CK's Blog

Black Friday? BIG Black Mark to the profession.

I often need to explain to my friends why retailers and media use the term "Black Friday" in referring to the day after Thanksgiving. After all, it's a rather ominous term to attach to the much ballyhooed "busiest shopping day of the year."

(The term derives from retailers moving from "in the red" to "in the black" on their balance sheets as the holiday season can bring them nearly 30% of their annual revenues.)

But, sadly, this past Friday lived up to its name. If you've not yet heard, in promoting “Black Friday” sales. A crowd at a New York-based WalMart that started waiting as early as 9pm Thursday--which swelled to as many as 2,000 by 5am Friday--got angry, mobbed the store, removed the doors from the hinges, and trampled a male employee and a pregnant female.

And, in my opinion, this is a BIG black mark for the marketing profession. While it happened at Walmart, the practice of big sales and scarcity strategies are not at all limited to the nation's largest retailer... and some simple preparations could have saved lives (literally) while still assuring high sales. Or, said from a responsible marketing standpoint: it would have put people ahead of profits. Sigh.

I'm discussing it in far more detail over at The Daily Fix: please join me here for the post and discussion.

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.

Who's afraid of that BIG green monster in the room?

I'm gonna let my readers in on a little secret. I take all the smart, advancing, clever, unique and oh-so-terribly fascinating lessons, tips and techniques that other marketing bloggers divulge in their most sacred of smart places (their blogs, silly) and I use it in my work.

Yup, not only am I listening...I'm also learning. And then I'm using those great teachings to do better by my clients.

Sneaky, huh? Yeah, I'm a clever girl like that.

(I sure hope you do the same from the smarts I divulge in my most sacred of smart places, right here.)

But when my colleague Mario Vellandi goes ga-ga over green marketing, sustainable branding practices and product development--and then produces tons of videos from top-tier conferences hosting best-in-breed companies and provides a veritable treasure trove of green goodness, I simply must give praise--and point you to his most sacred of smart places.

Seriously.

Go.

Here.

And go Now. As that BIG green monster in the room isn't going anywhere...but hopefully he's as cute as Kermit.

And check out the many videos, posts and teachings--just scroll through the many posts.

Oh, and go Green while you're at it. You can do things that are good for the planet...or don't do as many things that are bad for the planet. (Or be an over-achiever and do both.)

Thank you Mario, for the depth, breadth and quality of work you've captured for the world--as I've learned a ton of green goodness over the past week through your hard work.

Which, as divulged above, I will be using in my work.

Because I'm just that sneaky (and smart).

Praise for My Safe & Sexy City (thank you!)

Dear NYC Dept. of Health:

I made a promise to myself to follow-up after our "social event" to thank you, and to praise you. You see, as part of the favors for event-goers on Friday night we wanted to feature special "NYC Survival Kits" given that a whopping 75% of attendees traveled from outside the NYC metro area to attend.

The NYC bags were all sorts of fun and featured (1) the infamous "I heart NY" t-shirts (thank you to the man on the street for $2-a-pop bulk pricing!), (2) special edition NYC moleskine notebooks (graciously given by ClikitySplit), (3) hefty NYC guidebooks (given by NYC Convention & Visitors Bureau) and NYC-branded condoms.

You see, I was so proud of my city for devising this free condom program early last year that I promoted it through a post over at MarketingProfs. I even asked readers to weigh in with great taglines for the condoms (hey, we're marketers, devising nifty taglines get us, um, excited).

The message this move communicated to me was and still is this: free condoms do not promote more sex...they promote more safe sex. And I am so proud of my city for taking this step and practicing socially responsible marketing.

What's more? I was amazed that when I asked you via email for hundreds of free condoms, not only did you not judge my excessive request, you got back to me within 4 hours (wowsa!) and asked me to simply call for an appointment to pick them up.

(Maybe you could work on the DMV's attitude while you're at it?)

It has long been known that NYC is the safest large city (insofar as crime rates), but I'm happy to say that, due to your efforts, it might just be the safest large city for sex, too. And while I won't cite the woman's name that helped me here (she might not like that), I will be calling her supervisor to sing her praises. Moreover, it needs to be known that while people rag on city agencies for being slow and apathetic, she was expeditious, kind and even excited that people from so many states and countries might get an official New York City condom.

You make me proud to be a citizen of this safe city. For real. And should you ever need a tagline for your campaign...free ideas are located here and here.

Respectfully,
- CK

PS: Yes, that it what 500 NYC-branded condoms looked like on my apartment floor before I stuffed them into the goodie bags. (OK, so I only stuffed 480 into the goodie bags. I figured I might as well save some, a girl's gotta be safe ;-)

Yes, those (cheap) tin tubes carry (priceless) lives--not just vanishing commodities.

I just cannot shake this despicable story from my mind. The worst part for me is that I keep hearing about the "record fine." I don't give two cents about a ten million-dollar fine (though I understand the economic incentive of doing so).

What I care about are the priceless people inside those tin tubes. With something like safety called into question, I feel like passengers have unknowingly been flying blind.

While it appears that fault is certainly shared between BOTH Southwest and the FAA--as both allowed lapses on very old, cheap planes--I can't help but think that this safety violation wasn't conveniently overlooked due to the low-cost airline needing to stay low cost by staying in heavy flight rotation.

I'll be glued to the TV on these hearings and I'm really working to defer judgment. While my trust has precipitously dropped in both Southwest and the FAA, I really am trying to wait for the information to be delivered and investigated until I better understand the facts (but I admit it's very hard for me as my perception has definitely been altered). That said, this appears to be a mighty egregious error in judgment. And an even bigger one in ethics. Will it be that Southwest becomes the low-cost, low-ethics airline and that the FAA does not have a zero-tolerance policy? We'll see.

In any case, on thing is certain: you get what you pay for--especially when you pay less.

See, the reason that Southwest can be the low-cost airline is that it hinges on volume (lots and lots of people in those tin tubes). We learn this time and again, just look at all the "hidden costs" to outsourcing. Cheap is a BIG gamble, folks. And with lead paint in toys being distributed en masse to innocent kids and planes that have small cracks that could lead to large loss of life...cheap may wind up being the BIGGEST gamble of all.

Because those tin tubes don't just carry freight, they carry people.

Folks, if you see any oral statements by Southwest, can you send me the links? Thanks so much.

Update: Besides fuselage cracks, Southwest might have missed rudder checks, too. As for the FAA's whistle-blowers? It appears they were ignored for some time--three years' worth. Despicable indeed.

Another Update: President of American Consumer Council finds this to be criminal intent on the part of Southwest and FAA inspectors.

PS: Just to clarify as I've had several ask me about the "vanishing commodities" term--a vanishing commodity is a revenue opportunity that you can never get back--as it's contingent upon time--like vacant hotel rooms or vacant seats for an event (or flight). With products, like books or cars, you certainly don't want to hold onto merchandise too long but you can always still sell that merchandise...but you can never go back in time to recoup missed revenues for a vacant flight, event, hotel room, advertising spot during a particular first-run TV program, etc.

It occurs to me that perhaps I'm conservative. Or, perhaps those school buses are just really bogus.

In reading Ryan Karpeles' blog, I happenstance upon a post explaining how the South Carolina Board of Education will begin allowing advertising on school buses. Kinda like exactly like they do on the subways here in New York City.

Except when I ride the subways I'm not on my way to calculus. And the subway's primary intent is for commercial, not educational, use.

My immediate reaction? It's completely bogus. It's inappropriate. A mixing of church and state, if you will.

And I'm thinking, of course people find it offensive! I mean, aren't kids bombarded enough with marketers wanting their (parents) disposable income outside of school? Isn't it so clearly poor form to have our school buses become advertising vehicles (yes, the pun on the 'vehicles' is intended. I'm being clever while they're being bogus).

But the comments at Ryan's blog aren't what I expected. It just doesn't seem a big deal.

Sorry, I find it to be a really big deal. (And now I'm thinking that I'm a closet conservative.)

Why does this bug me so? Because it sets yet another poor precedent. And because we business folks are notorious (!) for pushing the envelope once we've got an in. Hey, that's our jobs. But it's the school's job to prepare youth and, to a point, protect them.

Listen, I get that schools are hurting but I just believe we should find another way than, well, selling out. Yeah, that's a terrific example to be setting during example-setting years.

According to the piece, "For its part, SAC promises the ads will be age-appropriate, promote a healthy and productive life, and are directly approved by district appointed personnel." (Because of course the majority of advertising promotes healthy, productive lives, folks.)

So let me get this straight: they'll now have appointees that gloss over ads to ensure they're...appropriate? The fact that you have to appoint people to review potential ads should be your first clue that this is a bogus idea.

Alas, I guess this liberal city girl is actually conservative. Or perhaps I just have very strong principles when it comes to the actual school being a pathway to promoting to youth. But now the school bus is part of the media buy.

(And while I don't have kids, I do care about youth and our failing public educational system--I promise you, advertising will NOT be the panacea, just short-term profits by selling-out to kids. Great precedent ;-)

Time to rethink what 'being global' really means

I enjoy BtoB magazine very much. It's the darn online publication that annoys me...because it doesn't allow comments. You see, some of the subject matter and authors I'd very much like to interact with. But I can't. Bygones.

A great piece that I'm calling attention to here has to do with America's not-so-great image and some potentially great strategies to improve it. Dick Martin, author of "Rebuilding Brand America," submitted a piece titled, "It's time to improve America's image." And boy do I agree with him.

In fact, I find our sinking image to be a mission- critical issue that we need to address outside of America...and our high-school dropout rate to be a dire issue we need to address inside America.

I fear we're otherwise headed to becoming a very disliked + dumb nation...and those two don't = superpower. Nowhere near.

See, America just isn't the same country it was when I was a teen when there was that pesky cold war going on that made being separate from the world that much more shrewd (and gave us the perception of "safe").

Nope, now it's global...and that's a big learning curve. Because having offices in 5 countries doesn't really make one global, it just makes it so one pays rent in five different currencies. Being global, at least to me, is working with various cultures. Not just selling them happy meals.

In fact one of the most rewarding comments I ever received on this blog--and, yes, I find all your comments rewarding!--was this:

"Since I'm reading you (and a lot of other great American bloggers), I must say that you managed to change my image (I should say my fear and my clichés) of the USA."

I've long said that it's relationships, not rankings, I'm after with my blogging--be those relationships colleagues, clients or friends. But if I can contribute to changing some hearts and minds? Well, then, I feel I've contributed something (truly) worthy. That's the stuff that makes me walk on air. (I know, I know, I should be thinking how all I can monetize this blog...but that's not at all the reward I'm seeking.)

Speaking of reward, these global relationships teach us all so much about other countries' business practices, lingo, languages, laws and, yes, idiosyncrasies. But, most importantly, they help us shake enemy #1 of all marketers (that devil's name would be 'myopia').

Yet I'm just one little blog. Changing and improving American perception is going to take some heavies. Which brings me back to Martin's piece, in which he writes: "Despite recent accounting scandals, American companies have more credibility than the U.S. government in most corners of the world. They also have more feet on the street; and best of all, those feet aren't clad in combat boots. More than 6 million people work for U.S. companies abroad. They're all potential ambassadors—not for U.S. foreign policies, but for American values of individual freedom, equal opportunity and fair play.

Alleviating anti-Americanism is not a matter of patriotism, it's good business."

Martin encourages that global companies take some concerted steps toward righting our image, including, educate employees in working across cultures; encouraging employees to get involved in organizations that promote international understanding and supporting organizations that facilitate cultural and educational exchanges.

(Notice how they all involve interacting with these cultures? Yep, I noticed that, too.)

I'd also suggest these companies sponsor some local initiatives in these countries so they're not only investing in America's growth but in America as their growth partner. Also, reach out to their universities to see if they might be open to panels--or a series of seminars--where executives could interact with students and, in turn, let them see that we're approachable and invested in others, not just ourselves.

(If you want to change perception, youth is a great place to start seeding that message, plus it's pressworthy.)

Yes, business comes first, but bettering America's image, as Martin implores, is mighty good business. 

(And we really need the boost.)

The way I see it? The remedy, or the road to it, begins and ends with rethinking what "being global" and being a "global citizen" really means. Because when we start thinking about "them" it does a heck of a lot of good for "us".  (Ya know, the basic marketing 101 stuff that knows no borders ;-)

Indeed, nothing is sacred from sponsorships (ugh)

Full story here

While backlash has resulted in this Florida School pulling its deal with McDonald's to sponsor student report cards--and I understand that printing and mailing costs can be difficult for the school--the marketer in me shakes my head.

Is nothing sacred when it comes to sponsorships? Apparently not.

To be clear, it was the school that called on McD's for the sponsorship, not vice/versa (this is not a post scolding McD's for hopping on an opportunity). But concerned parents voiced-back with 2,000 calls of protest. McD's will still cover the cost of the printing but will pull any references to the company (which is a smart move).

So I gather the school administration said, "We're too broke to cover $1,600 in printing fees of 27,000 report cards so let's be innovative like marketers and leverage a sponsorship!"

Ugh.

To be sure, there's innovation and then there's pollution. And there are lines that should not be crossed. Get truly innovative and figure out online systems for delivering report cards (go green!), or charge parents extra for printed report cards...but don't turn report cards into advertising vehicles.

Why? Because a school is not a commercial entity (it's filed under "academia") and because once you cross that line it won't be long before you can no longer see the line.

Hey, but at least the kids that made all As and Bs are entitled to a free happy meal--so there's a terrific example for the school to be setting. In a time where it is estimated that 1 out of 3 U.S. students won't graduate high-school, I'm willing to bet that a happy meal ain't gonna do the trick. (Ugh, indeed)

PS: And the reason that so many countries will justifiably continue to kick the U.S.'s butt for decades to come? It won't be outsourcing, immigration or otherwise my friends, it will be that we continue to fail our kids in the very core area of basic education. But at least they can work at McDonald's...which gives a whole new spin on the term "Fast Food Nation," eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My hope?

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

My fear? That it will.

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

But not this way.

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

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

Going green for a good cause. Join in, won't you peas?

Full background and information here.

Full, really fun and heartening peapod slideshow here.

Seriously, check out the slideshow I just sent you to, it's so great and creative.

That's my dance partner Luc (Mindblob) and me. Now, we look like flies but, I assure you, we're dancin' peapods.

Why are we dancing and, more to the point, why are we dressed as peapods? The short answer is that we're dancin' fools for a good cause.

The longer answer is that there's a movement afoot and it's unlike any other cause...because it involves peas. And peas are a funny thing. In fact, a lot of people don't eat their peas (and carrots) but they sure like poking fun at this funny vegetable (legume? what are peas anyhow?). Personally, I've always liked peas and have no issue with them whatsoever.

And now I like them even more.

While a better explanation is right here, the 'gist of it is that we are creating these "pea-avatars" (pea-vatars?) in support of fundraising for breast cancer research and, specifically, in support of Susan Reynolds, a woman/blogger who is going through a tough battle currently, and bravely sharing this experience. Why peas? Because when she was going through discomfort due to biopsies, she used a bag of frozen peas for comfort in addition to ice and uploaded a pic of the peas. And then one of her friends suggested we all donate the cost of a bag of frozen peas to breast cancer research. And somehow, quite magically from there, "peaple" started running with it and now, a full fundraising site will go live on Friday...along with many people uploading pea pics to Flickr and to their twitter profiles.

And of course everyone is getting behind this--gender doesn't matter. Not only does breast cancer, in small percentage, affect men, let's face it, men make a far, far bigger deal about breasts than we women ever do. (That was my best shot at a pep talk, sorry if I offended anyone...I'm doing my best to get you to part with money at holiday time.)

What's the action point?

Please consider donating to this cause (the site will go live on Friday) and, do like so many of us are and make a pic of yourself with peas and send it to ringleader-and-cheerleader Connie Reece. And save a dance for me, wontcha?

Also, does anyone have any contacts over at Green Giant, Birdseye or another "pea" brand? I'd like for someone to ask them to donate to this worthy cause. I know in my holiday heart that they'd love to make a donation....they just need to know about it--and then it can be a Christmas Miracle. Alas, I know no one in the pea biz.

PS: Thank you to my dear friend and colleague Gavin Heaton for making my pea picture dance. I'm too much of a photoshop idiot to attach my head to a peapod and he was happy to do it at 3 in the morning (which is something like 2pm to him in Sydney, Australia). And thank you to Luc for dancing with me, I was feeling a little self-conscious dancing by myself at the holidays--and it was bringing back bad memories of my prom.

PPS: Thanks to my friends here that hopefully won't mind my using part of their logo. It's for a good cause.

If celebs influence consumers, is influencing (um, bashing!) celebs a smart strategy?

So these twin toddlers got this gig on a show and they were cute--they were toddlers, after all. And then, some twenty years later--with approximately the exact same level of acting skill as when they were toddlers--they're now not only actresses but they've launched a fashion line.

And PETA is not happy.

In fact, due to the fury over how much fur they wear--and how much fur is featured in their fashion line--the animal rights activists have launched a full-on assault, 2.0 style. You can...

• dress up the "Trollsen Twins" (instead of the Olsen Twins) in all sorts of bloody garb. Like, everything you dress them in bleeds.
• watch a video that I couldn't spend the time sitting through but I guess some heads roll.
• You can attach bloody banners to your MySpace page, or blog, bashing the beauties (like the above example).
• Or, you can take part in an email assault on their publicist.

While I wish these types of celebs would just go away (and we'd have more healthy female stars like Kate Winslet), it does beg the question (which I've not yet answered for myself):

If celebs influence consumers--and their purchasing decisions--does influencing, by way of bashing, these celebs offer a good strategy to meet objectives? Said another way, does advocacy sometimes need to get ugly...in order to get it done?

In this case, "getting it done" for PETA would mean that the twins would take fur out of their clothing line--and, I gather, stop parading around in fur in public.

From the site: "Not only is killing animals in the name of fashion cruel, it's uuugly. Some say that Hairy-Kate and Trashley are guilty of offending their fans with some major fashion boo-boos, but here at peta2, we think that's the understatement of the year! The twins' heartless decision to wear fur and include it in their new fashion line, The Row (more like "Death Row"), is worse than a fashion no-no—it's cruelty to animals. The Trollsens have ignored our pleas to stop wearing fur—and have since added horribly ugly fur items to their new clothing line. It's obvious that we need your help to convince them that wearing fur is wrong and hideous!"

I will say this, the creative is excellent, engaging consumers is smart and I was engaged with the site for at least 10 minutes (and it's a far better use of funds than the Alicia Silverstone ads PETA just ran).

Oh, I'll also say this...I never want to be on PETA's bad side.

PS: And PETA keeps it coming! To customize a snow globe holiday e-card featuring Michael Vick, The Trollsens, Kate Moss and more just go here.

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

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

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

But you can't do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I concur.

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

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

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

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

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

Placing a "green stamp" on cinema (being green while making green)

I recently caught the movie "Evan Almighty." It's a cute watch; good for grownups and kids alike.

As it's a modern day, comical take on the Noah-and-the-Ark story, the movie boasts the largest amount of animals brought together for one film ever. After all,--spoiler alert!--in the story, two of every kind of animal boards Noah's Ark so that the the world, and the entire animal kingdom, can go on after the great flood.

But what I most liked about the movie wasn't the movie, but this behind-the-scenes trailer I came across on how it really wanted to be a "green movie" and make good on its carbon footprint. Yes, making movie magic takes a tremendous toll on Mother Earth.

With having to actually build a 450-foot Ark (CGI effects can only do so much), creating many prop houses and scenes, the producers and Director recycled all the parts and donated all lumber, the doors and windows they used, to Habitat for Humanity (an organization that I'm just wild about that builds houses for those that need homes).

The trailer is below. I think it's the best part of the movie (RSS readers, click through to the blog)...and a great model for going green in most everything we do. Perhaps it is possible to align principles with profits. Makes me wonder where all those materials would have otherwise gone had they not been donated. Too bad they didn't look to donate a giraffe, I'd have given one a home in a heartbeat (that offer stands if they're reading this post.)

Round #4 Book Club "Steals" The Show (free books & free bonus!)

Book Club is back with a read that does a lot of good for just causes...by outright stealing know-how from the big brands (Robin Hood, anyone?). For those of you new to book club welcome aboard (sign-up here); for those returning for another round, welcome back!

Our feature this segment is Robin Hood Marketing by Katya Andresen. In past segments we've covered social media, branding and communications and now, we're turning to the world of nonprofit and cause-related marketing. Which begs a BIG question: how do you motivate people to give money, take action or otherwise advance your worthy cause...amid so many worthy causes?

The answer is marketing. The strategy is stealing. Andresen cleverly created 'The Robin Hood Rules' which 'steal' savvy from the winning formulas--that sell everything from socks, cigarettes, even mattresses--to show nonprofit marketers how to use the sophistication of the big guns. An insightful interview with Katya and a chance to win one of 50 author-signed books is right here.

Did I mention that everyone gets a free bonus? Yep, in this book club, everyone gets something. Thanks to leading social marketer, author and blogger Nedra Klein Weinreich for generously compiling a 20-page "Quick Guide to Saving the World" that details the social marketing mix, gives a review of Robin Hood Marketing and features a bevy of social marketing resources spanning blogs, websites and online publications. Go here to get it.

Well, what are you waiting for? I've given you a great book, an insightful Q&A with the author, a cute little hero in Robin Hood, a chance to win one of 50 free books and a free bonus for everyone. What's a woman gotta do...dress up as Maid Marian? Get on over there! 

PS: If you are new to my blog and are wondering that the heck this banter over books is about, you can go here for info. on our current segment or here for an overview (but if you've already signed-up for the Book Club you don't need to sign-up again and yes, you're eligible for a free book).

A lot of our Africa-centric marketing is (way) off center. Lucky for us, we have Kofi.

Kofi Annan is both a new friend and a new read (no, not THAT Kofi Annan). I'm not sure how many of you readers know of his blog but I'm really benefiting through it.

Why?

Because he's teaching me so much about that which I know so little (I find that to be one of the nicest things anyone can do for another).

Covering African style and business trends, his blog is also teaching me about advocacy initiatives and, most important, how to get our African-aligned marketing right.

Why?

Becuz we're getting a lot of it really, really wrong. (For some very basic reasons.)

Take that t-shirt up there--it's just one of the business-meets-advocacy efforts his clothing co. put together. According to that initiative's site:

"The Bling is Dead project is a part of the Demand Details! initiative which encourages a global community to demand details from the diamond industry. Details about the sale history of diamonds and details that will ensure that the diamonds we purchase do not support wars in African nations. Through key programs and partnerships Demand Details! gives Annansi Clothing Co. customers and the public at large the proper tools and facts to make educated decisions about purchasing diamonds while pushing retailers to become more responsible in their business practices."

Efforts that push for more responsible business practices are music to my ears. But Kofi's blog has many facets. Here are some of my favorite posts so far:

Celebs visiting Africa "effect"

Mud-faced African Advertising blunders

Telling the story right by starting with the best storytelling medium (movies)

On the website he just launched Kofi says, "The future of design and innovation lies in emerging markets." I agree...but would add "emerging markets AND emerging mediums."

PS: That's a pic of me with Kofi, Carolyn and C.B.

We now have "human energy." So either humans need to share in finding energy solutions...or Chevron is using humans as an (alternative) energy source.

I just wouldn't want you fine folks to think that Chevron's "Human Energy" platform passed my radar (it just launched on Sunday). Or that I've gone soft on chemical and technology companies going all "human." Not a chance. In fact, it's a big topic at this human's blog.

Having now covered Dow's "human element" campaign (where it seems everyone's falling for it but moi) and Cisco's "human network" (me likes!), I'm not sure about Chevron's human play.

So far there are things I like and things I don't. And I'm awaiting for them to upload their "It's the Story of Our Time" spot to YouTube (seriously, what's with the wait?). Right now you can access the commercial here. The spot for the ad is now below.

I promise to be back at you when I've collected my thoughts on it. But it's a bit of a thinker. Why? Because with Chevron, it's not just a case of changing perceptions around "we're oil but not evil;" Chevron also needs to be relevant again.

See, Chevron's brand is so very under our radar to begin with.

Unlike Dow's commercial, Chevron does not tell us how hydrogen and oxygen bond to form water (no, I just can't ever stop mocking that line of copy). But they do mention having part-time poets on their payroll (hmm...poetic energy?).

I still contend--and have for years--that BP has done the finest work in changing perceptions by running Q&As with actual humans in their spots (even tho' we know they're featuring actors it comes across authentically, and powerfully). Plus they did it before anyone else went human and didn't have to say they were going human.

The humans said it for them, dig?

Just like the witty and profoundly wise Mark Goren says in his post (back from December!) "Your organization is human? Then be it, don’t sell it."

Correction/Update: I've just found out that BP's spots feature "real people" not actors. CK's Blog regrets the error. At least I was praising BP in the process...and it just goes to show: if you wanna be human, rely on humans. Why? Because it works when they tell your story for you (or make your energy argument for you).

Here's the spot for Chevron (RSS readers go here):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's really creepy.

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

They might even call you.

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

The world loses a model marketer with a BIG heart

I'm saddened to learn that Anita Roddick passed today, at the too young age of 64. I will say that what she did in those 64 years is nothing short of magnificent.

She was "green" ahead of her time and immensely giving.

We need more like her.

And for so many she's provided a model that is now her legacy.

According to Body Shop's Chairman:

"Anita was not only our founder but she was also the heart and passion of The Body Shop and with her we achieved so much, whether on animal rights, human rights, Community Trade, or through the founding of organizations like Children on the Edge.

It is no exaggeration to say that she changed the world of business with her campaigns for social and environmental responsibility.

But for everyone who knew Anita, it was about much more than that: you couldn't help but be inspired by her love of life, her vision of the world and her passion for changing it.

Anita leaves us with an enduring legacy which will long guide the affairs of The Body Shop. Our heartfelt condolences are with the Roddick family at this sad time."

Rest in peace, Anita. Thank you for giving business a conscience, and for making the world a better place...and for your strength and grace being such a personal inspiration.

Article here.

Bio here.

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

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

Nike dropped him.

Reebok dropped his apparel.

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

The man pleads guilty (and finds Jesus).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really smart programming...or really poor parenting?

So in a play (pray?) for better ratings this TV season, CBS is debuting an innovative (insanely risky?) new reality program. And, being that reality programming has been segmented seven ways to Sunday, they decide to focus on an untapped niche in kids.

After all, who doesn't love kids, right? The problem is that the parents of the kids might just love fame more than their kids.

The series is called "Kid Nation" (premiering Sept. 19th) and it brings 40 children (ages 8-15) together in a "ghost town" of Sante Fe, New Mexico for what is billed as a "social experiment." The kids have to build a society in 40 days without adult supervision.

Yep, the parents left their kids in the (cough) trustworthy hands of a television network for 40 days.

According to E News: "But the show has become mired in controversy after a mother of one participant took issue with the production. The woman said her 12-year-old daughter's face was sprayed with kitchen grease while cooking and she suffered minor health problems. The mother alerted authorities about supposedly lax safety conditions at the privately owned Bonanza Creek Movie Ranch, where the series was shot in April.

In a letter to the attorney general, the aforementioned mother, identified by the Associated Press as Janice Miles of Fayetteville, Georgia, wrote that her daughter, Divad, was not properly supervised by the show's handlers. The child allegedly suffered sunburn on her face and hands and developed a rash that left her with several scars. Miles also noted that four other kids accidentally drank bleach, necessitating immediate medical attention."

Oh, and now New Mexico state isn't quite sure if this "camp" might just qualify as violating child labor laws. Um, oops.

See, CBS is a company and its responsibility is to be profitable. But the parents' responsibility is to be, well, responsible. So I can see letting kids go to a real camp with real supervision, but to ship them off to Hollywood--even a "mock Hollywood" in some ghost town--without the watchful eyes of parents? Hey, I may not be a parent but I did read Lord of the Flies.

Alas, CBS is so confident Kid Nation will be a success it has greenlit casting for a second season so maybe I'm just too overprotective to be a parent...or perhaps the producers shouldn't allow the kids to handle bleach this go 'round. I understand from CNN that the parents had to sign tomes of legal documents that basically protected the network even in the case of fatalities.

And to think the American public is worried about the parenting sense of Britney Spears.

Here's the trailer for the show (RSS readers go here). And here again is the article.