Archive for May, 2009

Photo: Arturo de Albornoz

Photo: Arturo de Albornoz

There’s been lots of talk about the “death of advertising” and the increasing ineffectiveness of the media. There’s a tremendously well-researched, insightful and informative Bob Garfield post in Ad Age, with lots and lots of numbers supporting his version of “Apocalypse Now” for the ad industry. There’s no doubt that there’s agency layoffs, and client cutbacks and fear and uncertainty. So who am I to be the bearer of even an ounce of good news for the ad industry?

Okay, I won’t tell you this is good news. But I will tell you what I think is fascinating.

Throughout history, for every version of media, there has been an ad unit that is a miniature version of that very media. Advertising usually- in some form- mirrors the content of the media that surrounds it.

Ads in newspapers, for example, are rectangular shaped boxes that includes a “headline” and “copy”. Even the terminology is straight out of newspaper jargon. Pretty obvious, right? Television? The medium is 30 minute stories involving actors on a set. What are most TV commercials? 30 second stories involving actors on a set. With a little music thrown in, just like in the big boy shows. Radio? Started with dramas. The term ’soap opera’ was coined because soap manufacturers sponsored radio dramas in return for product plugs. Radio commercials thus become mini-dramas”; still at their best when they are theater of the mind for a brand story.

And then along came the Internet. Ahh, the Internet. I actually remember the day I first heard the term used. My friend Martha called me into her office. Told me I’d better sit down. Shut the door. My palms grew sweaty. She said, “Lisa, have you seen this thing called the Internet?” She called up a paragraph of html text on a screen. It was filled with hyperlinks and Martha showed me how to “click through” to layers of information. It was years later before the term “click-through” became ubiquitous for banner advertising ROI. But at the time I was in her office, there wasn’t a banner ad in sight.

So now we have a brave new medium – Social Media. And we’re all scratching our head, wondering what the ad unit is.

Do we stick little banner ads on social sites? Oh, please. Have you ever seen a TV “commercial” that is nothing more than a static photo and a logo? Trust me, it doesn’t work. Stick banner ads on social sites and you ruin both the media and the ROI. Best case scenario, the ads become invisible. Worst case, people run screaming from the media.

But then, what does an ad look like in social media? Is it merely conversations? Does all advertising become word of mouth among friends as Jeff Jarvis and others suggest?

Or…is the “ad” really a social ecosystem itself that a company sets up? The conversations with consumers that are now public combined with a fan page on Facebook and the photos on Flckr and the idea-sharing on Twitter and the YouTube videos. And is a new ad, perhaps, the way that the target audience shares content about a brand or company across complex and interrelated networks? A “display” ad is now a conversation that gets displayed in a public forum. Remember, just because you’re not screaming “buy this” with a sledgehammer doesn’t mean you’re not selling something. You’re selling the brand by engaging consumers across multiple touchpoints, just like the social web itself. It’s the online experience that engages the consumer and captures their imagination much the same way that television captured our collective imaginations back in its glory days.

Is the newest ad unit staring us in the face but we just don’t see it? Is it just a miniature version of the social web, the same way that past ad units were miniature versions of their own mediums?

Are we just afraid to call Social Media itself “Advertising” because we hold it so precious?

And for those who would argue that advertising is paid messaging, remember this. Social Media, or this new order of Social Advertising, or however we describe it, may appear to be free, but there is a cost to it all. There’s the time spent to do it right, to have individuals who actually hold conversations with the consumers. There’s the challenge of understanding how the brand story should be told across all the hundreds of touchpoints scattered across the web. There’s learning the new rules of etiquette – heck, there’s helping to *create* the new rules of etiquette. There’s building the network, or leveraging existing ones, and getting the people engaged in a way that’s genuine and authentic, and that comes from the very core of a brands values or a products benefits. And there’s a cost to understanding the potential of this medium, the cost to experiment, to make mistakes.

But on the flip side, the ROI could very well be survival for those who do it well and do it now. Get it right, and I truly believe you can re-invent a dying industry.

The best advertising has always been that which has captured the imagination of the public and becomes a part of the collective consciousness. What better time than now, what better media to do it with. Maybe advertising isn’t really dead at all. Maybe we simply don’t know what to call it.

~

This post first appeared on Damien Basile’s blog: The Cause Is The Habit

photo: chantrybee

photo: chantrybee

>> Guest post by Bob Minihan

Allow me to interrupt the digital jihad for a bit.

Read a Tweet last week saying that Apple now ruled the world with their apps. Clicked on the link they provided as proof.

It led me to an Apple TV commercial.

My reply pointed this out. 0 responses.

Hmm.

Was I the only one who noted the irony of Apple, the new digital emperor, communicating apps to the online world via a, wait for it, wait for it, a TV spot?

Insanely cool Apple using TV?

Isn’t TV all DVR’d, out of date, old school, not with it, unmeasurable, a waste of money and dying like newspapers? Could brands like Apple, VW, Burger King, and now Microsoft with their “I’m a PC” campaign be so out of touch that they’re still using 20th century media as a cornerstone?

Don’t they know that marketing managers today feel so besieged that they need to prove direct results for every message? Just so they don’t get fired by the accountants, measurers, cost cutters and procurers now running the process?

Perhaps.

Or just maybe, could these brands know something that no one online wants to talk about? That before preference, purchase, relationship, and advocacy, you still have to create awareness?

That without awareness, none of the above matter?

Hello? Does anyone else see this, or just the brands that are magically rising above the toxic sludge of the current economy?

Could TV, while not what it once was, still be the most effective way of creating awareness with mass audiences? Like, duh.

Don’t get me wrong. I still have the original Apple battleship grey laptop in my closet. I love my iPhone 3G. I led a creative team that won a gold Clio for interactive way back in 2000. I am as pro-digital, pro-social media, pro-Twitter, Mashable, Facebook, You Tube, Hulu, and whatever’s-next as the next person.

It just seems that everyone online now has an axe to grind. Maybe to relentlessly push online to further their own businesses and their own careers?

Maybe to convert all through the gospel of Digitology? Whatever.

I just think we, as marketers, owe our clients a little bit of objectivity.

But maybe that’s just me.

Let the stoning begin.

bob-profile-pic1Bob Minihan is Executive Creative Director/Partner, ISM
“At ISM, we create Stories That Travel. We have proven that linking smaller brands to bigger stories is a tremendously effective way to compete with larger, better-financed brands, especially in these digital times.”

I was eating supper with my daughter, Allie. We were discussing the future of advertising. Believe me, everything else I might have been discussing with a seventeen-year-old was off limits.

Me: “I think you have to look to YouTube for the future of TV commercials.”

Allie: “But really mom, who would go to YouTube to watch a commercial. I can’t imagine anyone would go seek out, say, a Honda commercial voluntarily.”

Me: “Hah! How about a commercial for a $375 blender?”

Allie: (shakes her head)

Mom: “A guy blended an iphone – an iphone – and got 6 million people to watch it on YouTube. It turned into smoke. It was pretty cool.”

Allie: “I want to see that.”

Me: “Precisely.”

Anyone who has ever tried to get the last word with a 17-year-old knows how hard that is. About as hard as getting 6 million people to *want* to watch your commercial.

Will it blend?

This post originally appeared on Jim Mitchem’s “Obsessed with Conformity” blog.

{{special guest post for “the cause is the habit”}}yourbrandimage

There’s a scene in The Wizard of Oz I can’t get out of my head. The flying monkeys have attacked; the Scarecrow has been torn apart. What’s left of the Scarecrow laments: “First they took my legs off and they threw them over there! Then they took my chest out and they threw it over there!”And the Tin Woodsman looks down and replies: “Well, that’s you all over!”

I’ve got to think that’s what it feels like to be a brand these days.

Back in the day, I wrote several “brand guideline” documents for clients. You know the ones that say, “The logo should be no smaller than 3/8” high and always have at least ½” of white space around it.”  The effort was an attempt keep control over the brand – what it looked like, what it felt like, how it should be “presented” to the public. It always seemed a little silly at the time, now it seems downright laughable.

I mean, where does the logo even *go* anymore? Is there a place for branding “guidelines” in Social Media….

Read the rest on Damien Basile’s “The Cause is the Habit” blog.

photo: ~my aim is true~

photo: ~my aim is true~

I’ve been giving quite a few talks at colleges, and the day after one of those a student named Kelly contacted me with a request which I think is a sign of the times:

“Hi….I am applying for a business program this summer and the application requires a LinkedIn account with a minimum of 40 contacts and three recommendations. It is proving to be quite a challenge. I asked a friend today why she wasn’t on LinkedIn and her response was, “What’s that?”

A few interesting things going on here.

My first thought was “Uh-Oh” for the friend who said “What’s LinkedIn”, although some trend-followers speculate that the younger generation is not embracing Social Networking as much as the – er – older generation. Should they be? I just passed judgment on someone for not having heard of LinkedIn. Am I being overly judgmental, or is it just common sense in this day and age?

Second, it’s interesting that Social Networking is starting to be seen as a “cost of entry.” How soon will it be before companies looking to hire you will be checking out how large your network is? How soon before they start asking you to use your network to promote them? (more on that debate here.)

Third, anyone who has been doing this for a while knows how easy it is to get 40 connections, once shown how. I quickly gave her a strategy: Find profiles of companies that she has worked for on LI and search for old colleagues; find professors at her school, connect with them; and then, after you have a dozen connections you can start searching their connections to see if you know anyone THEY are connected with. Heck, I even found several alumni at her school that were part of my network and made introductions – explaining that she needed to treat my connections well and suggesting ways she could add value to them. 24 hours later I got a reply back from her: “Thanks! 42 contacts and growing!”

While Kelly’s group of 40+ connections may help her get into business school, I wonder constantly about the implications of all this. My 14-year old daughter and I sometimes compare notes about how many friends we have on Facebook. A recent conversation began: “Mom, I’m proud to say that every single one of my 950 friends is a REAL friend. Unlike yours.” Ouch! This led to quite an interesting debate over the definition of “real friend,” a discussion I am bound to have many, many times before figuring it all out.

I believe that having a lot of connections is a cost of entry for me as a Creative Strategist who is immersed in the world of Social Media. How else can I advise my clients on how to interact with tens of thousands of connections unless I myself know what it’s like to interact with tens of thousands of connections? My view is that I need to see what it’s like, I need to make mistakes, I need to learn how difficult it is to always treat my network as the valuable asset it is. I value both the quality and the quantity of my network. But…will there ever be a point when it feels like it’s safe for it to stop growing? That is completely unclear to me.

Your thoughts? Do you wonder whether employers, schools, colleagues, will judge people on the size of their networks in the future? I can picture sitting in an interview across from someone who scribbles down “15,000 followers on Twitter.” Am I being realistic or paranoid?

Conversely, will friends judge each other if their network is not filled with “real friends”?

Where do you see it going?