the one side I’ve been promoting the living daylights out of the ego-free, breath-of-fresh-air that is Susan Boyle.

And on the other? I’ve been balking over Ashton Kutcher’s popularity contest that smacks of nothing but a super-sized ego. (No, I really don’t want fries with that.)

But balk as I might--and plenty of opinions have I--Ashton Kutcher's "Twitter Challenge" not only brought him tons of publicity, it gave us all a front-row seats to many marketing lessons. Ironically, in this new dawn of new tools many of the lessons reflect age-old principles.

To learn about the promotion and read my take on all: come join me over at The Daily Fix for my latest column.

(Yes, sheep, kings and egos are involved. Come check it out!)

Hold the Plastic Marketers, Your Markets Want Pure.

In my latest column over at The Daily Fix I'm talking pure, not plastic, and the tremendous benefits of creating platforms that level, not limit, playing fields... by breaking new ground through removing old barriers.

I use the incredible story of Susan Boyle as a prime (pure!) example of this model.

My message? Don't fake and force authenticity---you'll fall flat every time because, no matter your budget, you can't bottle the stuff--focus instead on creating platforms that allow innovation, new products, services, markets and, yes, stars, to be discovered (or uncovered).

Trust me, this world has enough plastic.

The post is here.

(And thanks to Women Unlimited, a site out of the U.K., for also running the piece!)

In challenging the leader, your biggest challenge is perception (not your product).

Warning: this post contains spoilers from the movie “Bottle Shock” (released in 2008), and while the film is based upon historical events that occurred in 1976, please do not proceed further if you’re planning on seeing the movie--or don't like learning about history. And now that you've been warned, movie spoilers and marketing lessons shall now commence...

I recently watched the movie “Bottle Shock", a film based upon the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976 commonly known as the “Judgment of Paris”, a blind wine-tasting competition between French and California whites and reds. Until this time, French wines had a corner on the market, with California wines considered posers or bargain-basement drinks commonly found in dorm rooms.

The event was organized by Steven Spurrier, a British wine merchant with a shop in Paris. Spurrier was not an advocate of California wines, in fact at the time he only sold French wine. But he desperately needed promotion in order to increase profits.

Hungry for exposure, and to be taken seriously, the Californians were excited to be a part of the promotion. And the French were open to the challenge because they considered themselves unstoppable... after all, their wines were legendary. So one could say it was a duel between ambition and arrogance. To the surprise (shock!) of all, California wines rated best in BOTH the white and red categories.

Here's the trailer for more context (RSS readers click through to the blog to view):

Now, the Californians wouldn’t have won had they not put their all into an exemplary product. But the product wasn’t the problem. Perception was. And that’s a devil if ever there was one in the marketing craft. Because people love surprises, upsets and underdogs--but they don't much fancy their perceptions being challenged. So the facts need to be irrefutable but they need to be presented creatively. And that's where marketing comes in.

The takeaway for marketers? In challenging leaders you’re competing against perception FAR more than product. So you need to identify strategies and tactics that will level the playing field--so as to cut through the thick layer of perception. In this instance the taste-testing competition was “blind” with all wines only being judged on taste, color, odor. But in order to really break through the insights need to be presented in a manner that excites and amazes people so that they celebrate their surprise... in this case it was the French who were judging the wines.

The other takeaway? Once myths are shattered, your product can break through, but so too can others. As the competition didn’t just open the long locked-down playing field to the Americans--but the entire world. At the end of the movie the event organizer explains:

“We have shattered the myth of the ‘invincible French vine’ and, not just in California… we’ve opened the eyes of the world. Mark my words, we’ll be drinking wines from South America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India, China. This is not the end, this is just the beginning. Welcome to the future.”

In 2006, to mark the 30-year anniversary of the event, they held another competition. The Californians won.

Again.

PS: For a show that is based upon leveling the playing field for talent--and a STUNNING perception-bending surprise, enjoy this segment.

Going green needs to take a lot less gray (matter)

In reading this article today, I was brought to the site of an agency (TerraChoice) that has developed a laudable, inspired program to cut down on the act of "greenwashing." What is greenwashing, you ask?

Greenwashing is "the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service." To that end, the agency has created a nifty campaign titled, "The Six Sins of Greenwashing" and you can download the report in full...as well as a wallet card that will aid in greener purchasing.

The wallet card is especially neat as it breaks down the information into an easier format featuring six questions--that map to the "six sins"--for consumers to use as a guide when making product purchases.

Overall, the campaign is darn cute, well-intentioned and handy. In other words, all the oh-so-clever things I rave about.

And here comes the BUT.

Problem is, even in a great format, we are still asking consumers to do a lot of critical thinking. According to the six questions, consumers will need to assess areas like (1) hidden proof, (2) vagueness, (3) irrelevance, (4) fibbing and a few more.

That's a lotta action points.

With. Every. Single. Purchase.

What's more? We're asking consumers to do this critical thinking when they're at places like the supermarket.

And at the hardware store.

At WalMart.

But navigating through the metropolis that is your local WalMart--with two kids in tow, no less--demands an abundance of focus and energy on its own, no?

Yet what so many marketers--the six sins being but one example--are expecting of consumers is to assess if the product they're about to buy is really green, just sorta green, too suspicious to be green...or the same product with a tree next to its logo for good measure.

Not gonna happen. (I'll bet green money on it)

With big-ticket, high-involvement purchases--like cars--then, sure, people are prone to run through a battery of internal Q&A before acting. But that is the purchase exception and far from the rule. The rule is that people don't have that type of bandwidth when making every day, split-second purchase decisions.

And it's those everyday, split-second purchasing decisions that will have the most impact.

The fact is, besides large companies making viable choices in how they can operate more efficiently--and getting global buy-in from major energy economies like China, too-- it's the gazillions of actions and billions of purchases that consumers make day-in/day-out that are going to make the BIG differences.

Some of those actions include unplugging your cellphone charger when not needed, decreasing AC and heat usage by a few degrees or bringing your own re-usable bags to the grocery store. Others will be to buy more efficient light bulbs and greener cleaning supplies.

The other problem? Marketers (of course).

Marketers pore through hours of copy and brainstorming sessions to plot how their product can claim green-ness. Some marketers can easily claim this, others have to bend the truth. And others outright lie.

Even the agency's CEO knows we're asking much too much--this is how the article ends: "With such a barrage of eco-messages slapped on products these days even McDougall concedes that "the six sins of greenwashing" might be too much for consumers to remember when out shopping.

So, in a nutshell, what's his advice? 'The most essential guide I can offer consumers is; choose the product that appears to be doing its best to educate you, to offer you information and in precise language.'"

Ergo, winning the green fight--or winning "green revenues," depending upon how you look at it--is an object lesson in simplicity (and, I'd argue, believability). That does not mean it can't be creative, but it needs to be simply so.

Regulatory agencies are going to need to lay down the law of what can be green-stamped and what constitutes greenwashing. But marketers need to make this process easy if they want for consumers to buy in and, um, buy from them.

Because if I can't spend the time vetting six questions--and I'm a marketer in the 1% who obsesses over product messaging in my local supermarket--I can promise you that the remaining 99% won't either. Sustainable strategies for greening the mainstream is what I seek (and in marketing Mother Earth, simple is my mantra.)

PS: As for fellow marketers? The wallet card and that full report are very much worth checking out right here.

In a summer of superheroes how's about we make the hero LESS super?

So far this summer we've had Iron Man, BatMan, the Incredible Hulk and, I think, Hellboy is coming back. And I've likely missed one or two. (Does Indiana Jones qualify as a superhero...or just a super character?)

Granted, these superheroes are not only super, they're also grappling with the responsibilities of being, well, super. After all, being super is a lot on a person--even if you're made of iron, have a smokin' batmobile, came from hell or give new meaning (and green muscles) to the definition of "getting angry".

And now that I've lumped all of those superheroes together, I'm going to turn my attention to the one movie that stands apart.

It's titled Hancock, a not-so-super-of-a-hero movie. (see trailer below, RSS readers click through to the blog to view). Sure, the character can fly and beat people up. But he apparently causes more collateral damage than goodwill. It's not that his character is hung-up on brooding about his lot in life... he's just hung over.

His flaws, which make him more real and less hero, are not his true problem. Apathy is. It makes for sloppy work, warrants for his arrest, a public relations crisis and a personal journey that is exactly the stuff upon which successful movies are made (oh how we love to watch our characters transform their lives.)

And that makes Hancock different than the rest. Different is good for brands and it's very good for stories (and many marketers say a brand is a story). As a result, I suspect this movie will do super at the box office. Time will soon tell. (update: my prediction was right)

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not advocating sloppy work, apathy or drinking. I'm encouraging "different" thinking because that leads to innovative branding. When you position your brand as far as possible from "all the rest" instead of the "best of all," then all the rest no longer matter. Because you're in your own league now.

And when you're in your own league you're far less concerned with outdoing your competition and far more focused on perfecting your own act. So let the rest be heroes because you're truly super.

Here's the trailer...

Now here's a clever way to get your market to be your marketer

When it comes to including your audience in an oh-so-2.0 way, I have to say I'm delighted with the idea and execution of this Weather.com promotion below. And who the heck knew that David Berkowitz could be such a ham for the cameras?

(Seriously folks, David has been a dear friend of mine for years and I had no idea he could be so, um, dramatic!)

This video was taped at the Mobile Marketing Forum he attended last week and Weather.com succeeded in getting him to their booth...keeping him there...getting his buy-in to promote their brand...and having him advertise for them thereafter at his own blog. If I were a sports metaphor kind of gal I'd say that's a home run.

Moreover, David has a keepsake that gives him value by giving the readers of his blog--and now readers of this blog--some entertainment. Clever, indeed.

Logistically speaking, between taping an introduction by a Weather.com correspondent that is re-used scores of times over, an all-purpose script, some digital film, a teleprompter, branded microphone, branded jacket and employees to compile the videos, I'm betting this was a cost-effective marketing tactic, to boot.

Alas, for my long-time readers, I'm glad to report that I am finally happy with an advertisement featuring David's mug since THIS other type of 2.0 ad strategy that used his name and face didn't please this marketer a bit. RSS and email subscribers please click through to the blog to view the 1-minute video below. Enjoy ;-).

This post is about Karaoke. Except not really.

This weekend I went to Karaoke with a few of my friends. One of them is a pitch-perfect singer, one is assuredly not.  The crowd was equally split between people who use Karaoke as way to get their singing fix and those who just want to be silly.

To be sure, I fall into the latter group as marketing, not music, is my expertise.

I've not done Karaoke a tremendous amount in my life; maybe three or four times all told. It's an absolute blast and I enjoy it, but it's never been an entertainment activity that I pursue on a regular basis like, say, film or theatre.

And while Karaoke was a brilliant invention, this post isn't about the activity or the technology. It's about the man (the host) who was facilitating this particular show. He was a Karaoke master.

Except not really.

While he had a perfect voice, quickly got many people up on stage (and then got them off the stage), had top-notch equipment and an affable disposition, his gift is the most natural form of marketing that I've seen in some time.

In fact, I enjoyed watching him as much as I did the vast--and varied!--range of characters crooning to hits spanning the 50s -90s.

Why was he so good? Because he helped everyone look better. Be it shaking the tambourine to complement their particular musical selection, chiming-in to provide them a real-time back-up chorus, ensuring that everyone got a chance to sing, helping them muster their courage when starting out a song...or helping them get back on track when they got lost between lyrics...his facilitation led to a more excited crowd (energy is crucial in Karaoke), a more relaxed group (thus, more participation--as Karaoke is not so fun when only 4 people do a zillion songs each) and a crowd that will come back for more of his shows...and refer him to more gigs.

Because when you stand out, people notice when your brand is missing--be it from supermarket shelves or other Karaoke venues with mediocre hosts (who only facilitate the efficacy of the tools, not the experience).

And while the Karoake equipment is his tool, his facilitation technique is his true product/brand...with his attention to detail and customers as his differentiators. Sure, anyone can buy equipment (Karaoke machines, microphones, an exhaustive library of songs, a set of top-notch speakers). But tools are just that and are easily replicated.

Those that are gifted, or are just natural marketers--no matter their profession--place their focus on their customers (instead of the tools). And thusly, those are the brands that win hearts, minds and market share. Because those are the brands for which there simply are no alternatives.

Amazing how many companies and professionals focus on tools, not craft, and focus on equipment instead of customer experiences. Perhaps they, too, need to attend this particular Karaoke show to see natural marketing in action.

Oh, my Karaoke selections included songs from Garth Brooks, The Beatles and Journey. I botched all of them equally. I'm sorry I didn't get any of these on video for you to enjoy; I truly wasn't thinking ;-).

Good on Sex for knowing its age

Manhattan's martini-soaked sitcom Sex and The City is coming to the Big Screen at month's end. I'll catch it with my best girlfriends and we'll giggle, and have a round (or two) of cosmos afterward.

But what I'm most happy with is the approach they're taking with the females. Because while those girls are still very sexy, they're now grown women.

Let's remember the series debuted 10 years ago when they were in their early 30s (and Samantha was in her early 40s). And those women have been off the air for four years. So, instead of picking up right where it left off, the show's writers are taking a still fun, but more mature approach with their characters.

According to Sarah Jessica Parker, "You cannot pretend we're 32, still running around New York drinking with liberty and looking for interesting sexual partnerships. It would have been vulgar. None of us wanted to do that." And so the film begins not where the series left off four years ago, but in the present.

Ahh, as it should be. And as such, a lesson to many marketers.

In an age where authenticity rules--and in an era when the youngest of the baby boomers are moving into their fifties--marketers need not only realize how their brands have aged, they should embrace it.

Keep your offerings relevant. Offer loads of value. But understand that just as your audiences age, your brands mature, too. If you're aching to to position your brand differently or skew younger? Don't give your brands a heaping dose of identity disorder (and a really tacky facelift), spin-off entirely new brands.

Because time waits for no (wo)man. And time needn't be your foe. Fact is, we trust brands that have stood the test of time (think IBM, GE or Coca-Cola). But we mock those that try to dress like 30 when they're 60 (think Xerox). Or try to act 25 when they're 15.

And we altogether ignore those brands that think throwing a sporty spokesperson in the mix will fool a younger demographic into buying their product.

Dear Microsoft: Please stay dorky. It's who you are...and it works.

My oh my this Microsoft video (below) has been getting tons of feedback across the marketing community (mainly via Twitter) as well as the overall Web. An internal video for their sales force, it wasn't supposed to "get out" but it did.

And the reaction has overwhelmingly been negative.

Sorry, I fail to see it.

In fact, I think it's terrific--both the video, as well as that it got to the overall public.

(Yes, I pretty much seem to stand alone in my dorky assessment.)

Folks, this video is obviously intended as a sales-team motivator on their latest enterprise version of Vista. As I understand, the commercial audience's reaction to Vista was pretty tepid. And the consumer reviews of Vista that I caught were downright negative. (I can't voice opinion on that front as I don't use the Vista software.)

So, Microsoft used a video in efforts to energize a sales team that had faced some challenges on making quota and is working to rally the troops around an improved product. And instead of a bo-ring (!) PowerPoint slideshow with pie charts and bar graphs galore (yawn), they're extolling the product's key benefits through a catchy jingle that spoofs Bruce Springsteen's famous "Dancing In The Dark" video. Very smart.

And geez, dontcha think the poor sales team has suffered enough pie charts?

The video itself? High production values. And highly dorky. But it's supposed to be silly and dorky (um, there's a security superhero in it along with silly characters jumping for joy over software).

Folks, Microsoft will never be cool. Nor should they ever strive to be. Steve Jobs they're not--nor should they try to emulate or aspire to Apple's hipness factor. As they'll fail miserably. And it's simply not true to their brand.

But silly, dorky videos? Ah, that's much more in-line with a brand that will always be associated with America's #1 Geek Bill Gates.

My BIG hope? That Microsoft corporate will NOT take the negative feedback--now that the "internal" video got out and is facing a negative backlash--and go back to ho-hum, no-risk, corporate pie-chart presentations. Because that would be a crime...mainly to their sales team who will now have to sit through endless pie charts and bar graphs again. Sigh.

Please, Microsoft, stay dorky and don't fear being silly. It's who you are. Embrace and delight in that this video was released to the public. And maybe be more silly with your consumer commercials, too. While the video gives me several giggles, it was supposed to do just that...and it certainly is memorable. What's more? Because it's bravely silly, it increases my respect for you.

But pie charts and bar graphs will not.

And worry not, I've been a MAJOR dork. Lots of times. It's part of who I am, too. (And my readers deserve many giggles at my expense ;-)

Here is the dorky video--RSS and email subscribers please click through to the blog to view it.

David goes to lots of events. David blogs a lot, too. So David innovated a sponsorship that adds value to his readers, not just him. And that makes CK very happy.

Disclaimer: this post is sponsored by the three (marketing) musketeers known as the brave, fighting-for-good forces of: transparency, authenticity and value.

David Berkowitz and I have been going back and forth regarding his brand spankin' new "media sponsorship policy" that he initiated on April 18th (our interactions have been over email). The policy focuses on his blog--and of course him--sponsoring certain marketing events.

And I have to say that I'm very pleased with it.

NOTE: To long-time readers who know how sensitive I am on social media sponsorships and the like, I want to assure you that indeed the world is still spinning even though I actually just wrote that I'm pleased with a sponsorship deal.

Why am I pleased? Because of:

• How David is looking to add value to his blog (clever!) while bringing value to his readers.
• How his new sponsorship is rooted in an authentic passion of his--seriously, that dude gets around a lot, and speaks at and attends conferences left, right and center.
• How upfront and respectful his policy is of his blog's audience.
• How responsive he has been to all my questions and recommendations.

Contribute or Contaminate? You choose (please choose the first)
With how focused I am on doing right by customers and protecting the integrity of the community, many would think that I'm altogether against sponsorships and Blogger Outreach Programs. Nope. What I am, is a supporter of having them done right.

Why do I care so much?

Because we are afforded the astonishing privilege of living in precedent-setting times. And as a result of this groovy disruption, we have an opportunity to make things better. How? By contributing to this space, and caring greatly for the growth of its bloggers and readers.

Moreover, I see these precedent-setting times as a responsibility not to contaminate. Because, let's face it, marketers have so far contaminated every other medium.

Just look at the amount of bogus direct mail that INVADES your home....thank goodness TiVo lets us skip ads that SHOUT at us...we actually have a federally regulated Do Not Call list in this country because people were feeling STALKED by telemarketers while they were trying to enjoy dinner with their kids....and we have entire services dedicated to BLOCKING the pop-up ads that disrupt our online experience--in desperate attempts for us to "click here".

So, um, marketers' track record of not contaminating is not so good. (It's not only our planet that we've polluted, folks.)

It's Deja Vu All Over Again...
Wait...what's that...what's that you say? You say that the above seems to align with what I wrote about here only a year ago? It certainly does. (Yippee)

Long-time readers will remember when I was outspoken on the Nikon program. I also hope you remember that I not only detailed my issues with it, but also provided recommendations on such programs. Because just as I have a responsibility to contribute (not contaminate); when I'm outspoken I have a responsibility to offer solutions (not just rant).

Here again, is the 3-Point Paradigm:

• Transparency: Transparency is crucial, credible and ethical. But it doesn't add value, it ensures honesty.
• Authenticity: The reason that we're the "new influencers" is not because we have it in our power to blog about something and effect the world--it's because we organically decide what products, services, practices and people deserve praise or poor marks and that's pretty empowering. We base it on the virtue of the product's superiority, availability and price--the novelty, too. So the benchmark is: would you organically and authentically blog on this product with no other incentive besides it's just that great, or just that bad?
• Value: The program, product, whatnot, should add value to the community (the entire community) as well as to the company.

Let's assess: Through his policy and blog posts, David has been uber-transparent. He authentically enjoys going to and covering marketing conferences. And the coverage and post-event lessons learned that he shares add value to all, as they are freely available at his blog.  Oh, if you're wondering, he doesn't take money for the sponsorship, he instead gets promotion for his blog--which engages new readers for which he can provide value.

And his sponsorship deal does not affect what he writes about his event experiences: good, bad or indifferent. I should also add a note here that since these conferences cover marketing, search, disruptive technologies and social media, they are very relevant to his blog's marketing audience. So I need to add "relevancy" to that paradigm.

Which would make it a 4-Point Paradigm. (so noted going forward)

And I thank Jonathan Trenn and Alan/Toad who gave me the 'relevancy/targeting' feedback a year ago. Because like David, I, too, am still finding my way in this brave new medium and very much need feedback.

David's media sponsorship policy is here. And his first sponsorship is right here. He really appreciates wants your input.

The show--and the show's marketing--must go on

In my Friday reading, I came across an interesting piece discussing how the crew of the upcoming Batman movie, The Dark Knight, has decided to keep their movie and their movie's marketing on schedule and untouched. For those that may not know, this is the movie that stars the recently deceased Heath Ledger and is due out this summer.

To be sure, Heath Ledger's death was/is both a shock and a tragedy. I've been a fan of the actor since his 2001 role in A Knight's Tale--a medieval story about overcoming odds with a terrific supporting cast to Ledger's lead. But due to his passing--and specifically due to the extreme, psychopathic character Ledger plays in the Batman sequel (or sequel to the prequel?)--some think the marketing should not be as focused on him.

See, he doesn't play a silly-and-fun Joker like Jack Nicholsan did in the 80s version. Nowhere near. He plays a dark, sick-and-very twisted Joker. And he, not Batman, is truly the center of the movie's marketing campaign.

There's been plenty of talk that Ledger grappled immensely with the morally devoid character and that filming took a toll on him. To paraphrase, he wanted to do right by the part but found the character so deplorable that it gave him a raised level of anxiety and insomnia as he wanted to do right by the role.

But he was thrilled to play the part, no matter how hard the work. Because storytelling was his passion.

I agree with Director Christopher Nolan that neither the film nor any of its Joker-centric marketing should be changed. Because by NOT changing anything truly honors Ledger's tremendous effort and brilliant outcome--as well as the turmoil that the actor endured in telling the story. After all, it's more often the case that magnificent accomplishments are the result of very hard, dedicated work.

To soften it...or even slightly change it...would be to discredit the body of work, and the very talent that worked so hard to create it. And hey, we all know it's just a movie (not real life) and Ledger was merely breathing life into a character that would otherwise exist only on the page.

So in this case, I concur that Hollywood should not touch a thing. The show that Ledger dedicated himself to must go on just as he understood it would. And, as the article reports, after having seen the trailer, Ledger was amazed by his work (even asking to "see it again').

I'm so glad that he was able to at least see a trailer before he passed on (once a movie is finished "production" it can be in post-production for months, even a year, as editing is a tedious and exhaustive, frame-by-frame process). A trailer featuring Ledger is below, RSS and email subscribers please click through to the blog to view it. It looks to be quite a movie with well-defined characters.