CK's Blog

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.

Durex's new play on sex play

I've always found it odd how conservative this country (USA) is about sex. Take selling sex toys, that's a big no-no on broadcast TV (yet we can still push plenty of booze and bogus pills).

But, um, here's a BIG ol' reality check: sex toys are the safest type of sex one can have.

(I know, I know, "abstinence is the safest sex, yadda, yadda," but this blog doesn't hold such unrealistic discussions. People surely abstain for their own reasons and I respect that. But the masses do not abstain because of a safety message.)

In fact, I've never seen reports of unwanted pregnancies or contracting STDs from, well, going at it alone. And not for nothin', sex toys don't get tired and are not selfish partners...OK, OK, I'll stick to the "marketing angle" (yawn).

Durex has launched a new line of "massagers" and it's a smart move. Because they're the first mainstream condom company--to my knowledge--to do so and I do not see this line extension as cannibalizing their condom cash cow (for obvious reasons). And it just underscores Durex's plight to be known for "pleasure"--a word/positioning that Durex has long been going after--so it doesn't dilute their branding.

According to the "Durex Play" site: "We believe in sexual freedom. And in playing. And not taking sex too seriously, accepting that we are human beings, and experimenting with what feels best. We hope that through our wide range of products we can give people the confidence to fully enjoy their sexuality, and to develop happier, healthier, more fulfilling sexual relationships."

Their packaging? Pretty, fun and graceful (see above). You can choose from "wands", "gems" or "charms". With copy like that, me thinks they should come with a "tiara", no? And their ads? Phenomenal and true to "not taking sex too seriously". I doubt you'll see these in the States, btw, as we're way too conservative to talk about something as risque as safe sex.

But what I like about the following two ads is that they focus on women of different age groups. RSS and email subscribers please click through to the blog to view these and, yes, it's totally worth the trip. Here's both of them. Also, if Durex is reading this...please scroll down to my disclaimer. Thanks!

PS: I've written about another ad by Durex before--and it's absolutely charming.

Disclaimer: If Durex contacts me with a promotional goodie, I might just have to re-think my "NO SWAG for Ink" policy. Oh wait, since I've already written about them--from a purely authentic standpoint--I'm in the clear. (Phew!)

Hold on...have I forgotten I'm a marketer?

Dear Durex: I'm part of a committee that is spearheading a  groundbreaking (!) "social" event happening in NYC in 30 days with nearly 90 TOP marketing bloggers from 8 countries and 20 U.S. States traveling to NYC boasting a jam-packed event schedule. While we're not featuring any corporate sponsors, we are lavishing our attendees with special goodie bags filled with items ranging from technology gadgets...to brainy books...to cool apparel. These items are all donated by various companies because they get the rare opportunity to make a great impact on today's top thought leaders--who, consequently, are also known for generating "buzz". So make a smart marketing move, along with all the other smart companies, and please put a little 'love' in our goodie bags. We'll need 90.  (Does CK look out for her community, or what?)

The funny (and fruitful) nature of authenticity

Authenticity is a funny thing. Funny in that it shouldn't necessarily be tough to do, or hard to be. Being authentic, after all, means being genuine and being true to one's personality, passions and beliefs. So in that vein, being authentic is, or should be, second nature (maybe even 'first' nature). It should just come naturally.

But where it gets funny is that we find it, confirm it...and give ourselves 'permission' to practice it...in the wildest of ways.

I'm going to make a BIG note here before delving further: in this post I'm speaking about authenticity from the angle of people NOT from the viewpoint of "authentic brands" and "authenticity in branding." The reason I point out this difference is because authenticity in branding--while it still means and implies "genuine"--is a different topic. It's altogether different when were talking about upholding a brand's authenticity (a non-human entity) that is created and maintained by a company (by several people in that entity). Yes, a lot of the same principles absolutely apply...but this post focuses on people, not brands. Just wanted to be clear as I write on both (being I'm both a person + a marketer of brands ;-).

Recently my pal David Reich posted on "10 Steps to Happiness," a piece that was inspired by a great post from Lewis Green that tagged several people to voice-in with their advice (Lewis, you tagged me on this same exercise and I apologize that it's taken me a while, but this truly qualifies as my answer on your great question).

In his post, David included a list of many steps and then asked us our take. I responded that I had but one step for happiness as I see that all else stems from there: just be true to yourself. OK, so it's not a very groundbreaking answer but its effects sure do make a mountain of difference.

See, being "true" is being "genuine" and, ergo, being "authentic". I find that when people are unhappy, the leading reason is simply because they're not being true to what they want and what they need...be that out of a job, a relationship, or even an issue that they need to come to peace with due to it becoming an obstacle to what they really want to get out of life.

Pretty simple way to be happy, eh? Yup. The rub is maintaining it.

What do I mean? Well, for me to be true I need to work for myself. Why? Because in this format I'm assured of new challenges, lots of independence, always learning new competencies and forever being open to a host of new opportunities. Lots and lots of new is what I seek...and what I find.

But, in making this choice, I'm also assured that I'll have crazy (!) business quarters where I have too much work and other times when I'm wondering if I'll have enough work. Still, even with the roller coaster ride of working for oneself, being true to what I want and need absolutely wins out, and thusly works for me.

Another example is this very blog and the programs I create. While the tool is a blog, it's really a platform for my voice and ideas--and of course a tremendous vehicle for learning from the viewpoints of others. But in making the choice to put my true/authentic self out there, "Hello world, love or hate me, this is who I am!", I also run some risks.

You see, I have to make the decision on whether I'm willing to be silly enough to promote initiatives and principles I so very much believe in...and if I'm brave enough to speak out about initiatives and precedents that I so very much disagree with. Because I genuinely am a tremendously silly person, but I'm also very serious when it comes to best practices. Yep, I run the risky mix of silly CK (I've donned 'marketeer' ears, hitchhiked through Times Square and sailed the high seas) and serious CK (I've been very mouthy on spamming bloggers, botched blogger relations programs and efforts that violate privacy and work to manufacture WOM).

And while I find the two approaches are altogether natural, since they exemplify my passions of advancing the profession, the community and customer-centric practices, I run the risk of confusing or (eek!) even irritating my readers. Alas, I'm just not that girl that goes gently into that goodnight. So when I find an opportunity to create or improve--and while I might not always be right--I act upon it. Anything else would be untrue.

Which brings me to some feedback I received via email this week that really impressed upon me. Here's the feedback: "I love that you keep your personality and are so upbeat, it makes me feel like I can be who I am and make a mark in the business world."

Why did it impress upon me so much? Two reasons. First, it was a very kind note and it felt good to be the recipient (the first half of that statement). But, second, and more to my authentic point, because of the courage and confidence it gave to the person writing it (the second half of that statement).

I've posted on Mike Rowe before, the creator of the great TV series "Dirty Jobs," a show that goes to the depths of the dirtiest jobs on earth (sewers, food processing plants, alligator-infested swamps, etc.). He's profiled in this month's FastCompany and it really speaks to how, in finding his dream job, as dirty as it is, he found his authenticity.

Rowe used to look at acting gigs as "jobs between vacations" and now, even though he works harder than ever, he doesn't really feel it's a job (nor is it "acting" being he's keeping it very real). Moreover, it speaks to how--now that he's found his authenticity--he protects his brand, and is careful not to let it be tainted by overexposure or vis-a-vis the 'wrong' exposure.

So, in being true to his passion, Rowe found his inspiration and success. And the person that emailed me, in being authentic, found that they can make their mark. Lastly, as I explained above, in being true to myself through my work format, my voice and my actions, I've found my fulfillment.

Thusly, authenticity is a deep well of reward. It's so very much worth exploring and really worth sharing, even amid the risks. What's the kicker? While we're barraged with so many ways, practices, paradigms, methods, models, matrices and methodologies telling us how to be successful in business...the very basic principle of authenticity is what will likely get us the furthest in our careers (and happiest in our lives).

Told ya authenticity is a funny (and fruitful) thing.

Yo BtoB, Where's the Share? (PDF goodie inside)

In November 2006 I riddled on The "Share Economy" as the concept just rang so true as to what drives the 2.0 era (and because I'm fond of riddling ;-). It fascinated me so much that I wrote on the concept for my chapter in The Age of Conversation collaborative book.

Here's the concept in a nutshell: in racing to define this new era, pundits and professionals have been coining catchphrases ranging from the "knowledge economy" and the "innovation era" to the "conversation age." But, from where do knowledge, innovation and conversation stem? The answer rests in sharing: individuals actively and openly sharing information, insights and ideas with others. 

Therefore, the exchanging of ideas--how freely they're traded, how dynamically they spread, and the new ideas they inspire--is most aptly and accurately labeled "The Share Economy."

At first I was more 'consumer' focused when writing on the concept. But, as time marched on, I became ever more perplexed as to why the majority of BtoB marketers have been so slow to move on the tremendous opportunities of this medium... as BtoC marketers have been much more involved in the social media space (social media 'race'?). 

As I've written many times, I'm not at all of the mind that all companies need to blog. But I am most definitely of the (marketing) mind that all companies should be listening (see post & PDF on that front here).

Why? Because when our markets are talking--be it about our company, a competitive company, a need, or a new idea--they're doing us a tremendous favor. What's more? They're making our jobs much easier and far less precarious.

Listening qualifies as research and the core reason for research is to "reduce uncertainty"...but listening to online conversations is also a great way to identify new opportunities (reward) and gauge customer satisfaction levels (risk).

Now, along with being a fan of listening, I'm a (huge!) fan of creating value and facilitating idea exchanges--and all of these principles apply to BtoB's use of social media. Think about it for a moment...if I, as a consumer, am more likely to buy an MP3 for ninety-nine cents or a marketing book for nineteen dollars due to its high value being recommended to me by trustworthy sources (other professionals)...then it follows that I, as a professional, am going to be much more apt to invest in a nine thousand, or ninety-nine thousand dollar solution that has been authentically recommended or discussed when I'm looking to make such investments for my business.

Ergo, with purchases small and BIG, a real-world recommendation is most valuable when it comes to purchasing motivators and purchase decisions.

Yes, it's key to ensure these recommendations are authentic--and it's really easy to tell the difference when they're mock posts or seeded sales recommendations. But what is more key is that business professionals do not act differently than consumers. People do not step out of their cars after a long day at work, remove their "business hats" and put on "consumer hats" (but it would sure be silly if they did, eh?). Sure, they have different responsibilities and accountabilities when at work then when at play--and they need to look at purchases rationally, not just emotionally--but they follow the same habits of trusting "like people" more than "sales people" when making a consumer or a business purchase.

Sure, the businesses selling the offerings are going to regale their greatness ("For your dough, we're the best darn bread since sliced bread!"). But professionals, just like consumers, want to hear how great it is from people who've used the product and, moreover, from people who don't profit from recommending it. And that applies to any industry, be it communications, cars or construction equipment.

Net net: all this talk (sharing!) leads to a whole lotta purchasing action...and a heaping load of opportunity for BtoB marketers.

So, why oh why aren't more BtoB marketers hip to these opportunities? It could be skepticism, it could be fear, it could be inertia. Or it could just be that more of them need to better understand The Share Economy. And that's where this piece comes in. It's longer than a post, much shorter than a book. I'm hoping it will provide some rationale and reward for BtoB companies to open up to the opportunities and I'm also hoping it teaches best practices, too. (Psst: these best practices are as 'Marketing 101' as they are 'Web 2.0'.)

And, since I'm sharing this piece with clients and colleagues, I also want to share it with you (um, get the "share" theme?). It's located right here. Enjoy!

PS: a treasure trove of "social media goodies" that are yours for the taking are right here in this section. Look for more goodies to be added soon, too. Why? Because I like creating pieces that communicate best practices....and because I like sharing them with good people. That's why ;-).

Shutting up is such a great strategy (who'da thunk it?)

I've written a lot on listening. In fact, my number one piece of advice to any marketer, be it for online or offline efforts...whether focused on BtoB or BtoC audiences...in entertainment, electronics, energy or other industries...has been, and will always be, this shiny gem:

Listen to your markets, it's amazing what they'll teach you (if you let them).

You see, listening guards against our number one issue as marketers (that issue would be 'myopia'). And while we don't have a pill to cure myopia, processes dedicated to listening help very, very much.

Then came social media.

But that practice didn't go away.

Nope, it just became that much easier because it gave us the ability to create new listening processes--and it gave us the opportunity on a silver platter. For free. Yep, all of this rich information and insights actively (and freely!) circulating around us, all of it just waiting for smart marketers to do what they do best: turning market information into actionable marketing strategies.

After all, the true value proposition of social media for companies is that it gives them the ability to identify new markets, new opportunities, potential risks and needed improvements.

So, having penned about the practice of leading by listening several times now, I went one further-- and created a downloadable PDF on why listening processes are needed, what to listen for, and why. It's helpful for my prospects, clients and colleagues. And since I'm sharing it with them, I want to share it with you (it's accessible here).

Hey, thanks for listening to me...and most especially, for listening to them.

As it turns out, I did get coal for x-mas. Or, "Why companies should read blogs (as told for the zillionth time, even on x-mas day ;-)."

So I did get coal in my stocking this year. Actually, it's all I got in my stocking. (Because I got a new stocking along with it!)

Flash back a couple weeks ago and I was discussing an energy campaign I found effective. I mainly found it to be a "good example" because it didn't involve telling consumers that they needed to share in figuring out the energy crisis solution (Are we expecting consumers to build greenhouses while they're trying like mad just to keep their growing debt down? This is the wrong message, Chevron). Nor did they take Dow's approach that it takes hydrogen + oxygen to make water and, ergo, somehow they're very human now (to be sure, most everyone has lauded Dow's campaign so I'm the crazy there).

Nope, I appreciated this coal initiative because it's simple and fun, one could even rightly say 'campy' (spot is here) and so I wrote on it.

And in that post I also recommended a fun holiday campaign for them that aligned with their platform and the current holiday season, and... they took me up on it! Then they also overnighted this stocking and piece of coal to me right before x-mas (the "coal" is actually a big piece of chocolate, smart on their part, eh?).

My idea was this: "If I were working for this group, being it's the holidays, I would send the major media stockings full of coal--with "Made In America, Good and Clean for America!" labels on the coal lumps--and urge them to "look at clean coal technology differently," by regaling all of coal's benefits (maybe a lucky winner should get a diamond :-)."

While I would have gone the strictly media campaign route, I find it interesting and laudable to turn on a dime and actually give out stockings full of coal to consumers as it's much more work and logistical coordination in a tight timeframe (and I bet they sent to the media too, so they likely did both).

Plus, they did this in multiple cities: there's a shot of them at the Capitol, and they were at Obama's Nevada campaign headquarters along with giving out coal (chocolates) in South Carolina and Iowa. So I guess coal is actually a political issue, too. Who knew? Yes, I'm kidding ;-). Bravo to America's Power for listening.

net net: All America's Power had to do was a link search and then participate in the discussion. And they did just that. And good things happened...well, a lot of people got coal for Christmas but in this case that turned out to be a good thing ;-).

Disclaimer: CK's blog, nor CK, does not endorse or, consequently, not endorse this company. She does, however, thoroughly endorse that companies start listening to bloggers/the conversation (conversations centering on their products and competitive ones).

Why?

Because be those bloggers marketing experts with great ideas or be they customers with great ideas to innovate or improve, it's always valuable feedback. And it's unbiased. Oh, and it's free. So that's why.

That's also why I also can't understand why more companies don't listen. Do they think free feedback isn't valuable? Is it valuable only if based on a fundamentally skewed and pricey system like the focus group? Or do they think that no bloggers could possibly have such insight and ingenuity?

Since the majority still don't listen, I'm left with more questions than answers. But, maybe we'll see that change a lot in 2008 ;-).

PS: Oh geez, where are my manners? I also want to thank Mack, Tom, Lewis and Toby for taking part in that discussion, along with all you great readers. Sorry 'bout that.

Didn't buy the diamonds. Did buy the song.

While diamonds aren't a low-involvement/low-risk purchase, mp3s are. It's not at all odd for me to download a few songs each week, as a direct result of hearing them on television programs or commercials.

In fact I 'listen' to TV these days far more than I watch it.

Here's the latest great spot that was music to my ears (btw, the artist is Landon Pigg and the song is "Falling in Love at a Coffee Shop"). So these marketers did in fact move me to buy. Spot is below, RSS/email subscribers, just click through to the blog to view listen to it.

 

If I were a coal marketer, I'd likely go this (clean) route, too.

Note: Since this post aired, we've had participation from America's Power (thank you). This is a great example of a conversation that is better due to company involvement...and thusly, I'm generating some ideas on how they can better promote their cause and, perhaps, overcome some challenges. Any ideas are welcome (because coal is not necessarily my forte...but maybe I have a future in it ;-). Do join in!

Here's a spot (see below) from America's Power. And while the first couple shots of a lump of coal are pretty darn ugly, the campy "It's a celebration!" song works well towards their desired goals.

And I like the messaging of "America's Power" far, far better than "Human Energy" (or "Human Elements"). On their site, it's worth noticing their category of "clean coal technologies" and how much they've invested in them.

Does make me wonder, though, how vast the difference really is between "dirty coal" and "clean coal"?  Now if they can deliver on that, they should show it in a spot featuring another campy song. Be the campy song coal initiative. Believe me, there are enough weeping violins in the aforementioned oil and chemical spots.

Also, if I were working for this group, being it's the holidays, I would send the major media a stocking full of coal--with "Made In America, Good and Clean for America!" labels on the coal lumps--and urge them to "look at clean coal technology differently," by regaling all of coal's benefits (maybe a lucky winner should get a diamond :-).

Update: They took me up on this idea and Santas will be handing out coal (it will be chocolate) next week in various places. I'll get some pics to show you soon.

I'm not sure if this outfit classifies as an organization, special interest group or lobbying arm but they're obviously funded by the coal producers. They're doing a great job with wording, from America's Power about page:

"Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) was formed in April 2000 to provide a voice to community leaders in the development of energy and environmental policies. To date, over 150,000 community leaders from all across the country have joined ABEC as a means of keeping informed on what is happening with energy and environmental policies at both the state and federal levels. Primary funding for ABEC’s outreach efforts come from America’s coal-based electricity providers.

As a group, we believe that America can continue to make great progress in improving environmental quality while at the same time enjoying the benefits of using domestic energy resources like coal to meet our growing demand for affordable, reliable and clean energy."

Btw, I spent a day a half-mile deep inside a coal mine in West Virginia--for a college course where we explored "a day in the life of" many situations (I also went to medium-security prison). The coal mine was a surreal experience, and one of the best of my life. There's not enough respect in the world for those who go into the mines everyday, and we lost far too many miners this year. I'd like to see more on the safety efforts and investing in those.

Here's the spot (RSS and email readers, click on through to the blog):

Show don't Tell (let the sperm tell the 'tale' for ya)

Note: This post was originally published on October 4th, but MarketingProfs-- through their new "Marketing Inspiration" newsletters--was kind enough to promote it this week. I guess it inspired them ;-). So I thought I'd run it again (it's just too cute not to and the lesson of "Show don't Tell" is an important one).

Here's a great example of "show don't tell" marketing (see ad below). I understand this particular commercial from Durex Condoms was banned...not exactly sure why, or if that's even true. It's cute and funny and the message of "for a hundred million reasons" comes through (no pun, really) loud and clear.

Not once did it have to show sex--or say a single word. The ad speaks to women as much as it does to men (actually, it really speaks to women since, well, they're after her--yikes!). And those sperm are just so cute, no?

Remember what Serta Mattresses did with their "sheep campaign" and even had stuffed animals? Those suckers still sell on eBay. I contend Durex could have done the same thing with these sperm (though again, I think this was banned).

I'm sure that Serta is just loving being cited alongside Durex Condoms. Hey, both products are bed related.

Spot is below, RSS readers go here, or just click through to this post.

Show don't Tell (and strive for simplistic elegance)

Ah, simplistic elegance. (spot is below)

It makes this marketer very happy. (smiley face here)

Because it's so darn effective.

It need not have bells, whistles, flash and fire to get noticed.

Many times it just needs simple objects. And a person that tells us things in plain English.

Yep, it just needs to get the message across in a way that is simple, short and easily understood.

In fact, if you want to cut through the clutter many times you should "go guerilla." And when selling your wares, solve a problem.

Take this piece by PRWeb. It solves the problem of "What the heck is RSS, anyhow?" And in answering our question it positions itself as the solution.

It also goes for a metaphor with "rivers" and "the river of news." And it gets its message across: "PRWeb gets your news to the people that matter most."

Rivers are nice, everyone understands them. Conversely, technology, with all its bits and bytes isn't so nice.

(The reason the Apple ads did so well is because they made technology human.)

The piece also serves to make this RSS technology more human by focusing on what humans can do with it--and what benefits humans derive from it. The 2.5-minute piece is below (RSS readers click through to my blog).

Shout: Thanks to Paul Herring for telling me of this great "show" piece.

Peace-of-mind as profit center

Clients and colleagues often ask me which motivator most sells products and services. Truth is, there exist many. Sometimes a purchase is motivated because of the status it signifies (think sport cars) or is proof of a level of savvy (think luxury items).

And there are desires for entertainment (think movies) and needs for efficiency (think software), just as there are motives for staying connected (cell-phones keep you connected 24/7) and needs for deep connections (Match.com connects you to many others seeking that same level of deep connection).

But when I think about it, I have to say that peace-of-mind carries a heavy-duty value proposition. Insurance provides peace of mind--be it home insurance in case of fire, or medical insurance in case of ailments or an emergency. And Volvo cars and Michelin tires gave parents peace of mind for many decades, they just spun it around a "safety" positioning.

Even with thought leadership programs, we're giving prospects the peace-of-mind that they're staying ahead of the curve and making the right choice to go with this product or that due to a particular methodology being more solid, or more shrewd, than alternative ones.

Credit cards give us some peace that if we can't make a monthly payment, we have plastic to borrow from (so long as we don't abuse them as then they carry a ton of worry). While exercise keeps you healthy and tone, yoga "centers" you and enables inner peace.

In business we often turn peace-of-mind around to the "risk" argument--along the lines of "this product decreases risk". One of the famed sayings around IBM is, "Nobody ever got fired for going with IBM," because IBM is a stable bet. How many times have you chosen a "dependable" vendor?

Ask most people and they'll say "While I'd love to be rich, I'd do just find having enough money to be comfortable." Comfortable makes us feel secure (and at peace) that we can provide for ourselves and our families.

Look at lawyers who protect us from unnecessary exposure...that's peace of mind billed hourly, no? And when a client is awarded punitive damages for pain and suffering it's because the person was robbed of peace in their lives.

Entire agencies (think the FDA or CDC) give us peace of mind as industry watchdogs, with new regulations as responses to potential or very real threats. Supporting charitable causes make us "feel better" knowing that we're doing something to better the world. That can give us some peace of mind knowing that we're part of the solution, not part of the problem.

The birth control pill didn't just signify sexual freedom, but peace-of-mind against unwanted pregnancies...just as condoms now provide more peace of mind against STDs than unwanted pregnancies.

While I don't want to say that religion "sells" anything, as I certainly don't want to be disrespectful, I will say that many peers have expressed much peace-of-mind knowing that their sins can be forgiven...and that an afterlife exists (it's comforting to know what will happen about the greatest unknown). Further, many people tell others to "take peace in their faith" during the most devastating of times.

Recently speaking, look at all the recalls due to China's use of lead paint in manufacturing...all these parents given so much worry over their children's toys. While buying "Made in the USA" may be more expensive, it's safe entertainment for our kids, which we'll gladly pay extra for.

Take acne-fighting Clearasil, with its sexy new ad campaigns hinging on a "boosts confidence!" message (and angering some parents in the process with some risque advertisements). What's great about confidence? It's devoid of insecurities (insecurity is worry on steroids and consumes people). Teenagers have enough to worry about, at the very least we can give them some pimple peace. 

Or take this nation's largest spend: the military. That's a peace-of-mind initiative in knowing what we hold most dear--our free, safe way of life--will be protected at all costs.

My point is that peace-of-mind is not a "soft" benefit (vs. "hard" benefits like sales) nor is it an elusive attribute. It's a very real, very core need that encourages both emotional and rational purchases. And between decreasing risk, minimizing worry, increasing safety, lessening exposure, even finding inner peace, it's crafted a lot of ways--which just goes to show how motivating and profitable peace-of-mind truly is.

Using opposite sex to tip favor for same sex

Yesterday, the "Let California Ring" advocacy effort launched this spot (it's below, RSS readers go here) and this website. The hook? It uses heterosexuals--not homosexuals--to appeal to the hearts and minds of its target audience as it implores, "What if you couldn't marry the person you love?"

After all, the target audience for this spot isn't homosexual (they already have their support).

"What we wanted to do with the commercial is to put people in [a same-sex couple's] shoes metaphorically, to show what it felt like not to be able to marry the person you love," Mr. Kilbourn, policy director of the Equality California Institute, said.

Mr. Kilbourn said polls show between 42% and 46% of Californians already support allowing same-sex couples to marry. "The purpose of the campaign is to push us over the tipping point."

Using heterosexuals is smart since people need to personalize the problem and make it a "What if it were me?" scenario, instead of it being an "us" and "them" issue. Being they're focusing on a bride, I see this spot appealing far more to women. And I like the clever "Let California Ring" platform. I also like that they're featuring a ring for people to wear in support of the effort, it hits the point home well (and bracelets for causes have become overused).

To be sure, this spot is geared to those on the fence. Because no amount of clever advertising is going to successfully challenge long-held beliefs, not in the near-term anyhow. But since this is a close gap in California they don't need to engage 40% more of the voting population, they need 10%-15% more.

Let's create yet another strategy. Alternatively, we could just do our jobs.

This just in: "A study conducted on the trustworthiness of sources used to make purchases found that consumers rated word of mouth highest." This just in, too: "In the US, more than 9 in 10 respondents to a survey said that a friend's recommendation was the most important influence when it came to buying a product or service."

Did we ever really think that people trust communications from brands--brands that are trying to sell them something--more than feedback from friends, colleagues, people with like needs, strangers even...that are NOT trying to sell them something?

This is the first implication from the analyst: "In all these studies, word of mouth has more of an impact than traditional forms of advertising."

Yup. And the kicker? It always has.

WOM is as old as the hills, it's just that we didn't have as large a group to query because we didn't have these online tools. And we didn't always have the ability to type "Product Name + Sucks" into a search engine to see real feedback from real people who've really used the product.

And here's the second implication from the analyst: "Having a word-of-mouth marketing strategy is becoming essential for marketers."

Oy.

Please, oh please tell me that we understand that a WOM Strategy is a MARKETING strategy. If you do your marketing right--create value, innovate one helluva product, target the right prospect, differentiate well from competitors, create clever marketing programs, take care of customers after they've bought from you--then it follows that customers will be more prone to say great things about you and refer others to you. Be that talk online or in real-time.

Or they might not say anything.

Which is a heck of a lot better than talking badly about you.

To put it scientifically, what we've got here is a cause-and-effect situation. The cause is good marketing. The effect is positive WOM. Or less/no negative WOM (companies detest bad WOM more than they love good WOM, and for good reason).

The takeaway?

We don't need another strategy. We need marketers to do their core jobs. Which means LESS time strategizing on how to get people to say what marketers want them to say, MORE time listening to what they're actually saying (about your product or a competitive one).

And optimizing from there.

Why?

Because we don't need ten more strategies. We need ten better products. And because now we're accountable to the world. (That makes this marketer very happy.)

Perhaps I'm wrong and I need to go and create yet another strategy.

Listening: the proof is in the "process"

The last couple days I've been writing on the role that corporate blogs play in this space and the many rules of the road that companies need to grasp before diving in (it's not nearly as easy as it looks).  Which brings me full circle to social media processes. See, the companies and clients I've been talking with are talking a lot about tools. Next to nothing about processes.

Yikes.

Not all companies need to be blogging. But all companies need to be listening. After all, a key value proposition of social media is that it gives companies the ability to identify new markets, new opportunities, potential risks and needed improvements.

But the blogosphere can't give companies any of these benefits if they're not listening. Yet telling companies they need to listen--while all well and good--is pretty darn nebulous. It's like telling companies they need to be good to their customers.

That's why we need to be telling companies to instill processes specifically for:

Monitoring conversations. This cannot be a bot that merely generates results when your company name is cited. You need smart humans who understand what types of conversations are relevant to your current or future initiatives. And many times the important conversations won't even mention your company, but a competior. 

Monitoring the space for new blogs, bloggers and brand advocates. I cannot stress this enough: do not only follow the so-called A-List blogs or big names in your industry or markets. Remember, fads and trends always start on the fringes and...only over time...make their way to the mainstream.  Plus, you might be overlooking brand advocates simply because you're not paying attention.

Assessing when companies should touch and when they should only look. This is a case-by-case, convo-by-convo basis if ever there was one. Sometimes it's important to voice-in on a conversation, debate or discussion. But many times it's better to let the market discuss while you listen and learn. Consumers want to be heard, but don't want to feel like companies are meddling or trying to control their opinions.

Identifying opportunities to improve products/services, innovate new product categories and increase market share. It's best to view the blogosphere as a huge R&D think tank. Since the feedback is unbiased--save "pay for posts" or blatant attempts at getting companies' names mentioned--companies are afforded a vast (and free!) research vehicle. But companies need smart researchers who understand what feedback, and patterns thereof, signal opportunities and gaps.

Exploring the "next big thing" (and then the next one). Discern hype from hope on new technologies, new applications, methodologies and buzzwords. Sometimes the next big thing is just the old thing wrapped in new words (this happens all the time), and other times these technologies are worth investing time and budget in.

Scrutinizing marketing tactics. I'm a big fan of innovating but I'm also a fan of learning from others. Companies need to scrutinize new promotional programs and tactics, even ones that might not have been leveraged in their respective industry. Some blogger outreach programs have done well, others have failed miserably. Find out which and why and benchmark best practices from this information.

While these processes apply to all organizations, the way companies will implement them will vary. For some organizations these processes might be conducted by the marketing department. For others, these processes might be better suited for the research team. Or the company may already be spread too thin, or lack the needed competencies, and need to hire new professionals or retain a service provider.

But ultimately the responsibility rests with marketing. Because information is just that and a big part of these processes--and realizing their payoff--is moving from information to intelligence.  After all, the whole point of companies instilling these processes is to help shape their strategies, plans, communications, R&D efforts, budget spends, customer service practices, even promotions. 

net/net: if you want to determine whether or not a company is a good listener, just ask about their processes.  Oh, please correct me if I've overlooked any process above (I wouldn't want to be a bad listener).

Wanna pass the 2.0 Go? You don't need $200. You do need a guide.

I've just come off a couple weeks where I've been fielding a lot of calls and emails from colleagues--who work the "corporate" side--regarding the blogs they're launching for their companies.

Seems everyone wants to be 2.0 by 2008.

I've worked on corporate side almost as long as I've worked on the consulting side and I understand these end-of-year mandates. Being I have a blog and they need to launch one, they have a lot of questions. And, like any human who's already overworked and overextended, they want easy answers.

But this space ain't easy. And I don't want to say they're asking the wrong questions--they just don't know the right ones to ask. How can they?

So here's my advice: If you're a company that's looking to "join the convo" you need a guide. (And it need not be me.) Whether it's an agency, full-time hire, contract employee, new department or consultant, do yourself a BIG favor and get a guide who truly understands this environment.

Why? Because I've worked in traditional, I've dabbled in direct and I've a lot of experience in interactive (1.0). But social media is its own animal. It comes with a huge learning curve--especially if you're representing a corporate entity. There exist too many places to miss out, fall flat or flub when you're launching a corporate blog.

And you'll be doing it all in public.

See, personal bloggers can get away with trial and error. They're human to us and hey, humans make mistakes. But consumers are far less forgiving when a corporate entity misses the mark. Because companies are not so human. There are myriad pieces of the puzzle that companies need to grasp, like:

• It's about trends not tools.
• It may be a new environment but it rests on age-old principles (2.0 is a lot of 101).
• Consumers distrust companies more than ever (and for good reason).
• For companies, this space is about listening not leading. Most of what you need to be aware of won't happen on your own blog.
• You need to be thinking psychographics not demographics. And you definitely need to be thinking "communities."
• Within conversations on other blogs, companies need to understand when to jump in and when to leave well enough alone (just because you're mentioned doesn't mean you're "invited").
• Speaking to audiences on a blog is not like an ad, brochure or sales slick.
• You really need to have a strategy about the content you'll cover on your blog. We have enough press releases.
• Bad feedback can be really good...if you really know what to do with it.
• Some goodies do not go over so good.
• When your markets give you action points they're doing you a favor.
• Companies cannot "create" evangelists. Companies can only create great products--and provide great customer service--that encourage WOM/evangelism.
• Not every company needs a blog. Sometimes it adds noise, not value. And sometimes the corporate culture won't support the transparency and openness needed. But every company needs to be using the superior listening tools that 2.0 provides (thanks to David, Geoff and Nathan for helping me clarify this crucial point).
• There are processes, not just blogs, that need to be implemented so that companies leverage the the rich feedback, ideas/opportunities, gripes and comments they receive on their blogs and, more importantly, the feedback on other blogs. I'm hearing a great deal about "social media programs," I'm not hearing about the processes that support them. (This bullet requires its own post. UPDATE: I posted on processes here.)

Probably most important is this: without learning these things and instilling these processes, you're putting your company at great risk...but by not leveraging social media you're putting your company at the greatest risk.

So do pass go. But not without your guide. Sorry friends, I know you wanted easy. But that's the best advice I can give you. Plus, I needed to make it easier on me and just have a post that I can point you to ;-).

PS: I'll likely add to the points up there; I'm sure I've missed several.

Round #1 Recap: CNN/YouTube Debates

As promised, here's my take on the CNN/YouTube user-generated video debate that aired Monday night (July 23rd). They started off with the challenge of the candidates actually answering the questions posed--which seems was everyone's (very fair) concern along with which videos would be featured (whether real or scripted).

Here's what I liked...

• The idea: I love the program format. Yes, I understand it was used to boost CNN ratings (and against the claims of media bias). But bringing the people--who vote for our country's leaders--into debates can only get candidates and media outlets to start turning back to the people.
• Range: I thought the questions were a great range. From war to healthcare to race reparations to education to gay marriage to Katrina cleanup to sex education, they covered a good amount of ground. Oh, and they seemed to come from all over the country (correct me if I'm wrong here folks).
• Authentic: None of the questions