Thus Far...

I made The Huffington Post!

2010-10-01T06:04:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, a piece I wrote about Hillary's popularity in Pennsylvania, actually made it onto The Huffington Post. Could Hillary Save the Day in PA? Woot! While David and the rest of the SUPRC team certainly deserve just as much credit (if not more) for painstakingly designing and executing a great study, I'm also very happy that I was able to express our findings in a Huff-tastic way.

In short, we discovered that while across the board Democrats aren't doing very well in PA, that Hillary's favorability spikes with undecideds, especially for women and middle age voters.

"Among voters still undecided for governor, Clinton's popularity is 66% favorable to just 24% unfavorable, suggesting that she could make an impact in the Governor's race. Further, a majority of undecided voters for U.S. Senate have a favorable opinion of Clinton (52%), while just 34% have an unfavorable of Clinton..."

Can the Secretary of State campaign? Maybe, though probably not (be it legally prohibited or perhaps just in bad form). However, this certainly wouldn't stop Clinton from making an appearance, having a photo op and using that photo on a direct mail piece. Further, come election day a targeted robo calls as part of the Democratic GOTV effort could make a huge difference.

This piece was part of a larger strategy we're working on at SUPRC to help promote our Director, David Paleologos, and the work he's done here at Suffolk. More often than not Suffolk has been right on the money with our polling, beating more established, better known polling organizations in terms of accuracy. For the last few weeks we've been working hard to make David a new website and put together a blog to featuring the data from our state polls. And, we've just finished!

Check out his new blog, APollsterOnPolling.wordpress.com. In reality, the real work has just begun, but it's nice to have the logos designed and a few posts up. And, scoring a piece on Huffington isn't a bad way to kick things off either.

Credit Card Minimums Killed the Radio Star

2010-09-06T19:16:00.000-07:00

The corner store down the street from me in the North End recently raised their credit card minimum to $15. I like them and their prices are fair, but I often find myself schlepping to the grocery store or going without rather than spending the minimum. For the bakeries and sandwich shops near by it’s a similar story.

I want to shop these stores, but the high price of using my plastic keeps me away and that’s usually all I’ve got on me.

A lot of people are happy to shop local, they find real and emotional benefits from supporting their neighborhood stores. Further, most people understand that credit card companies aren’t exactly doing these business any favors. But, at the end of the day, especially these days, people are living on budgets and thinking with their wallets—and minimums are driving sales down and leaving customers with a frown.

It’s tough to compete with larger businesses like Dunkin Doughnuts and CVS that can absorb credit card fees. On the other hand, it’s tough for consumers not to get upset when they only want a Coke and an candy bar, but find themselves without any cash.

Until recently charging minimums has been against the contract that Visa and MasterCard make small businesses sign in the first place. Though it’s likely this rule will soon change. So that’s great news for small businesses, especially when you consider that according to The National Association of Convenience Stores: “its members paid $7.4 billion in swipe fees last year, making it the second-largest industry expense after labor.”

Then again, no one likes spending more than they have to. And, as people continue going cashless there is a simple problem facing these local businesses: the more customers are forced to pay minimums, they more they may choose not to shop at all.

On a back road in upstate New Hampshire I came across a small convince store with a very simple solution: “if you spend under $10 with a card,” a sign at the register read, “we accept 25 cent donations to cover the cost.” I was surprised and delighted with this option. I didn’t have to spend more than I wanted to, and I felt like I was investing in this store—who doesn’t like helping out the little guy?

These types of solutions are what small businesses need to retain and grow their customers. It’s great to appeal to the best in people, but it’s also offering a benefit for them. On the one hand they get their purchase relatively hassle free and on the other they have made an investment in your business they can feel good about.

Final Thought:

Getting a Facebook fan page or Tweeting coupons are both tactics in a larger strategy of engaging your customers in a more human way. But there’s no reason we can’t practice this idea more during face-to-face interactions as well. My advice on this, look your customers in the eye, explain the issue and let them into the solution.

Net neutrality, the free speech issue of our time.

2010-08-18T19:22:00.000-07:00

The Internet is a series of tubes. Or at least it used to be. As the “information superhighway” emerges from adolescence, you and I may soon find ourselves relegated to the heavy traffic on the right, while those willing and able to pay more enjoy their own, faster diamond lane.

Simply, we have just lived through the Golden Age of the Internet. The days of free and equal access (to say nothing of anonymity) may soon whiz by us altogether.

You remember it, don’t you? The mid 1990′s through the 2010′s when “cyber space” was a wild west of land grabbing, domain name snatching, de-facto anonymity and poorly-designed websites. It was a place for chitchat on message boards, chat rooms and AIM, with few users (comparatively) and little corporate investment.

Today, clearly it’s more. Difficult to define, it is a resource, a commodity, a necessity. A more developed, faster Internet with a more tech savvy, e-literate audience has opened communication and increased information. It has reshaped commercial activity and social interactions. It has fundamentally altered the landscape of our culture.

It is inseparable from our lives.

When the buzz on Twitter makes the gossip columns, nightly news, and the papers, you know it ain’t how it used to be.

But, you knew all that, right?

Because until we admit to ourselves just how important the net has become, it’s impossible to understand the importance of net neutrality.

The New York Times explains it like this:

“The concept of ‘net neutrality’ holds that companies providing Internet service should treat all sources of data equally. It has been the center of a debate over whether those companies can give preferential treatment to content providers who pay for faster transmission, or to their own content, in effect creating a two-tier Web, and about whether they can block or impede content representing controversial points of view.”

The Internet’s future isn’t hard to predict in general terms. News, entertainment, opinion, discussion and commerce will continue flooding our screens and gushing forth from our notebooks, pads, desktops and phones.

You should care about this issue because it will determine if you get equal access to what others are saying, and that others have equal access to what you say. If net neutrality fails, in some instances, access to information online may become limited due to slower speed; in others, access may be denied entirely because of contractual disputes or blocked because of political disagreements.

I get my Internet from Verizon, and Comcast owns NBC. Unchecked, it’s possible that one day I could wake up and find I’m blocked from watching “Dateline” and “The Office.” Access to a political blog with opinions unfavorable toward Verizon could become subtly or blatantly blocked to me, too. My favorite “mom and pop” website will be outpaced by Target online.

Suddenly, that’s news, entertainment, opinion and products I’m unable to access.

I don’t trust anyone to tell me what I can and cannot read, watch or hear. Further, I don’t trust for-profit companies to care about my equal right to information. I don’t think they are inherently bad, they just really don’t care.

And that’s fine.

But, we need a mechanism to ensure that access to information, in terms of literal access and in terms of speed, remains equal.

In the future, speed will influence everything. And so even a subtle discrimination like lower speeds will, in part, determine access. And access determines which voices are heard and which are not. We have become our own editors, determining what we feel is important and sharing that with others. I don’t think many people would embrace going back.

Recently, Congress announced they would begin re-examining the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which essentially governs the entire communication industry in the U.S. The fourteen-year-old act barely mentions the Internet, and yet remains the regulatory framework for just about everything from obscenity and violence in the media, to telecommunication, broadcast and cable services, to anti-trust rules for the industry.

More recently, Google and Verizon together proposed a model for the future of net neutrality that have caused many to become uneasy. Especially as some claim that Google is back peddling from it’s former hard line position in favor of net neutrality.

As Congress begins to re-write these laws, and as interest groups and corporations begin to lobby for a new architecture and design for how we communicate, I urge you to think carefully about what net neutrality really means.

Senator Franken, an advocate for net neutrality, wrote his take on the issue for CNN.com:

“The internet was developed at taxpayer expense to benefit the public interest. If we let corporations prioritize some content over others, we’ll lose what makes it so valuable to our economy, our democracy and our daily lives.

Net neutrality may sound like a technical issue, but it’s the key to preserving the Internet as we know it — and it’s the most important First Amendment issue of our time.”

TL:DR – Here’s a fun video made by SaveTheInternet.com!!

Originally posted on tngg.

Gen Y waiting for our defining moment

2010-06-18T19:19:00.000-07:00

All the videos on YouTube are the same. There is no countdown, or fan fair, just late night TV that cuts to static at 11:59 p.m. A widely known, but ultimately little noticed, event last year was the switch from analogue TV to a purely digital system on June 12, 2009. The newly available frequencies will be used primarily for expanding wireless communication networks. Hooray for smartphones!

Flash back 24 years. Growing up in a thrifty New England household meant I never had cable TV. Instead, while nearly all my friends enjoyed cable, I became an expert at fiddling with bunny ears to catch those now non-existent signals for my Saturday morning cartoons. It was awful.

One unforeseen upside to this nine channel purgatory was an education in syndicated television. That is, the stories of older generations. The value of having seen nearly every episode of shows like M*A*S*H, Leave it to Beaver and All In The Family is an appreciation that the issues of the Boomers and Xers are no longer in Gen Y’s cultural lexicon, right along mimeographs…

And thank god!

Further, most of us were too young to understand the real significance of even fairly recent shows like Murphy Brown and Will & Grace, which broke new ground with their portrayal of working women and the terribly controversial issue of gay-ness. To Gen Y these things are just the norm. Strong women and homosexuals on television have never been a “thing” for us the way it was for older generations.

Many important events from our early lives are not really part of our identity either. We never experienced the Cold War, the AIDS pandemic in its full swing here in the U.S., or the economic recession of the late 80s and early 90s. For many of us, 9/11 was our first defining moment. But, at that time the oldest among us were in high school or just graduating from college — and so I ask: how long did we truly live in a pre-9/11 world? I’d argue few Millennials ever really did.

We Millennials understand the world from the 2000s forward. And many of us don’t see the threads that connect us to the twentieth century. I blame the schools. When the Berlin wall came down, when the “third wave of democracy” was setting Africa on the right track, when globalization was the zeitgeist, we were playing with snap bracelets and Pogs.

Generations are united and defined by their collective experiences, and for Gen Y there isn’t a lot to point at, yet. If anything, we’re still constantly forced to deal with the cultural baggage of our predecessors. Though, what generation doesn’t?

The issues of racism and homosexuality that past generations dealt with have never been a cutting issue for us. Yes, immigration and gay rights are still heated topics here in the U.S., but you look a the numbers and Gen Y isn’t very split on these issues. According to Pew Research: “In their political outlook, they are the most tolerant of any generation on social issues such as immigration, race and homosexuality.”

This isn’t to say that we don’t have our problems, we do. However, we are a group, with experiences, values and issues unique to our time. Gen Y begins in 1978 at the moment when the birth rate begins to increase again, indicating that we are the children of the Baby Boomers. A lot of people dismiss generation theory as silly, but I don’t think so.

We began how the world shaped us. That is, we owe much of our identity and values to the work and struggle of past generations. On the other hand, I think that we are something quite different because we have shed much of their baggage, and now look back on it with some amount of confusion. Our concerns are shaped by the subjects of “now” and “new”.

So go ahead and ask anyone in my generation: “Did you watch the TV go to static?” I bet I can tell you the answer.

Originally posted on tngg.

Photo by melisdramatic

It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood

2010-04-19T10:02:00.000-07:00

From Troy Michigan to Mid-Town Manhattan, milk men are making a comeback. But home delivery is just part of a larger trend of people going local, and it’s starting to go big. Post-recession many attitudes have reset, and a growing number of people are becoming increasingly concerned about the health of the products they buy, the environmental impact of their lives and feel genuinely good about supporting local businesses and organizations.

It all started with food. And, while organic food has recently made it onto most grocery store shelves, the movement originally developed from locally oriented co-ops and communities supporting independent organic farmers. People concerned with natural food have been shopping at farm stands for years, and for this community local is a part of their DNA. And, now that organic has become mainstream these core values are making their way into the popular consciousness along with the products themselves.

The perceived benefits of shopping locally go beyond concerns of quality and freshness. The trend appeals to their attitudes about the importance of community and living green. Shopping locally mitigates the environmental impact of moving food thousands of miles and thus concerns about carbon footprints. It also fulfills a desire to support small farmers and the local economy. These “localvores” find practical and emotional benefits buying local.

Grounded in a strong core of “believers,” this trend is steadily growing. Beyond organofiles and environmentalists, foodies and moms are getting into the trend, too. Today, people shop 5,000 farmer’s markets across the country, the result of more than 5% annually for the past five years, and “nearly 60% of consumers say they try to shop at a farmers market.”

But, local isn’t just for fruit stands and apple picking. A new and unlikely champion of the local movement, Walmart is stepping up its efforts to support locally grown food in order to compete with stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. Aggressively supporting not only organic, but local farms as well, “Walmart says it wants to revive local economies and communities that lost out when agriculture became centralized in large states.” With major support like this, the local movement has serious potential for scale.

Beyond the dinner table initiatives are gaining ground encouraging consumers to buy locally grown goods and services. Earlier this year Business Week wrote that, “About 130 cities or regions now host ‘buy local’ groups, representing about 30,000 businesses, up from 41 in 2006.” Fueling this growth are organizations such as Local First, the 3/50 Project (begun just last March) and 10Percentshift.org, which aim to educate consumers about thinking locally with their wallets and the big impact that small shifts in spending can have on their towns and neighborhoods.

Local is making waves in politics as well. A recent Zogby poll found that “52% [of people] paid the same amount of attention to local and national races,” and groups like Tea Party and Coffee Party USA show it’s clear people getting engaged, too. Spreading online, these organizations are growing locally with chapters and meetings in towns and cities across America.

Finally, from organic tea to tea parties, localvores and local activists may be more plugged in than you think. A recent study by Pew Internet suggests that, contrary to popular belief, “many internet technologies are used as much for local contact as they are for distant communication.” Further, evidence shows a strong correlation between digital literacy and local engagement that’s becoming increasingly apparent among young people, indicating some serious potential for continued growth. It's no secrete that services like CoupMe, Boston Tweet, Yelp and Four Square are making a serious impact by re-connecting people to their neighborhoods.

Implications for Brands:
1. Consumer’s have a new definition of healthy food. Beyond quality they are concerned with the health of the environment and their local economies.
2. Localvores derive real satisfaction from “living responsibly” and have a strong desire for community involvement.
3. Larger brands may find it particularly difficult to establish authentic and believable associations with locally minded consumers.
4. People are finding new ways to translate their virtual communities into real life groups, thus one of the best ways to reach locally minded consumers may be through Google and online forums.

Content is a right, not a DVD

2010-04-12T06:36:00.000-07:00

How many times should I have to buy a DVD? In an ideal world, just once.

I don't look at movies or music the way I used to. I think it happened at about the same time I ripped all the music from my CDs to my computer, because suddenly I had two copies: one real and one digital. As long as it doesn't explode (fingers crossed), that content is on my computer forever. With everyone doing this now, I'm going to assume other people are seeing content differently as well.

Virtual and hard copies of content aren't on equal footing. Should my notebook burn down, I still have the CDs as back ups. iTunes not only doesn't send a CD (I mean, I'm paying full price and I'd just rip it anyways, so can you just send me the 15 cent disk?) or offer me more than a single download. Plus, my CDs have a sentimental value and they are something physical I can hold and love (unless my computer was burned due to a larger house fire...). No matter how digital I get, a hard copy is something I will value more because virtual content feels secondary, frail and less real.

As a result, I don't value virtual content very highly, and I'm often appalled when I see iTunes is charging full price. I think this is probably a big driver of illegal downloading--I don't know if people really feel they are "stealing" as digital copies are not considered as valuable--because, you can't download a real car, or a real DVD. I refuse to pay full price for a one time download.

If content is a right, not a DVD, I think we need to reevaluate some things.

Image: source

TV’s Missed Opportunity

2010-04-05T06:32:00.000-07:00

Right now people are watching more premium content than ever, take Net Flix, Hulu, iTunes/ Amazon and then pile on illegal downloading and you have more eyes than ever before. This is an opportunity for premium content producers, e.g. TV networks, movie studios, but unfortunately it's not being framed that way. The business problem is how to monetize those eyeballs. And, while ad rates remain low on sites like Hulu it seems that pay walls are the only answer.

I'd argue that there is a better way.

First, I think sites like Hulu need to get more research on how their ads are watched. I've found that most people I know settle in to watch shows on Hulu, and the very same people that fast-forward on their DVRs are watching the two minute ads on Hulu. Further, most audiences accept that watching ads with your TV show is part of the deal, and most viewers are down with watching them.

Second, premium content needs a business model that's a little more creative. And, as content becomes increasingly detached from specific channels, there should be a greater focus on attaching ads and building revenue on the content itself.

For example, allowing for free downloads with commercial breaks built in, perhaps they could even update periodically? Or give users an interactive experience that unlocks programming via engaging with brands. We could create a whole new type of ad format/ interactive experience for online viewing--like movie trailers (very much enjoyed) make online ads part of the whole viewing experience. Lastly, could we reach out to people who have already downloaded illegally, asking them to register their copies if they enjoy the shows, or to watch ads to help support them?

Finally, people care a great deal about their shows. They feel a sense of personal ownership with the programs they love, and beyond just wanting free programming would also seek to preserve it if given a chance or a way to show their support.

My point is this. Consumption is up, way up. Along with these new habits people also have greater emotional investments in the programs and movies they watch. But, the more the industry denies access the more eyeballs they lose to illegal consumption. Instead, they need to harness the new passion for premium content people have and get creative about making money with all those eyeballs, whatever screen they are on.

Update: A great piece by Carol Phillips on Millennial Marketing cites my article on this topic recently published by TNGG.

Image

Consumer Bashing

2010-03-09T13:13:00.000-08:00

I get asked about my career choice a lot. One of the best moments in my life thus far was the first time I got to say, “I work in advertising,” when asked by a stranger what I did. One of the worst was right after, when he replied, “So, you’re into lying to people for a living?”

It’s no secret that advertising isn’t highly regarded as a profession. I could say that I agree, and that would be easy. Certainly there is enough bad advertising out there for me to point at and say, “no that’s not me.” And I often do. I read Ad Busters, and sometimes I agree.

On the other hand, I think it’s important to call some things out.

First, chill out, because bad advertising is nothing new.

And, I empathize, I really do. That Toyota, “Saved by Zero” ad was one of the most obnoxious things I’ve ever seen. But, it’s partly our fault as consumers that this happens. When we live in a country that freaks out over part of Janet Jackson’s nipple or with blogger moms offended by a Motrin campaign, it’s not exactly easy for agencies to convince their clients to go out on a limb creatively. Our society is just as much to blame for bad ads as advertisers themselves.

Second, people are really lazy. Consumers are so used to commercials putting information right in front of their faces, that they've grown to rely on it.

Standing in a CVS aisle looking for deodorant, apart from advertisements you’ve seen, how much independent knowledge do you have about the category? Almost none. Maybe you chose based on what your dad buys, the cheapest, the best looking label or the brand you’re used to—but you have almost no independent knowledge outside of what’s right in front of you other than ads. It’s like a 20-year-old shopping for wine. "Well I've heard of Yellow Tail..."

So, before you complain to me, just think about the last time you read up on toothpaste. I thought so.

Finally, not too many people pay for content. Anyone who has donated to Wikipedia can claim absolution here I suppose, but the rest of us just aren't supporting the things we like. We expect free, and ads come with that. Even on things like Facebook and Twitter, there’s no such thing as a free profile.

If you've made it this far without throwing your computer out a window, let me say, I’m not claiming that any of this makes up for all the evils of advertising, even if you do buy the “necessary evil” argument. Also, there is good advertising out there, and it’s worth your time. So go find an ad you love, and one you hate, then we can talk.

Edit: If you're still not convinced, check out some of these ads.

Sex Ed vs Censorship

2010-02-19T07:58:00.000-08:00

Sex and Gen Y is a messy subject, if only because not that many people want to be open and honest about their kids getting it on. My latest post on The Next Great Generation (TNGG), Does Pornography Always Objectify?, was posted as part of Sex Week -- where we explored some of the issues surrounding sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, relationships etc., for Gen Y. On the surface it may not appear that we ever had a 1960s style sexual revolution, but if sexting and internet porn are taken into account, we certainly had one and it was virtual.

There's a lot this revolution has influenced in terms of how Millennials think, and among other things it's led to a greater acceptance of sex on mains street. Though certainly not everyone agrees this is ok. The core idea of the article is, that while some of us disparage hyper sexual images in advertising and in the media at large, the fault is not inherent to the image. That is, there's nothing wrong with pictures of boobs... as long as we talk about boobs too.

And, while we must be cautious of things that may stunt or hinder the healthy development of girls, and boys (let's not forget them), that censoring sexual images is probably not the answer if we want real results: healthy, balanced adults. As a culture we run away from sex, but maybe if we just confronted it head on, talked about it, talked about our values etc.; we'd likely see much better outcomes than what we get from teaching our kids abstinence only or not letting them watch south park or anything on MTV.

Photo Credit: 8136496@N05

Dear Retailers: Your Biggest Fans are Working for You

2010-02-01T07:29:00.000-08:00

Young people are typically treated as a disposable, easily renewable commodity when it comes to working mall retail and other teenager appropriate, "unskilled" jobs. Unfortunately, us kids have a reputation for being unreliable, and compounded by the fact that we're are available only during holidays and after school, it's no wonder employers don't see fit to invest more time and effort in us young workers.

But, one glaring misconception on the part of companies hiring gen y-ers is that we'd rather not be there. In truth it's quite the opposite. We're often your biggest fan!

I worked at a coffee shop when I was in High School and with only a few full time employees they relied heavily on a staff of young people. We were paid very little (around $6.50/hr), made to pay for our drinks and food, and no tips were allowed. In spite of all this we all loved our jobs and wanted the shop to do well. Yet, we were often treated by the management as if our next shift would be a "no call no show." Despite our friendship and desire to do a good job the attitudes of our managers became a self fulfilling prophecy and drove many people away.

Employers would do well to consider that often young people want to do well at their jobs and have a deep desire to establish a place where they feel they belong. We develop an emotional attachment to the store and the other employees we work with, but need to feel we are valued and respected as well.

I explore this issue in more detail and offer some suggestions of what employers might improve in an article published on TheNextGreatGeneration.com, Dear Retailers: Your Biggest Fans are Working for You. Check it out and leave a comment!

Online is Real Life, Too

2010-01-29T08:54:00.000-08:00

Online or virtual life gets a bad rap for being less than real, which is weird as we're essentially labeling social media as antisocial. It keeps us away from our real life social circles and robs us all of face-to-face time the advocates of real life argue. And, while they make a good case, certainly some people are on their computers far too much, I think they also do a disservice to a very important point: real life and virtual life do not need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, they have great potential to augment one another.

Yesterday I spent just about all day inside my apartment working on writing articles, editing others and watching a good amount of TV with my roommate. Under normal circumstances I would have had contact with just one person, but instead I was periodically chatting on twitter, sharing articles to read and posting on a few friend's Facebook walls to touch base. What's so wrong with that? I think my life is considerably better as a result and I see these people much more in real life because of these interactions.

I've put down some of these ideas in a much more cogent form in an article published yesterday on thenextgreatgeneration.com, titled (the same as this) Online Is Real Life, Too -- If your'e interested check it out and leave a comment.

Since when is "social media" just a Facebook fan page?

2010-01-26T12:05:00.000-08:00

Ad Age recently named Mother, New York agency of the year. And while the article covers much of their recent work, which is all very interesting stuff, one of their ideas in particular really caught my eye:

"For Target, Mother recaptured the marketer's design-oriented sunniness with a nine-faced Times Square billboard-turned-product. The agency recruited four New York artists to create the 20,000 square foot poster and then, adding a green/design/turn-your-marketing-spend-into-revenue twist, the agency repurposed the vinyl into 1,600 mini works of art, each available for purchase on Target.com, and then re-re-purposed each piece into a handbag designed by Anna Sui. The handbags sold out in a week."

On the same day, other news comes from Ad Age that P&G is planning to invest heavily in making Facebook a big part of its marketing plan.

“‘P&G's explicit goal for 2010 is to assure that each of its brands has a meaningful presence on Facebook, and they are willing to pay dearly for that,’ Mr. Hornik wrote. ‘And while P&G's thought leaders expressed some skepticism about the efficacy of Facebook's “engagement ads,” they certainly view Facebook as a must-have for digital advertising and brand building.’”

What jumped to mind after reading these two articles was that both of these “ideas” could probably benefit greatly from the other.

With a stronger Facebook strategy Target could have facilitates spreading news about their event/ stunt/ product to fans of the brand and a wider audience in general. I really like Target and I would have enjoyed hearing about this, but I didn’t. It’s a great story and there’s no reason they couldn’t have told it on Facebook and other social media platforms. Why limit the exposure of this event to NYC when your customers are all over the world and connected? Even if I don't buy a bag just knowing about them elivates the brand's identity in my mind.

On the other side, P&G might incorporate Facbook into their marketing plan, but unless they have something more to bring to the table other than a fan page, contest or quirky app I just don’t know if anyone is going to care. Why on earth would I friend P&G? Tide or Duracell? The unspoken transaction that advertising trades entertainment for attension is just as true online as off. People want something interesting and fun, and just because they are sitting at their computers all day doesn’t mean they want to feel that way. Social media is a channel or a tactic for disseminating a message, and not much of a message in itself.

I think this all ties back into the discussion of what creativity means in a digitally connected world. I don't think you need to be on social to be social--but, if you want to be successful on the social media channel it seems that we need to think about the conversation and what it means to be conversational.

Scion’s Missed Opportunity

2010-01-15T09:38:00.000-08:00

It might not make sense for every brand to jump head first into social media and start conversing with their customers (though for many it does). Yet, with the widespread adoption of this new platform the dynamic of marketing has changed, and campaigns designed without the existence of these conversations and communities in mind will undoubtedly fall short.

Scion's marketing efforts toward hip hop and graffiti groups offers a great example of how misunderstanding the way targets interact online, even when engaging them elsewhere, can lead to negative results and missed opportunities.

What not to do:
A few years ago Scion rolled into Scribble Jam, an annual Hip Hop and graffiti festival, on a mission to promote their message of individuality. With several graffiti painted cars and carefully produced fliers about the 'indie-ness' of their brand, it was by all accounts a text book street-team style operation and a fantastic failure; the ‘graf’ community was underwhelmed, to say the least, at the relevance of Scion's message and its poor understanding their community.

Some background on the graffiti community:
To say they are rebels is an understatement. Getting caught for painting can easily lead to more jail time than a sexual assault conviction and the lengths to which these artists go to complete pieces in obscure, unreachable places is unreal. They put themselves at great personal risk for their art, their name, and “sticking it to the man.”

They paint, among other things, freight cars. And, most are careful never to paint over tracking numbers so that the cars keep running. As various pieces travel the country other graffiti artists, along with another group of people dedicated to tracking and documenting graf, snap pictures and post them online.

But they’re not posting on Facebook; the graffiti community was online before Frienster, using forums to trade painting tips and pictures. The online component of their community is largely responsible for the shaping and growing the real world community that exists today.

What could have been:
Graffiti artists are anti-establishment, read ad busters and have no love for marketing. And this is how I’d sell them Scion.

Arrive with a fleet of blank, white cars and offer them to the painters as open canvases. No brochures.

Take the best cars from scribble jam along with a few others tagged by well know graf artists and take them off the road. Place them in prominent spots where graffiti is typically found; under bridges, on the roofs of building, on flat bed train cars mixed in with freight. Then do nothing.

Because tracking and sharing found graf online is such an important aspect of the community there’s no need to build flashy micro sites or a fan page on Facebook. When members of the community see the cars word will spread. The unique look of Scions makes the brand unmistakable and the message is a powerful, silent endorsement of the community’s work and culture.

Take away:
I'm sure there are ways to drastically improve my plan, but the core of my argument is about the importance of research, and how online communities aren't just online. The media ecosystem is clearly more complex these days and the value a social agency provides is much more than creating a twitter strategy or improving SEO (though this is essential as well). An agency versed in social understands how social media networks work and how their target interacts with them. This is the type of insight your brand needs today.

Is your agency fluent in social?

A "how to twitter" for my friends

2009-12-16T10:42:00.000-08:00

When I started using Twitter I was very confused. Honestly, I still am sometimes--it's a big place. But, with the help of some friends I was able to beat the learning curve, and continue to learn. Recently a few friends of mine decided to give Twitter a try and I wanted to help. Most of the Twitter how-tos I came across were not very good, so the the result was a very long e-mail I wrote with instructions on how to get started from the ground up. In the end I'm not sure if it's really any better than what is already out there, but I figured I'd post it here just in case it might help anyone else.

Please, suggest any clarifications, additions or improvements that come to mind. It would be nice to make this as user friendly and comprehensive for beginners as possible.

Instructions for Jump-Starting Your Twitter

Getting Started:

Upload a picture (because nobody likes friend-ing a question mark), but pick it carefully. with so many twitter users the images/symbols attached to our names become very important for remembering who people are at a glance. That is, as a general rule this is not something you’ll want to change very often, if at all.

Keep other users in mind when your write your profile, you don’t need to give away any information you don't want to (e.g. majors, internships, live in Boston...” But, do think about what you’d want to know if you were looking at your own profile as a stranger. On Twitter the name of the game is being open—so try to give people an idea of what you’re about.

Set up your e-mail and cell phone. Have try having only direct messages e-mailed to you (I have them texted to me as well)—Twitter is real time so I leave all other messages out of my in-box, if I miss it, I miss it. It’s important to set up your cell so that you can update twitter on the go, or direct message people from your phone, more on this below. You'll be able to do all of the above by poking around on twitter.com after you have logged in, start by looking under "settings" located on the top right of the page.

The Basics:

Twitter has its own syntax for sending different types of messages. As you no doubt already know, regular messages can only be 140 characters long.

To send a public message directed to someone specific is called an “at” message/reply. E.g. “@JPotteiger Hey, so you had a bagel today. Awesome. Thanks for not cleaning it up!” Note: that there’s NO space between @ and the twitter handle.

To send a private message, called a “direct” message, type “d JPotteiger” followed by your message “I hate you, clean up your f#&king breakfast mess in the morning!!!” Note: you MUST put a space between the d and the twitter handle.

If you’ve set up your phone on twitter.com, to tweet simply send a text message to 40404. Twitter will recognize who the message is from and posts it to your account. All the syntax for messaging above applies.

Topics often trend on Twitter and these appear on your home page on twitter.com. But, more often than not the conversations you'll care about will not. To follow these topics people organized themselves by adding a # sign, called a “hash tag,” to relevant tweets. Go to search.twitter.com and search for “#pun” for an example. As you become more familiar with TweetDeck and/or HootSuite (more on these below) you’ll learn you can have separate columns for keeping track of different lists of people AND for hash tags.

Protip: search.twitter.com is a great tool. It’s a real time search engine and your portal for finding things on twitter. Below I’ll give you a list of people to follow on twitter, put their twitter handles into the search (take a quick look at the conversation surrounding their name) and click on their handle itself to go to their profile, and then follow them. Or for each name just type in the url “twitter.com/username”

Boston twitter: Bostontweet, happn_in_boston, bostontips, hiddenboston, ONEin3, bostonmagazine, theimproper, stuffmagazine

Tweeting:

It’s tough to feel comfortable tweeting, knowing what's good and what's bad–separating the wheat from the chaff is tough at the beginning. Thus, I think that broadening your tweet horizons is important so that you'll have more options to consider when tweeting (posting a message to Twitter in case you haven't picked up on that yet).

Enter twitpic.com. Turns out you can tweet small pictures too, and right from your phone. Go to http://twitpic.com/ and log in with your twitter account info. Under "upload photo" get the information you need to send picture updates from your phone and then enter that info as a contact in your phone book under TwitPic so you can easily update with pics from your phone.

As far as tweeting in general, try setting a goal of tweeting at least 3 times throughout the day. You'll need to force yourself to have a quota at first or you’ll just forget. Don't force the tweets themselves though; try to tweet interesting things, not just what you’re eating or doing. It can be a NYT article you read online, a good pun, frustration with the MBTA, something you see downtown (twitpic), a question about something you see downtown, a recommendation (e.g. Gulu Gulu and the Engine House in Salem, MA are Awesome!). AND, there might even be a #salemMA for you to tack on and/or follow for Twitter news about Salem. Or maybe you could start it... Many possibilities.

Advanced Beginners

Download TweetDeck OR sign up for a free online account with HootSuite.com. These are 3rd party programs for managing twitter. Once you start using these you’ll never bother using the twitter.com website again; as these are specially designed programs for managing your twitter friends and followers and are far more useful. As you will find, much of what you’ll use that makes twitter great is 3rd party stuff. Yay capitalism!

Now tweet away you princes of Maine… you kings of New England.

Music (as we knew it) is Dead

2009-11-23T08:35:00.000-08:00

John Mayer recently asked people who illegally downloaded his new album to “register” their copy if they liked it. This was a confusing idea for me at first, but I realized that the concept of registering (vs. buying) music is perhaps more accurate these days because music has changed.

Are we physically buying music anymore, or do we simply buy the rights to it? It no longer exists exclusively on a CD or a tape, and since those can be copied and put on all our different media (and because iTunes and Amazon recently got rid of anti sharing restrictions) music is an entirely new thing. It's not a physical commodity anymore, but data that we can copy and move and store wherever, without racks or milk cartons. And with services like Rhapsody, Pandora, Last.fm, blip.fm (my favorite) and many more, we're being loaned the rights to hear it via these channels. As a result, the way we think about, talk about and interact with (and sell) music needs to change too.

It’s nothing mind blowing, but I think it’s an important idea and just one of many such shifts in the way we see the world that’s happening today.

Hulu: No We're (Probably) Not Gonna Buy It

2009-11-17T09:53:00.000-08:00

I've been lucky enough to have a second article of mine published on The Next Great Generation. In it I discuss the things that we, Gen Y, love and what we probably won't pay for when it comes to Hulu adopting a pay-for-content scheme. In the piece, Hulu: No We're (Probably) Not Gonna Buy It, I take a look at the reasons we like it: We love Hulu because it’s simple... because it gets us... [and] because it makes TV portable. And, why we're unlikely to follow it to a pay for content scheme: We probably won’t pay for commercials... We probably won’t change our habits... [and] We probably won’t pay for what we’re getting right now.

Young people have adopted Hulu as a place to catch up on TV. It's a way to keep their favorite programs in their lives when the network's Monday night time slot just wont do. This in conjunction with the increasingly flexible definition of ownership among brands, the consumer vs the corporation, causes us to feel we deserve to watch our shows online for free. Sometimes the world demands we work late or maybe we work nights consistantly, and since we're paying for internet and cable already the idea of more charges on our credit card bill to see it on Hulu just isn't that appealing. I'll learn to torrent instead.

I'm Published!

2009-11-10T06:40:00.000-08:00

Here it is! "15 Ways Millennials Think About Brands"

I recently jumped on a crowdsourcing project started by Edward Boches at Mullen and driven by young writers. The purpose of the site, dubbed The Next Great Generation (TNGG), is to explore what it's like to be a member of Gen Y/ or a "Millennial." It's a place to give members of our generation a voice to discuss everything from the brands that speak to us (and those that miss the mark) to the values we hold most dear--with an eye towards educating older generations.

Perhaps our 'about us' says it best: "If we pull it off, The Next Great Generation will be an opportunity for Millennial Generation writers to develop a voice and gather a following, along with a real chance for older generations to listen in, learn, even ask questions."

Having grown up literally just saturated in information, our world view is far different from the weltanschauung of previous generations. In my post, "15 Ways Millennials Think About Brands," I look at some of the new ways we interact with marketing and what we expect from it.

If you enjoy it or have any ideas leave a comment and check out the rest of the site. We're brand new and always looking for feedback. Also if you're interested in writing something for TNGG we're always looking for writers.

PS Boston.com blog, Business Updates, mentions TNGG and my article: Blog of interest to marketers debuts in the Hub. Woot woot.

And TNGG in general mentioned on the BostonBusinessJournal.com
Beancast picks up the story, posts: Crowdsourcing That's Actually Crowdsourcing

Some kind words on YRevold! (Brands: We Own You)

Also on SocialLink (Are Brands Important?) and Mullen.com

It's time for 21st century brands

2009-11-03T12:20:00.000-08:00

I majored in Advertising and Political Science, here is what I learned in school: Once a campaign is developed convention dictates that it be integrated, applied over every media like spreading frosting on a cake. Design a good media mix, get a little multiplier effect going on and then call it a day!

The idea being, if a brand is the same everywhere, all the time, broadcasting a message that is disruptive and persuasive, its image burns into the audience’s mind like the memory of a first kiss or that time you hurled after accidentally drinking sour milk.

It is painfully obvious however that some brands are currently writing a new playbook, and with great success. I term them 21st century brands, but I suppose you could just call them smart. Yet, with home internet access almost 20 years old, only recently has it become apparent to even these innovators that there is real value in changing things up. Look back at say, the results of online fundraising for the past three presidential elections and woah, where did 2008 come from?! Sure, the internet and mobile technology evolved a great deal in a short time, so perhaps we owe it to that? Yeah ok, maybe. But it’s not as if Facebook is worlds apart from Friendster, a permutation with better marketing at best. Far more significant I’d argue has been the sharp increase of the general public’s literacy with these mediums, that they in depth and breadth have finally grown enough to change the game.

In terms of shifting paradigms, politics are decent gauge. Richard Nixon got spanked by JFK in 1960 because by then more people were watching TV than listening to radio; and Nixon refused to tan like a girl or wear makeup. Turns out sweaty and pale doesn’t come off as presidential. But eight years later Nixon was back, and with a presidential bid hailed by many as the first “modern political campaign” – winning him the White House and two mentions in Billy Joel’s hit song, “We Didn’t Start the Fire.” Not bad.

The 1960 presidential election demonstrated the power of television just over twenty years after becoming commercially available. There is no doubt that 2008 was another game changing year. We had a new media environment, fueled by a more mature ‘web 2.0’ and sophisticated mobile technology that, most importantly, for the first time ever was actually being used by a majority of people. In other words, internet literacy had finally caught up with the technology available.

There’s no need to rehash how the Obama campaign was able to translate clicks and texts into real world actions or word of mouth buzz into persuasion by facilitating two way communication and foster community around shared meaning. Or to point out again how the supporters themselves became an integral part of the campaign/ brand structure, committing their time, money and passion to movement, and actively helping to write its story.

It is important to note, however, that for all the campaign's media savvy, none of this would have been possible without an electorate actually using and fluent in the capabilities of online and mobile technology. Or rather, using it and using it well.

What Obama did may or may not have specific lessons for brands. Let’s be honest, DEWmocracy wasn’t really that cool or successful - it was actually pretty lame. However, with a step back, one solid fact we can take away from the political sphere in 2008 is that similar to 1960, twenty or so years after its debut the net unarguably came into its own. How we interact with media has finally changed to the extent that ignoring it is simply not an option. We certainly won’t see any serious political candidate ignore this fact in the future and any truly successful 21st century brands will be the ones placing a high premium on adapting to this new space.

Marshall McLuhan coined, “the medium is the message” in 1964 and four years later Nixon demonstrated better than anyone that he got the message. Tick tock.

Rehabilitating Paid Content

2009-10-12T14:27:00.000-07:00

:Consolidation and Integration Could Save Paid Media, Online and Off

It goes without saying that when it comes to content, who gets paid for it and how are the issue of the day when it comes to solving the “problem” of the internet. As media continues to fragment and online users become more impatient, log-ins and user names are among the first things to cause someone to click the back button on their browser – forget about asking them to pull out a credit card unless FedEx or UPS is involved.

For news content (music and video as well), the issue for consumers has been framed as cost. They expect it to be free and if it’s not they simply won’t pay. But, psychologically it may not necessarily be money that stands in the way of people paying for content, but rather clutter.

These days even millennials are overwhelmed by the internet. The cohort that grew up showing their parents how to use e-mail and messing around in chat rooms when they were 13 are becoming slower to adopt the exponentially growing number of new online services and opportunities.

From multiple e-mails (personal [new and old], work and/or school) to Twitter to YouTube and Hulu accounts, to the NYT/ Wall Street Journal, a personal blog, an account on a forum and maybe even a porn subscription–even the simplest of online users have a cluster f@#k of information to keep track of just to access information. Moreover, it’s likely that for most their user names and log-ins are all different, as some sites demand specific letter and number combinations and lengths for usernames and passwords–and everyone hates it. AND, even when we do easily remember, we silently groan as we move our hands from the mouse to the keyboard just to read the rest of an article or find that our friend has logged us out of facebook on our own computer.

Online, we want consolidation, simplicity.

Sure people are used to the internet being free, but why do we assume people won’t pay for online content? Just because they haven’t? We pay for cable to see the programs we like when network TV is a free alternative. And we pay even more on top of that for HBO and Showtime. But these channels are just a few options from a media menu we construct and enjoy as a delightful digital meal – all on one bill every month, tip included.

The current internet pay-for-content model we’re rejecting is “pay by channel.” Figuratively, it has us whipping out our credit card to pay for CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC... Comedy Central, Spike, Oxygen, TNT... all separately and forcing us to use a log-in and password any time we’re looking to channel surf. “Uggh, f@#k that,” we all say, and I agree.

What I’m getting at is nothing outrageously new: if costs and access were consolidated online (and off-more below) I think we’d see a very different type of user behavior emerge. People would likely see things very differently if, instead of paying a separate bill with separate log-in information for NYT, the Economist and Esquire, etc., they could purchase a “preferred media package” included with their cable, internet and phone bill.

Further, lets talk offline. Ask any millennial and I highly doubt you’ll find many that don’t enjoy reading magazines and news papers in the flesh, or think that libraries should be online. Sure we want it there too, but it turns out we like books all the same. We do, however, have a problem with print, and it’s directly related to the issue of clutter.

Anecdote alert). I’m always moving to a new apartment every 5 months or at least every year or so. And every time I actually buy a newspaper I think–if only the Boston Globe offered me an easy way to manage my subscription via facebook! If only my Esquire subscription could live in the RFID chip on my credit card and be good for my monthly issue wherever I happen to be that month. And don’t give me reasons why this can’t work. Do you want to sell newspapers and magazines or don’t you?

The other key point here, along with consolidation, is integration. If I could manage my subscriptions on facebook, where I already am, or if I could choose where to pick up my magazines (just an example)–then that’s a whole new world for me. The internet and print don’t have to be opposing forces in my view, rather they have the ability to be complimentary.

In summation: I don’t think people aren’t against paying for the news, we have been doing it for a very long time – and sure we’re against spending money, but I’m willing to bet that what we are more against are log-ins and laundry lists of monthly charges on our credit cards. More against picking apart websites for the phone number to change 5 subscriptions, when we know we’re just going to have to do it again in 5 months.

What I’m saying is that consolidation, integration and simplification, or rather convenience, could be a key ingredient to rehabilitating the feasibility of paid content.

Make my life easier, give me what I want, here take my money.

Vest Week

2009-10-05T06:46:00.001-07:00

A hooded sweatshirt might be informal for work, but you cut off the sleeves and now it's fine. As I meditated on this paradox on my way into the city this morning, nervously eying my hooded cut-off, I contemplated the fashion cycle of vests. When they're in they're awesome, and when they are out it's more like: "Is that guy really wearing a vest? Let's leave those for early 90s intro's to Friends, shall we? Thanks." Well right now vests are back* and I'm taking advantage of it all this week! With a warm chestal area and slightly chilly arms I plan to live each sleeveless day to it's fullest. Next week, plaid or argyle, not sure yet.

* Are they? I actually have no idea... the more I think about it I don't think they are.

Update: Had a few questions about the sweatshirt vest, naturally. This is it. Pretty gangster, I know... (PS I did not cut the sleeves off, it came like that).

We're not as digital as you think

2009-10-01T06:29:00.000-07:00

More often than not it’s my peers, not my parents, asking me, “So what’s this twitter thing?” In my circle of friends (all millennials) I am among the most Internet savvy. For anyone working with social media on a daily basis this should concern you. If it turns out that millennials aren’t that digital then what are we doing? And what are they up to?

I may be slightly above average when it comes to my grasp of the “State of the Internet,” and I am literally always learning. I don’t mean that in one of those cute, oh shucks I’m always learning kind of way, rather it’s a frantic, confusing cluster k@#k of learning while I try to drink in new technologies, understand their potential and offer strategies about how best to leverage them for marketing purposes. So if this is me then where are my peers?

The issue here is, to what extent are average millennials engaged with the world of social media. And this is when David Scott and Malcolm Gladwell pop into my head. Most of what I know about the information superhighway highway was gleaned from what can only be described as Mavens. People who sat down at my computer and said back in 2005, “Hey I’m going to put Firefox on your computer, it’s better than IE, just trust me.” They were the ones who pointed me down the "long tail" of new technology literacy. And here’s where Scott comes in, because it seems that while internet literacy is growing wider and deeper, ultimately it’s not common knowledge, but a niche skill to use blogs and navigate twitter.

In the introduction to my thesis on Barack Obama’s presidential campaign I set up the premise that 2007 and 2008 not only had Internet technology advanced, but people’s comfort and literacy with it had finally progressed enough as well (an educated guess). As a result, more people knew not only what the Internet was and how to use google, but they were aware of and engaged with social and mobile technology. Yay, online community coming to fruition. Clicks translated to real life action. Awesome.

And yet, even with twitter as yesterday’s news it still seems to mystify many. Frequently I find myself at social events extolling the virtues of blogging or explain to them that reading reddit.com and (of course) using twitter is worth their time. While many are happy to hear about it at first, I find the that just the idea of using these technologies are frequently met with misunderstandings, skepticism and more often that one would think, outright hostility – I'm arguing with 20 year olds that the internet is cool. What?

Last year when I saw the new Dentyne ice campaign on the subway I had to smile because it validated the Account Planner in. Someone else had come to the same conclusion I had, that outward disdain for social media could be a good position for a band. That is, even though many people may use social media they are confused by it and what they do use they resent for the time it steals from their lives and for the diminishing direct social contact – it’s tough to share even a football game on a computer, let alone while surfing.

So what do we have? The Internet is confusing and on the whole millennials are just as confused as everyone else. There is a big chunk of mystery, misunderstanding and just plain lack of understanding sitting between a few (million) heavy users and everyone getting on board. The knowledge barrier to hurdle just to use twitter is high, then to use it enough to like it? Most say forget it. Reading blogs? Starting a blog? Most millennials see it as an attention thing or expect to start getting followers within a few weeks having followed no one themselves. On the whole we are skeptical and even pessimistic toward the Internet.

I’m not saying that millennials don’t use the Internet, we use it a lot. Just not where or how you think we do. And I’ll tell you one thing right now – it’s not facebook fan pages.

Be Like Mike

2009-08-14T09:11:00.000-07:00

McCognitive Dissonance

2009-08-02T16:40:00.000-07:00

Mullen

2009-07-28T12:43:00.000-07:00

Last week Mullen was gracious enough to offer me a series of informative interviews with several people working in their social media influence group. Having never been inside an agency before, I was very aware and nervous about what a big event in my life this was as I stepped off the elevator into Mullen's new downtown offices. The first through the last interview (especially when Edward popped in) felt a bit surreal, mostly because I could not stop thinking to myself, "This is so cool, this is so cool..." I learned a lot and each person who I met with was welcoming and happy to answer all of my questions and give me advice. After some great conversations I was sad to leave, but invigorated to up my game and really show what I could do.

Concerning Mullen specifically, I have this to say: I think that it says a lot about a person who takes the time to sit down and help others just because it's a nice thing to do, and it says something equally significant about an agency that does the same. Each person I sat down with at Mullen was taking time out of their very busy day to speak with a student who'd never seen an agency lobby, and were all happy to do so. Additionally, I learned how the internship program at Mullen assigns interns to mentors and provides lectures during lunchtime to help them learn and grown while they are there. This is the mark of a great agency, and a corporate culture that really cares about everyone, even the interns - even prospective interns trying to understand what the industry is like a little better.

Thank you Mullen, and thank you to everyone who I met with. I had a great time and I learned a lot!

Ads in the Wild

2009-07-15T23:34:00.001-07:00

At FedEx Kinko's the other day I was reminded of the age old problem of translating GUI (what I see on the screen) to paper. The colors never seem to come out quite right, no matter how hard I try. It's not really a problem, just a little frustrating. But the bigger question it raised for me was about execution. Ads on a screen, in a book or in a conference room (I'm guessing) never really look quite like they will when they're finally printed in a magazine, shellacked to a wall or stretched over a billboard.

This is partly what inspired me to go out and take some shots of ads as they exist in their "natural environment." Notice their majestic, colorful and trendy plumage utilized to attract a mate. I may well be grasping for something that isn't there, but I think it's interesting how they effect the landscape, and how it effects them. I've been taking walks around the city every few months snapping shots, and soon I'll post the series I've put together in a place that does them a little more justice (this blog isn't really designed to accommodate images). Until I get them all edited and up on a more suitable site (possibly JPotteiger.com?) here are a few I've picked out.

click images to view larger

Inside, Out of Home

2009-06-27T12:36:00.000-07:00

Summer is supposed to be relaxing, except when you're taking summer classes that fly through material faster than a frat party taps a keg. That is, I haven't found much time to write, or even get out. And, while I may be stuck reading in the library over beautiful weekends, I've still found some time to peer out into the great, big world via the 'internets'. Thus, here are some out of home ads I've come across while surfing around, cooped up inside.

Update:
Some sources: Advertising Creative, Most Creative Outdoor Advertisements

What he said...

2009-06-05T08:27:00.001-07:00

http://xkcd.com/137/

The Most Interesting Man in the World

2009-05-27T16:15:00.000-07:00

My friend Doug Hyland recently turned me onto the Dos Equis campaign and I thought I'd post some of the ads here (below) simply because this is now one of my favorite campaigns. I think that "The Most Interesting Man in the World" is a superb idea for this campaign for many reasons - and it hearkens to a little part of the James Bond that lies within many men, that unfortunately imitators often overlook, he's deadly, classy and brilliant. He's an intellectual that wields unparalleled social skills, charm, poise and a dry wit you hate to love. These ads really hit that idea home for me, and I think it will for a lot of other guys as well.

Similarly, I also enjoy the new Ketel One campaign that plays on a related theme - it's good to be a put together man, you know the way men used to be. It's most recent ad (below) showing a group of very well dressed men playing cards and drinking around a table in a mysteriously dark room, begins with a voice over saying, "There was a time when substance was style," and ends with the tag line "Gentlemen, this is vodka." Further, not long ago a campaign done by Canadian Club's also plays off a similar imagery. With ads that were about "Your Dad," it was predominantly a print campaign and ran with headlines such as: "Your Mom wasn't your Dad's first," and "Your Dad gave out the nick names." The accompanying pictures were of men in the 1960s and 70s, very classy (for the time) and in control. After thinking about these three campaigns, it dawned on me that, in addition to being pretty good, what I liked about them was the way they portrayed what it means to be a man.

Similarly an article in Esquire last month, titled "W hat is a Man?", also explored the idea of what it means to be a man today. To quote it briefly: "A man welcomes the coming of age. It frees him. It allows him to assume the upper hand and teaches him when to step aside... A man listens, and that's how he argues. He crafts opinions. He can pound the table, take the floor. It's not that he must. It's that he can." All of these qualities of manliness paint a picture of someone who is strong (physically and mentally) but also in control, organized, intelligent, a bit refined and fiercely independent. Not bad, right?

Poking around however, I came across some interesting, and mostly negative, comments about the Esquire article on Reddit.com, with one person calling it: "Pr aspirational lifestyle hogwash" - and I had to laugh as I guess that's true to an extent. But, what I like about the Esquire article and all of these ad campaigns is that they redefine the image of what it means to be a man that I feel I've been fed most of my life - something that I think our culture might need very badly right now.

This vision of a man is a far cry from what my generation is shown daily on MTV - it might be PR aspirational stuff, but at least it's not the manufactured stereotype of the "mook" (eg. Jonny Knoxville) that Frontline's report "Merchant's of Cool" discusses; so maybe, just maybe PR aspirational bull isn't all that bad. Overall, much of the imagery out there about men right now seems to be anti intellectual, disrespectful and focuses on physical, rather than emotional strength. In contrast, these pieces paint a picture of manliness that values education, critical thinking and courtesy. And aren't these among the best qualities we would like a role model to demonstrate? I think that in large part I'm alright with that.

I wish i didn't have to write this part, but I think I do. To clarify my position on the message of these ads - while part of their power rests in the nostalgic feeling of the way things used to be, I don't believe they are promoting a return to misogyny, and neither am I. We're steadily and deliberately heading in the right direction with regard to gender equality, and this is a beautiful thing. Further, I cannot wait until the GLBT realizes and enjoys similar success. In many ways the old ways of doing things is nothing to miss. Though, along with our purging of misogyny I believe men may have lost a bit of their identity, as we attempted to throw out all the old ways of doing things because they were bad, right? - but maybe all the old values and ideas were not awful.

But back to the beginning. I like these ads for many reasons, but ultimately because they speak to me. They are clever and funny and (debatably) have a great message that goes along with them. I'm not sure what this image of manliness will mean in the larger scope of things, and I'm not saying that it doesn't have problems (see Don Draper). But, from much of what I've encountered in my life it seems that boys and men are facing a bit of a cultural identity crisis - and these messages fill a much needed gap in the spectrum of our culture tells us it means to be a man. The expectations and images of our society are very powerful, and they deserve our attention. These images of men are certainly not the end all be all, and there is certainly much to be debated. But for now, I like this.

How to Lose a Widget in 10 Seconds

2009-05-20T09:25:00.000-07:00

I recently found that Adweek has a cool widget that shows a new ad every day! I immediately loved the idea and I wanted to add it to my blog and my google home page to indulge my ad nerdiness. However, I quickly found that I couldn’t resize the widget, and it’s very, very big. I couldn’t fit it in the right hand column of this blog and it dwarfed the other widgets on my google home page. I’m not fluent in html, but I am able to work with youtube’s embedding code to make the videos just the right size for what I'm doing; and that is why I like to use youtube.

Conversely, because the Adweek widget lacked flexibility I couldn’t use it (I should note, maybe it's possible but I don't know how - if it is I'd be interested to learn). Now I don’t have a cool widget and Adweek doesn’t get to advertise to me and my readers every day - even though it's something that we both want. I think this is a good example of a great social media idea gone just a little wrong - it's off, I think, because it doesn't take full advantage of the environment it exists in or the full needs of its users. Social media users (like myself) crave flexibility and the ability to customize. You just don't get me Adweek.

Cost Lost in Translation

2009-04-09T13:17:00.000-07:00

How do we weigh the price of a candidate?

In a chapter of my thesis (just drafted) I discuss some of the difficulties involved with translating the ideas of branding into the political sphere. One big problem is how to deal with the issue of cost. Money and votes just simply aren't the same and shouldn't be treated as such. An often-made assumption that, conceptually speaking, the monetary the cost of a product in the context of a consumer market can be understood as the equivalent of a vote in the political sphere is both overly simplistic and (dare I say) wrong; product cost = x does not correlate to candidate cost = one vote.

Consumers may vary on their willingness to purchase a specific brand based on several factors, one of which is how much they are willing or able to spend. Elections, on the other hand, create a level playing field where every citizen is afforded the same amount to spend. Further, with monetary transactions, there is an implicit exchange of value; a seller provides a product or service in exchange for its equivalent value in money. Yet, how can the cost of support in exchange for a vote be similarly evaluated? Therefore, the perceived cost of voting for a candidate must be derived from an entirely different set of criteria.

While it is certain that no candidate will line up with voters' on the issues a hundred percent of the time, most voters are still able to choose a candidate to support. Potential voters must weigh the aspects of each candidate’s platform, considering what positions they may agree or disagree with against the issues most important to them. This trade off, I believe, is where the true cost of a candidate is determined. For example, an undecided voter may disagree with a candidate who has come out against specific energy alternatives such as offshore drilling and nuclear power. However, social issues may be of much greater salience to the voter in question, causing him or her to continue supporting the candidate if their stance on social issues is in alignment with theirs. The voter is thus willing to bear the "cost" of dissatisfaction with the position on energy policy in exchange for a similar position on social issues that they value more. That is, voters weigh cost based on what they perceive as the “lesser of two evils” – though I hate this axiom and it certainly oversimplifies the point.

In some instances voters may feel that the cost of either candidate is to high when compared to the issues that are most salient to them, and in these instances may become disenchanted with the political process or explore 3rd party alternatives.

One benefit to explaining (political) price in this way, is that it opens the door for another application of brand theory. Like strong brands, well-developed political brands may exercise greater flexibility in terms of position preference the minds of consumers. Consumers with favorable feelings toward a candidate may be more willing to forgive or overlook paying a higher position cost for that candidate. That is, brand credibility has the power to decrease sensitivity to price, (Keller, 2003). Therefore, if a consumer is loyal to a particular candidate they will be more willing to accept the cost of unfavorable issue positions.

Meta Ad

2009-04-04T09:03:00.000-07:00

While this was the lead story in April 3rds AAF SmartBrief, I want to weigh in with my thoughts all the same - and who knows, maybe you missed it. An article on NYT.com (quoted below) discussed the unique meta ad approach of a new advertising campaign by Health Choice. I really like the idea they went with for the campaign; a behind the scenes look at the conversation between the spokesperso, Ms. Louis-Dreyfus, and her agent as they discuss the potential ad deal. It's not that new of an idea, and it feels a lot like The Office, but it's something that people really like right now.

Further, I think the whole meta ad idea ties into the conversation about problems in the industry concerning how people relate to and trust the messages they see in ads. As Luke Sullivan points out in the intro of "Hey Whipple, Squeeze This," people used to trust advertising, but it's no secrete that they don't anymore, in fact lots of people claim to despise it. And, these days Gallup polls regularly show advertising practitioners on par with car salesmen and members of Congress when it comes to least-trusted professions.

The point here is that any agency and client wants people to watch and believe their ads. But how can that be effectivly accomplished when, for some or many people, the credibility of message is already significantly hurt by the medium before we even see the first second of the ad? That's a pretty tough handycap to start with.

I suppose the truth of the matter is that it's not all that bad, not everyone thinks ads are lying and those that do still take in the message, even if with a grain of salt. But still credibility is an important issue all the same. We want ads to be trustworthy. It's something that most ads struggle with, and while I'm not sure if this Health Choice campaign will overcome it, I think it's a pretty good way to try.

'The premise of the commercials, which are directed by Christopher Guest (director of Spinal tap), is that Ms. Louis-Dreyfus is not really sure whether she wants to endorse Healthy Choice.

“It’s a ‘meta’ thing,” said Kathy Delaney, president and chief creative officer at Nitro, “advertising imitating life imitating advertising.”

The device enables the spots to convey information about Healthy Choice in a way that “never feel forced,” Ms. Delaney said, as Ms. Louis-Dreyfus and other characters discuss the reinvention,' (NYT.com via AAF SmartBrief).

April Fools Jokes by Brands

2009-04-01T14:51:00.000-07:00

The Taco Liberty Bell 1996: The Taco Bell Corporation announced it had bought the Liberty Bell and was renaming it the Taco Liberty Bell. Hundreds of outraged citizens called the National Historic Park in Philadelphia where the bell was housed to express their anger. Their nerves were only calmed when Taco Bell revealed, a few hours later, that it was all a practical joke. The best line of the day came when White House press secretary Mike McCurry was asked about the sale. Thinking on his feet, he responded that the Lincoln Memorial had also been sold. It would now be known, he said, as the Ford Lincoln Mercury Memorial.

Virgin Cola’s Blue Cans 1996:
In 1996 Virgin Cola announced that in the interest of consumer safety it had integrated a new technology into its cans. When the cola passed its sell-by date, the liquid would react with the metal in the can, turning the can itself bright blue. Virgin warned that consumers should therefore avoid purchasing all blue cans. The joke was that Pepsi had recently unveiled its newly designed cans. They were bright blue.

The Left-Handed Whopper 1998:
Burger King published a full page advertisement in USA Today announcing the introduction of a new item to their menu: a "Left-Handed Whopper" specially designed for the 32 million left-handed Americans. According to the advertisement, the new whopper included the same ingredients as the original Whopper (lettuce, tomato, hamburger patty, etc.), but all the condiments were rotated 180 degrees for the benefit of their left-handed customers. The following day Burger King issued a follow-up release revealing that although the Left-Handed Whopper was a hoax, thousands of customers had gone into restaurants to request the new sandwich. Simultaneously, according to the press release, "many others requested their own 'right handed' version."

Soy Bomb Lands Record Contrac1 1998:
Viewers of the February 1998 broadcast of the Grammys were surprised when a semi-naked man with the word 'Soy Bomb' scrawled on his chest danced out onto the stage during Bob Dylan's solo performance. The man (who was definitely not supposed to be there) was quickly escorted away by security guards. But a few months later, on April 1, Rhino Records proudly announced that it had signed Soy Bomb (as he was now known) to a two-year, six-album recording contract. Soy Bomb's first album would include covers of popular classics such as 'Dancing Machine' and 'You Dropped a Bomb on Me.' A spokesman for Rhino Records commented that they had been moved to offer Soy Bomb a contract because the experience of watching him dance had been for them "kind of like
when you eat too many Whoppers and you feel a little nauseous,
but you're so happy you ate them."

Bank Teller Fees 1999:
In 1999 the Savings Bank of Rockville placed an ad in the Connecticut Journal-Inquirer announcing that it would soon begin charging a $5 fee to customers who visited a live teller. The ad, which appeared on March 31, claimed that the fee was necessary in order to provide, "professional, caring and superior customer service." Although the ad was a joke, many customers failed to recognize it as such. One woman reportedly closed her account because of it. The bank then ran a second ad revealing that the initial ad was a joke. The bank manager commented that the first ad ironically "commits us to not charging such fees."

Miller Lite 2000:
In 2000 Miller Beer announced that it had struck an agreement with the town of Marfa, Texas to become the exclusive sponsor of the phenomenon known as the Marfa Mystery Lights. These are spherical lights which appear south of the town each evening, seeming to bounce around in the sky. They're variously rumored to be caused by ghosts, swamp gas, or uranium (though they're probably caused by the headlights from the nearby highway). Miller announced that under the terms of the agreement the Marfa Lights would be renamed the Miller Lites. The local paper, which was in on the joke, printed the news on its front page.

These were taken from http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/aprilfool/P90/

Survey Time

2009-03-27T16:57:00.000-07:00

To whom it may concern,

Myself and several other Suffolk University students are conducting a survey about how people get their mail. As part of a semester long project for a class on Advertising Campaigns we are looking to gather information primarily from homeowners. The survey is 5 pages long, about 50 questions, and should take between 10 and 15 minutes to complete. Further, if you wouldn't mind passing it onto other homeowners you know we would greatly appreciate it.

Click Here to take survey

Thank you,

Suffolk Ad Students

Obama ≠ Brand

2009-03-20T13:56:00.000-07:00

Obama a President not a brand I say?

The notion of Obama as a brand is sexy. Articles in Time, Newsweek, Fast Company, The Herald Tribune, AdAge and countless blogs including HarvardBusiness.org and Politico.com have all found great stories in the similarities between Obama’s presidential campaign and the marketing world. Further, they offer insights into how his campaign may have valuable lessons for marketers!

The idea that political campaigns can be conceived of as brands is nothing new. Today, however, we seem to be more enchanted with this idea than ever. Probably because it feels clever, and arguably it is - Obama is after all the first presidential candidate we’ve had that had with his own logo (I don’t count Bush’s W for several reasons). Further, in a consumer oriented economy this logic is the zeitgeist of our era - during the industrial revolution everything was described in terms of how they were like machines - and it makes sense to frame things in this way.

But, campaigns are not quite marketing campaigns, and Obama is not exactly a brand himself either, and in the excitement I think that we tend to ignore where corporate brands and political campaigns do not line up. In my ongoing studies of the Obama campaign I’ve made some observations about the differences. Here are just a few.

First, what is being sold? Voting for president is a high involvement decision with a high, and unique cost. People have strong emotions about politics and a lot invested in the outcome of an election – we’re being sold the future not a jacket. Some people were looking to “buy” hope and change, but as much as Coke and Pepsi try they cannot promise the same national and even global return on these commodities that Obama could. Therefore soda has much more trouble getting people to invest strongly and deeply emotionally in their brands. Families don’t split on soda the same way they do about politics. Further, the cost of a vote is more intangible than money. We all have one, but only one. A coupon for Obama wouldn’t get a McCain supporter to “try it out.” Presidential candidates are a product category so removed from anything else that I’m not sure it’s a category at all.

Nike and Apple do not exist in a state of constant crisis communication. Campaigns fire back and forth every day over every medium. Moreover, the media discussed the events 24/7, bringing in surrogates and pundits to discuss image and policy issues for every news cycle. Corporate brands simply do not exist in the same information environment as politics, and therefore their communication strategies will no doubt need to be significantly different.

Finally, campaigns are made of multiple, interlocking, overlapping identities. First Obama’s identity was defined both by the combination of his campaign’s message and his party affiliation. After winning the nomination his identity changed once again as his context changed, he was the same product sure, but in the entirely new market of the general election – and was thus perceived differently. Then his choice of Joe Biden as the vice presidential nominee had a significant impact on his image (as Did Sarah Palin for John McCain). Further, endorsement of unions, fellow politicians and celebrities all added up to much more than 4 out of 5 doctors prefer Crest or Tiger Woods on a Wheaties box.

These ideas are still quite fluid for me and I’d welcome some outside perspectives on this (especially if they disagree). There are certainly many parallels between political campaigns and marketing, and they are quite valuable. Moreover, I believe there is a lot that the Obama “ahem” brand can offer to marketers in terms of insight. But, I think we need to be clear about the differences if we are to really learn from the comparison.

Problems you didn’t even know you had.

2009-03-18T15:04:00.000-07:00

Things like this (see below and corresponding comments on website) always make me wish advertising had a better track record. Or at least wasn't perceived so negatively. As if it's the ultimate enemy of real culture. Don't ads make some aspects of culture possible in the first place? Or if the Met advertises would these same critics still take issue? I don't mean to be flip, I just wish there were more dialogue.

Maybe we need to start advertising advertising...? It's dripping with irony. It's rebellious. It's antidisestablishmentarianism. The kids will learn to spell that and put it on their skate boards!

Probably a bad idea...

via Indexed

PS I love Indexed. I hope I did not unintentionally insinuate otherwise above.

Shout Out Returned

2009-03-18T14:51:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine graciously cited me in a post of his, and I thought I would return the favor by passing it around. It's a great piece that I really had nothing to do with, but he gave me a shout out. So here's to you Derek Gildea! and your fabulous post.

Keeping up with the Technology Curve

<-- The man himself.

A Dear Jon to the Media

2009-03-16T22:52:00.001-07:00

Dear TV News Media,

Hi, this is the millennial generation and I think we should talk. I know that we’ve been growing more distant over the years. And well, try as you might, you have no idea how to give us what we want – though we tell you that it’s just for you to do your job – so we (the largest generation in American history) are leaving you. Also, we’d like to say that it’s not us, it’s you. In fact, it’s pretty much all your fault.

FOX, we never really liked you anyways; even young conservatives change the channel. MSNBC, Brokaw was great, but when was the last time Chris Matthews didn’t talk? CNBC, you’re so done, sorry. CNN, nobody likes Lou Dobbs; seriously who watches that? And the “No Bias, No Bull” with Campbell Brown... please just call it the News with Campbell Brown. Finally, C-Span and BBC, any chance we can find you in the HD channels? I’m kidding... not really though.

You tried to win us back CNN, when you tried “D. L. Hughley Breaks the News,” but what we love about guys like Jon Stewart is not just the funny, but also the actual news. Why, we ask again and again and again: why do we hear about the most important news items to us from JON and not YOU? Why do we get insightful opinion from JON and not YOU? We know the Daily Show is not news, and we don’t really want it to be either (and neither does Jon for that matter). But YOU drop the ball seemingly every time! So what choice do we have?

Stewart’s most recent interview with Jim Cramer is a great example of our problem here, but for a reason you might not expect. You didn’t get what we loved about it. Cramer thought Jon was attacking him, but he was attacking the whole industry, YOU. All your commentary afterwards was about who “won” the interview, and you missed that Stewart and all of us were laughing (and disappointed) with YOU. The clips from CNBC that Stewart played showed tacky graphics and overproduced promos for alleged news shows that amounted to nothing more than reading press releases from these big companies they are supposed to be reporting on. Afterwards you should have gone and looked in the mirror.

Most nights Stewart doesn’t have to try to make jokes, he simply plays clips from your 24 hour news casts and we laugh, because unedited they are hilarious and absurd. In fact, we’ve noticed that these days he focuses on criticizing the media rather than politics and the news, and we laugh and laugh. But then we get a little sad, because it’s not satire, it’s real and you really have no idea. You are awful at your job and we all hurt because of it.

I guess what I’m saying is that until you get yourself together, we’re leaving. Not for Jon in particular, but for news like his. I’m sorry it had to happen like this, But, it was just a matter of time.

Best,

Most everyone born between 1976 – 1996.

Music w/ Great Videos

2009-03-10T13:06:00.000-07:00

Below are a handful of what I consider to be great music videos; most are visually amazing, some tell a great story and others are just fun. I hope you enjoy them as much as I do.

The Raveonettes - Black + White via pan-dan.

Chase & Status feat. Kano - Against All Odds via Vimeo

Assassins – Guilty via Vimeo

The Wallburds - "Hourglass"via Vimeo

Coeur de Pirate - Comme des enfants via Vimeo

Innovative Ideas

2009-03-08T20:49:00.000-07:00

Matthew Waldman of Nooka, a design agency (or lifestyle brand), discusses the importance of understanding your motivation in terms of information architecture, designing to be more intuitive, and expressing core values. I think there are some really insightful ideas here.

2/27/09 Matthew Waldman from CreativeMornings on Vimeo.

Umair Haque is "Director of the Havas Media Lab, a new kind of strategic advisor that helps investors, entrepreneurs, and firms experiment with, craft, and drive radical management, business model, and strategic innovation." It's rather long but a really interesting look at how the economy may be shifting and what types of innovations will be at the forefront of a new type of capitalism.

Umair Haque @ Daytona Sessions vol. 2 - Constructive Capitalism from Daytona Sessions on Vimeo.

Both via swissmiss

The Language of Brands

2009-03-08T17:58:00.000-07:00

In a previous post I threw out some ideas about the unique ways in which Millennials interact with brands. Among other things I said, that “[Millennials] are fluent in brands. We know the symbols, their messages, and the communities associated with them.” The basic assumption here being that our culture has adopted the language of brands. And, I thought I should go into more depth about what I think that means.

Our world as we know it is constructed with symbols. The theorist and philosopher Kenneth Burke described human beings as “symbol-using animals.” Or, as he later concedes in his chapter, “Definition of Man,” perhaps more accurately we should add “symbol-making, and symbol-misusing,” as well. From simple mathematics where x represents an unknown quantity to more complex symbols intrinsic to our culture, they are by nature devices of substitution and abbreviation.

These ideas fit well with the conceptualization of memory as an “associative network” of nodes, as described by Kevin Lane Keller. This theory describes how meaning attaches to symbols – explaining that each symbol we encounter has a specific memory node in our brain, and connected to this node, with varying degrees of strength, are other nodes (or sets of nodes) that together contribute to our understanding of the central symbol node. And, Keller argues, branding is about connecting symbols and meaning to products and services. Thus, just like all other symbols, in memory a brand would have a “brand node” with a web of associated nodes linked to it, that in turn add to its meaning.

This begs the question then, with brands as numerous and pervasive as they have become in the 21st century, to what extent do we use this sophisticated symbol set of brands to communicate and create meaning? And further, is this a good or a bad thing?

While I shudder at first to think that Coke and Pepsi may have just as much meaning to me as Starry Night, it seems almost undeniable. And, I have to wonder about the impact of this on culture at large. When Andy Warhol created his Campbell’s Soup series it was said that he elevated “vulgar” pop culture to art. Yet, of this series Warhol said, “I wanted to paint nothing... and the soup can was it.” So was pop-culture art or not then? Did it have value or not? As the Campbell brand was a corporate construction to sell a product and therefore without any "real" meaning behind it - soup is pretty much soup -I'd say he was arguing the latter.

Beyond this, Sarah Nardi asks, “How much of the burden of responsibility are we [the audience] willing to bear? Do we see a soup can or do we want to see a meditation on nihilism?” (Ad Busters Nov/Dec 2008). Are we drowning in a soup of manufactured culture that is at its core meaningless – as Esquire’s famous cover might suggest – or can we see the soup as something of value because regardless it still means something to us?

It seems to me that we are seldom willing to bear the burden of finding meaning, but we are certainly open to being told. With Campbell’s, a meaning that we generally accept has been deliberately constructed for the brand. For many, Campbell Soup does not represent “nothing,” (as perhaps it should?), but something very real, and with very real experiences and emotions attached to it.

Therefore, I would argue that, while fundamentally brands stand for nothing and are without truth (because they were constructed to be facades), today we the consumers are causing this to become less and less true. Because brands are so pervasive, so numerous and their messages so well developed, we are able to attribute real meaning to them and use them as a means of communication. We have taken the ball and we ran with it. That is to say, we have adopted the language of brands, and speak it fluently.

Today, brands are part of our cognitive lexicon. But further, as with media fragmentation, where there might be a TV show, cable channel, magazines etc. all for a very specific subject (i.e. Golf), brand variety and “fragmentation” has provided a rich assortment of brands, each with specific messages and associations. As a result, there are brands that stand for just about everything from establishment to antidisestablishmentarianism! So, you might ask, does this mean there is a brand for me then?

Maybe. When we associate with a brand, we project its associations onto ourselves. And, with multiple brands there is the ability to layer this meaning. As the composers of our image, we consciously and unconsciously choose brand combinations (or layers, or webs of associations) that together contribute to a “more unique” image that expresses our personal identity, shaping how other people perceive us.

Further, because we are actively engaged in using the symbol set of brands to communicate identity, we now also share in the process of creating and shaping the meaning of the brands themselves. With the advent of new media/ social media, constructing meaning has become increasingly a two way process. Because we have communities centered around brands, as their identity evolves so does the brands. Skittle’s most recent stunt might be a perfect example of how brands are increasingly allowing their communities and new media to define them.

There is certainly more to write about this, and even the points I touched on above demand a more thorough evaluation. However, the conclusion I hope to write is about how: what brands have become, the way people use symbols and the advent of technology are all combining to change how we communicate.

My Gen Y Idea...

2009-03-05T10:13:00.001-08:00

Ag Age did a piece on its daily online news show 3 Minute Ad Age, titled, "What if Gen Y WANTS to be behaviorally targeted?" I've been kicking the same idea around for a while and was hoping to pursue it when I had a chance - oh well. I guess I still can, it's just not that original anymore.

It's presented well here, and though it probably needs to be tweaked, I hope it's well received overall because it's a good idea.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1370868150/bctid14770804001

All My Words

2009-03-03T01:12:00.000-08:00

via wordle.net

ARG - are we ready for it?

2009-03-02T19:40:00.000-08:00

Tonight I came across a great post on Edward Boches’ blog, Creativity_Unbound, about an idea for an interactive, ARG-like campaign to promote a new Discovery Channel show, Most Evil. The video explains far better; but essentially, via an open wi-fi network unsuspecting users will find their browser opens to a stranger’s e-mail account. This stranger, users will learn if they poke about, is a serial killer. After several horrifying minutes the screen fades to an ad for the show, informing users that none of it was real. I gues it'd be like being in one of those Pizza Hut bate and switch commercials except rather than eating subpar pasta with friends you'd probably be alone and afrayed you're going to die.

As I commented on his post, this idea immediately reminded me of two computer games from a few years back with a strikingly similar innovative concept. Both Majestic (2001) and Missing: Since January (2004) – along with its sequel Evidence: The Last Ritual (2006) – expanded game play beyond traditional boundaries to interact with players in their real lives.**

Further, in terms of marketing, the most successful crossover of this concept that I’m familiar with is the ilovebees.com campaign for Halo 2 (Viral with Value).

These are still pretty new ideas and for the most part people have no idea that experiences like this even exist. Moreover, the Discovery campaign, unlike the above mentioned games or Halo 2 campaign, does not give users the choice to enter false reality, but thrusts it upon them. I suppose that is what makes the concept so interesting, but with little to no prior ARG literacy I worry that users might not easily reconcile the experience afterward.

In fact, I think that new media literacy may be one of the biggest problems we face as advertisers as we seek to innovate online. People are not learning and adopting new technology (even when readily available, e.g. Twitter) half as quickly as it continues to grow. As a result, I wonder if we may find ourselves stuck in some odd limbo between old and new technology, attempting to appeal to both early adopters and and old-tech hold outs at the same time. An awkward place to be for sure.

But still, returning to Discovery's potential campaign, I really love the idea. And, it seems that innovation is often about breaking the rules - they just needs to be broken in the right way. In my opinion it's a great concept that, like Majestic and Missing, may be too far ahead of its time to work as well as it deserves to. But, with some minor changes I think it could be a great success today.

Mr. Boches was kind enough to respond to the comment I left on his post (very similar to above), writing: "this execution actually begs the question as to whether it's about the show, the creative idea that advertises it, or the viewers willingness to be part of the experience. Says something about where we'll go and what we'll do in the digital space." I wonder if we'll look back on these games and campaigns in a few years and think this is when things really started to change? I suspect the answer is yes.

---
**
Majestic, the first of the ‘faux reality/thriller subgenre,’ was a bit of a flop, but it was innovative in that it took advantage of the wealth of interactive opportunities presented by the web. Its IGN review states, “A game that relies on all of the unique facets of the Internet, while feeling familiar to anyone who's touched any of today's popular media.” Through e-mail, phone and IM the game presents the player with various puzzles (and clues) that require online research to for necessary information to solve them.

Missing and Evidence (or Missing 2) refined the ideas tried out in Majestic. Throughout the game you are on the trail of a serial killer called "The Phoenix," and game play progresses through frequent e-mails sent to you from your partners and the killer himself. Similarly, puzzle solving requires online research (a task more interesting than it sounds).

Simple Ads that Work

2009-03-01T19:48:00.000-08:00

Waiting for a friend at the Red Hat yesterday, while idly sipping my drink and trying to make less obvious that I was sitting alone at a bar, I spaced out watching commercials. When one of my recent favorites came on, Jim Beam’s “the girlfriend,” (sort of an Absolute rip off, but w/e) it hit me that even though I thought it was clever, it didn’t move me to buy the product. So how good was it really?

It could be that I’m a little overexposed to advertisements and thus place a higher value innovation. But, when I began thinking about ads that have really 'worked' on me, moving me to buy a product, in most cases they were simple, well-constructed spots with a straightforward message.

A few simple favorites:

The old Snickers campaign, “Not going anywhere for a while... grab a Snickers,” worked on me like a charm. It demonstrated that a Snickers Bar could be a filling snack rather than just another candy. The message reworked the brand’s attributes and benefits; no longer a sweet sensation, it was now an accessible, substantial food. And, this encapsulated the selling idea: never feel hungry with Snickers (an idea still present in their ads today). Pretty soon it became the first thing I reached for when I was on the go.

The Burger King “Whopper Freak Out” spots had me craving the flam broiled burger for a week. Classic reverse psychology, and I gave right in. After seeing the ad for the first time I distinctly remember turning to a friend and saying, “Woah, I really want that, right now.” My dream is to one day make a commercial that does that.

Hall’s new campaign, “a deep breath of fresh air,” is very similar to the Snickers campaign in that it changes the products benefit - making cough drops relevant beyond the context of a cold. I bit. Last week I grabbed a pack before getting on the train, thinking about the commercial as I swiped my debit card. There was no trick, the ad simply convinced me to buy them.

Sham Wow! Don't even get me started on this spot, woah. I still almost dive for my phone when I see it. Two minutes of glorious, mind blowing demonstrations; "did you see how it got the cola off that carpet!" I yelled into the living room when I heard the ad come on from across the apartment. But, then again, I have a soft spot for low budget infomercials - "Beware of imitators!" love it.

Just for Advertising!

2009-02-28T11:27:00.000-08:00

I discovered two things today that I'm almost afraid to bring up for fear of undercutting myself if any potential employers or even industry colleagues come across this - i.e. I can't believe this is new for him. But anyways, has anyone heard of this wikipedia thing? Anyone can edit it - what??... j/k.

So, I spend a lot of time studying advertising and new media. I'm usually seeking out, exploring and studying different corners of the internet, searching for online niche communities and seeing what they're up to etc. But, until today, I never thought much about turning that search on myself and looking for communities that deal with advertising. So I had a real ah-ha moment when I came across AdGabber.com. Similar to myBO (a site for Barack Obama supporters I'll talk more about in a later post), it's a social media site just for industry people. I'm excited to start using it, and glad I finally came across it. Phew.

Also, I discovered an online comic strip called Words & Pictures that's about working in advertising. It's funny, creative (of course) and innapropriate - and I've been clicking through its archives for the last couple hours. Check it out.

http://www.wordsandpicturesonline.com/01-12-09.html

I'm sure there is more great stuff out there, and I'm excited to find it. Let me know if you already have!

Viral with Value

2009-02-28T10:48:00.000-08:00

Today, any client asking for an integrated marketing campaign is going to say, "Where's the viral element? We're gonna need that... because well, that's what's done right now, right?" And they have a point, especially considering the great success that some agencies have had, eg. Crispin Porter + Bogusky with their Burger King work. But, at the same time viral can just as often be done very badly.

For any agency/ company a flopped viral video is embarrassing. Especially when it's not only ignored, but the butt of jokes (and not the "ha ha this is ironically lame, therefore cool" type of jokes). I'm not sure all press is good press despite the axiom, because a flopped viral campaign simply screams “we’re out of touch!” And that’s not good, ever.

For a successful viral campaign I think that at least two conditions need to be met. First, similar to a good book or screenplay, a viral video needs to be honest to get our attention. When Wendy’s “Crazy Lettuce” came out they pretended it wasn’t corporate. And, when it finally came out that Wendy’s was behind it, the video lost all credibility and was hailed as a lame attempt to co-opt our virtual attention. Whereas Burger King (most of the time) slapped the BK logo on everything so we never felt like we were being tricked into consuming the content – we wanted to watch the King! (though, don’t get me wrong I’m not saying you always have to show your hand, more on that below).

Second, they should be entertaining: interesting or fun. Even with TV spots there is an exchange that’s going on: you entertain me and I’ll give you my attention. This is multiplied by a factor of ten online. If a video isn’t fresh or quirky or engaging it’s just not going to make the cut in viral land. For Crispin, BK’s viral videos and promotions were clever, weird and new – they were sought out and passed it on. Win. I still find the idea of meat-scented cologne hilarious.

There are more conditions I’m sure, and those I just ran through can of course be broken – and probably should be if you want to be innovative. But viral land shouldn’t be considered one big question mark. There are recipes for success.

Here are some great viral videos/campaigns imho.

ilovebees.com - an alternate reality experience and viral marketing campaign to hype the release of Halo 2, this website brought elements of the Halo universe to life. Different hints linked to the this site, that at first appeared to be dedicated to honey sales and beekeeping, to Halo 2. Upon visiting the homepage visitors found the site "was covered in confusing random characters and sentence fragments. Dana, the ostensible webmaster of the ilovebees site, created a stating that something had gone wrong with her website, and the site itself had been hacked. Suspecting that this was a mystery that could be unraveled, Halo and ARG (augmented reality game) fans spread the link and began to work on figuring out what was going on," (Wikipedia).

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog - not actually a viral campaign at all, but a real production, Dr. Horrible spread quickly when it came out. "A supervillain musical, of which, as we all know, there are far too few," it had the force of well a known director, Joss Whedon, and a talented cast. With some integrated ads and songs that keep getting stuck in my head it continues to get a good number of hits from me and many others. Marketers could learn from the success of this fun, honest mini-movie musical (an obviously niche idea that "somehow" has rave reviews and wide appeal).

The Ramp - a fake documentary by BMW about a small, economically destitute town in Bavaria that builds a giant ramp with the intention of jumping a 1-Series BMW from Germany to America as part of a PR stunt to bring tourists to the town. Long, but very well done, it feels like a real movie and left me feeling a little sad. The message in the end seems to be that substance trumps hype - but, there's a lot more there as well. Its success should be no surprise as BMW has been doing this type of marketing, and doing it well from the start - they get it.

PS. 3/1: Came across this post only after I wrote this. Some great thoughts on the framework of viral marketing.

Some ideas about Millennials and our Brands

2009-02-27T15:35:00.000-08:00

Update: Find a more recent version of this article published on thenextgreatgeneration.com.

I am in the process of writing a senior thesis about Barack Obama's campaign and in particular his “brand.” Throughout my research and writing the values and concerns of the millennial generation has been of particular interest to me. This is me, my peers and my future we're taking about after all. I've come to believe that our attitudes toward and interactions with brands are very unique from previous generations, but relatively easy to understand – yet, often advertisers and marketers miss the mark.

I've created a list of important facts/ideas about how millennials view and engage with the brands in our lives. It's a rough list and many of the ideas are half formed or need more. I would appreciate any feedback, criticism or ideas you might have.

1)We expect brands to offer us value (our definition of value is wide – a good product, an engaged community, two way communication, flexible meaning associated etc. more below)

2)For millennials’ brands are not a bad thing, just a thing.

3)Brands are used to self identify and create personal meaning. We seek out brands that represent who we are, or wish to be.

4)Individuals and groups identify similar people via their similar brand associations; this commonalty creates a de facto community.

5)If a community is not created for us by a brand we will create it. If one is created for us, it must be flexible and transparent. And, either way this community is considered to be owned by us (the users), not the brand.

6)We expect a say in the evolution of the identity of our community and thus “our” brand.

7)We demand interaction with “our” brand.

8)Like with good writing, truth is the most compelling feature of any brand – chique or punk it must be honest.

9)Brands must know our boundaries and not attempt to push into our lives, they must be welcomed and will only be allowed so far.

10)Brands are embraced only if they follow certain unspoken rules and boundaries. Even the most brand loyal millennial will abandon a brand if the conditions above (5, 6, 7, 8, 9) are broken.

11)We are fluent in brands. We know the symbols, their messages, and the communities associated with them.

12)We constantly do all this (above) with multiple brands at the same time. Moreover, we can easily construct other and larger meanings through the combination and layering of brands. (eg. Someone wearing a Red Sox hat, Converse shoes, North Face jacket, Starbucks coffee – add or subtract any element here and their brand equation or association map changes, and so does my understanding of them).

13)Thus, we use brand associations and combination of associations as a heuristics to construct an image of others and who we are. A typical millennial is both conscious and unconscious of this fact and select their brands accordingly (see #4).

14)My brand associations are important to me, but ultimately a just one of many variables in my daily life/ equation of personal meaning and value. I dislike brands that do not understand their place in this equation.

Addition 3/1:
15) From profiles to phones we demand the ability to personalize. We want to make our piece of our brand, our own.

P.S. These feel eerily similar to the principles of using social media to its fullest potential...

On 25 Things About Me...

2009-02-26T12:05:00.000-08:00

In class yesterday the infamous "25 Things" on facebook came up and we all had a good time bashing the trend, but chuckle as I might I think that there is something to it. We're usually on the look out for commonalities with the people we meet and this translates nicely to social networks, eg. list your favorite movies, books, music... But, there just isn't a field for some things such as: what books you hope to finish but keep putting down or your latest obsession with sunblock etc. And that's what "25 things" is for - random facts I wouldn't otherwise know - creating a deeper connection.

These are the insightful, interesting, truly unique things about each of us that provide insight into who we are as people (at least in part) - and drive home the point that we're all a little weird and neurotic sometimes. It's no secrete that society constantly applies pressure to normalize us and bla bla - so I thought that it was a nice break from my day to see all the quirky things that my friends do and share my own oddities, such as obsessively playing with tape when I'm thinking or my secrete desire to get a dog despite the fact that I'm a self proclaimed a cat person. These facts let even my close friends get a better picture of who I am, and I enjoyed that.

In the end almost everyone did it, so I guess writing the "25 things" note ultimately amounted to nothing more than normalization and social pressure (oops), but I guess it doesn't have to be all bad?

Name that Soda

2009-02-21T16:37:00.000-08:00

Favorites

2009-02-20T18:50:00.000-08:00

Here are just a few of my favorite commercials; spots that I have laughed at and influenced how I think about the job. Enjoy.

Old Volkswagen Commercial - One that I've never forgotten though.

Mr. W - A great "ah ha!" moment here.

Loewe Sound - Very clever, "made me smile" and laugh out loud (for real). Thanks swissmiss.

Altoids - Speaks for itself.

PS Help

2009-02-17T18:40:00.001-08:00

Update: I have sort of fixed the comment problem, so if you've been waiting to tell my how many spelling errors you've found - don't hold back.

- Jase

Shepard Fairy (1)

2009-02-17T17:11:00.000-08:00

Brighton Avenue, Allston

Cambridge Street, Allston

In a way, it was almost an appropriate beginning to the Shepard Fairy exhibit at the ICA that he was arrested on opening night, right outside the museum. An artist who began his career with an underground sicker campaign of Andre the Giant’s face in 1989, his work has grown and continues to grow via guerilla tactics. America’s Bansky, Fairy’s work is all about being subversive, with most of his graffiti, posters and banners displayed on city streets without invitation. He’s always been about going outside the system, and Fairy is more than willing to own that, as his more than a dozen previous arrests make clear. His current exhibit (the first ever major retrospective of his work in a major museum) is a big step for this type of art, moving it from subversive to being acknowledged as legitimate – so it’s almost comforting to see that there is still plenty of rebel in him and his art.

While subversive art is nothing new - and in many ways Fairy's message is not entirely original either - there is an element of time and place that contributes to his success. Fairy’s contemporary style and visual language resonate today because he is communicating something that feels pertinent, accessible and authentic; three things that have been difficult to find altogether most of my life. It’s no secrete that the MTV culture that exploded throughout the 90s created an atmosphere of slick corporate imagery that continues to permeates our lives yada yada. But, just because we accept it (and even like some of it), does not mean there isn’t an undercurrent yearning for originality for those of us who aren’t hipsters or down with hard-core counter culture movements.

Moreover, even right here in Boston there is another casualty of a sometimes overly controlled trend. For example, we love our Citgo sign, but very soon it’s going to become one of the only relics from that era. As lesser-known neon signs break down they are not being replaced or fixed because of strict zoning laws no longer permit such things. Just as urban decay is something to be loathed, the opposite, sterilization of our streets and neighborhoods is similarly unnerving. There is something about a street of matching mailboxes and white front doors that I find plastic and claustrophobic.

For his part I think that Shepard Fairy’s work taps into these feelings within many of my generation. Fairy speaks with a voice that responds to both an ad saturated Time Square and a sterile suburban neighborhood, in a language that connects with a generation coming into its own, looking for direction and new thinking (with a touch of rebel, per usual).

(Nothing is Original).

2009-02-17T14:57:00.000-08:00

via PAN-DAN

Motivation

2009-02-13T11:47:00.000-08:00

As part of a strategy to make myself stay on top of updating and improving the NewAthenianPress.com, I decided to add the website to the top of my business card. Because of this I'll need to be sure the site is always up to date or else risk much embarrassment or even cost myself a job. Eeek! I immediately regret this decision.

It's not that I am unmotivated to work on the magazine, and in truth I write a great deal and sketch ideas for it on a regular basis. But, as in the context of everything else in my life, the New Athenian is a side project and a big thing to tackle (in terms of time and energy) - especially considering my ever growing to do lists. The project means a lot to me, but I know that what needs to be done right now is not going to be quick or easy. As a result, it has been easy to keep pushing the big revamps and updates to "next weekend."

This could be a dangerous experiment, but it could be a great mechanism for staying as accountable to myself as am for others. I've found it's much easier to get tasks done when there are deadlines, time lines and colleagues/ team members relying on me to get it done. Now, hopefully writing and design Jason will need to be a little more accountable to looking for a job Jason, and vice versa. Because now I'm a team, or something.

This and That

2009-02-11T23:04:00.000-08:00

I've been feeling under the weather this week and along with that I've been having trouble sleeping. So at around 2am I find myself cruising blogs and I've found a few really cool things.

Just a few of these are:

Tweet what you spend, a Twitter application to help you keep track of your spending habits. Follow it with your Twitter account and any time you spend money send a direct message to twys from your cell phone and it automatically records it with a time stamp. You can even categorize your purchases and download everything to an Excel sheet! Find other cool Twitter apps here.

“If limitation spawns creativity, is the limitless resource of the Internet a good thing? Does it do more harm than good to read all these blogs?”

— Alec Soth

(via swissmiss, via glass)

You Will Not Be Dating Me, A fun blog about dates gone terribly wrong. A great way to put your love life in perspective, especially as "Singles Awareness Day" approaches.

But, why I really had to write this post was this; maybe it's the early morning talking but I watched it three times in a row before I could even do anything else.

A List of To Do Lists?

2009-02-10T20:38:00.000-08:00

As I organized my desk tonight I started filing away all the scraps of paper that had recently accumulated in stacks into folders. I already has some started for different projects I have been working on for both school and not-school, but I had to make a few new ones too. Then laying out folder after folder so that they tiled my bed blue, black and manila, I was surprised at how quickly I found my deliciously comfy full size mattress (with 2 inches of foam padding, yeah awesome I know), covered with a card stock blanket.

There were so many folders that I started forgetting what each was for. Realizing that I also really had no idea just how many different projects I was actually invested in, I counted. All told, I found that had 12 plus things I should be working on each week. This should not have been news to me, but sadly it was.

I'm not sure how, or rather when, my pile got so large, but it's not something that I will be cutting back on as I don't think there are any optional projects I would boot. And, so far I've been managing to scrape by, even terrible managed so with a system how can I fail? But still, adventures in time management are in my near future. And, as the human mind can only hold 7 things at its forefront at the same time, and I still need to buy a new T pass every so often and um... eat, I'm sure there will be a lot more lists in my life after this one.

On the upside, my resume is almost done! Awesome!

Selling Me

2009-02-05T21:11:00.000-08:00

A little past 12am on a Thursday night, I am surrounded with resumé books and pages of notes along with all the Post-its(R) that have congregated around the edges of my monitor. With a point and a wink, the irony of ad majors crafting resumés to "sell themselves" has been pointed out to me on several occasions. And, while it's logical that adverting and marketing people should have the easiest time crafting these personal branding briefs -- I find that the subject of "me" hits a close to home to write about easily. Also why in-house ad agencies are so few and far between I suspect (Cutlip, Center, Broom 2006 agree).

Writing a resumé/ CV is naturally a very retrospective and writing intensive process -- finding just the right words to put just what you did over 4 months of work into one beautiful sentence. I can just feel the future HR director drooling over my dazzling use of 250 "Verbs with Impact" provided to me by the Office of Career Services. Aided, abetted, fled... wait, what?

But then there's the question that matters most, so what? Why do you (an employer) care that I: researched and maintained press lists and a policy maker database? More than just a list of my duties at Gap Inc. and degree from Suffolk, the role a good resumé is to tell a story about how my experiences thus far demonstrate just where I ought to be right now, working for you. If this were in ad industry terms it might be framed as 'The Big Idea," and in terms high school English class it could be "Spark Notes." Or, as a friend recently advised me, "applying for a job is not just about demonstrating qualifications and abilities, but showing that you're a proper fit for the position and that it's a proper next step for your career." Turns out such an assignment requires knowing yourself very well.

Yet, even for those who do, knowing yourself doesn't necessarily translate to a creative work plan the same that knowing Kellogg's does. For a while I sketched ideas about the "Jason Potteiger" brand, and started to break myself down in terms of brand image: product attributes, benefits and attitudes... (See Keller 1993). But, just about when I started to think how Potteiger Brand Jeans (PBJTM) would look, I realized that branding myself was bound to fail for a couple of reasons.

First, how I know and understand myself is always going to be different from how others perceive me. For example, after a haircut I might feel that I look like a million bucks, but in reality no one really notices, because it was just a trim. For a first impression does my odd sense of humor come off as fun or inappropriate? But further, our own point of view is plastic and changing, and brands are not as multidimensional as a person. Therefore my logo (if I had one), would seem to change its meaning to me as time went on. But, as I'm not Coca Cola, I don't think it would change and evolve along in my consumers minds as well.

Second, conceptually brands are not always about the truth -- while some stand for quality others are all fluff, adding artificial value to generic products. And yet, as much as it's said that resumés are about embellishing (I don't believe this), I want to present a picture of who I am, at my very best, not whatever brand of that I think an employer wants me to be.

Long story short, I started a blog (to accompany my portfolio and resumé) as a place for me to focus my ideas and share them. But more importantly, to show who I am as a person, not a brand.