Extra Crispin' Please!

Jeff Hicks, CEO of Crispin, Porter & Bogusky has laid out a five point guide to what appears to be a step in the right direction for advertising in the "post-interruption" world. Kate MacArthur penned an article about the rules that Hicks laid out at the Forrester Consumer Forum.

A summary of the new rules are as follows:
1. Interruption as a tool is obsolete.
2. Let ideas find the medium.
3. Great ideas, not channels, create buzz.
4. Get comfortable with consumers messing with your brand.
5. Business results are the only measure of success.

First of all kudos to Hicks for taking a bold step in leading the "traditional" advertising world in the inevitable direction of "non-interruption." I think there is a long way to go, but a step in the right direction is better than no step at all.

If there is one thing that the traditional advertising world needs to absorb above all, it is point #1...interruption is OBSOLETE! The individual is now in control and interruptive advertising models are in direct opposition to this growing truth.

In all efforts we must look to engage the end user, create materials that they actually want to interact with and reward them for their efforts. In the years to come, I think we will be hearing the songs of "engagement" and "non-interruption" a lot more.

Let that mantra be sung from the hilltops...

Lonely Girl a stroke of genius or pure manipulation?

So Ad Age emailed me a survey question the other day asking me whether I thought the LonelyGirl15 "campaign" (as it should probably now be referred to) was a stroke of genius or merely yet another manipulative tactic vying for eyeballs. And of course it got me to thinking...

Was this an intrusive campaign or tactic?...Definitely not. Was it ingeniously marketing a product or service? Not really, in my opinion...although it did promote YouTube and bring them a good amount of attention.

So what, in the end, did the LonelyGirl teach us? That certain people are desperate for attention? That you can market via the various new interactive channels if you do so in an out-of-the-box fashion? That we really don't know what to make of UGC and how to utilize it for our benefit?

All of these things remain to be seen, what is clear is that it is a whole new world out there and there is enough room in it, even for the LonelyGirls...

ESPN - Does it make sense?

Dont get me wrong, like most guys out there, I love my ESPN. Sports Center, Baseball Tonight...the list of quality sports programming in my opinion is second to none.

However, what does not go on and on is the list of adoring words for their online and onsite advertising strategy. The word intrusive does not even begin to describe the tactics, this site is leading an all out attack on harmless web surfer looking for sports news.

Video pre-roll that cannot be paused or stopped until an initial commercial is run, banner ads the size of Montana. Surely we can find more inventive ways to get the message out and get it in front of someone who actually cares.

I know there are many skillful advertising minds behind the genius that is ESPN...let's start applying that genius online, shall we?

New York City Council is on the right track!

I can imagine that New York City officials have to constantly deal with the threat of illegal and invasive outdoor advertising given the fact that NYC is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. And it turns out that the New York City Council is cracking down on illegal outdoor display advertising.

Ahhh...finally a place where logic and financial interests coincide with making the world a better , "intrusive advertising free" place.

Some of the best advertising is done in public spaces but only when it is thoughtfully and usefully done and does not grotesquely intrude on our day to day existences.

Where should the lines be drawn? At what point do city officials have to step into the mix and start to crack down on guerilla or less than guerilla tactics that could border on grafitti or worse? Do some of these tactics work and serve a good purpose or are they just simply intrusive and downright polluting?

Whaddya think?

Dell...Direct Connection...Smart!

Now here's a company being direct...

I am a Dell customer but I have to admit I have not tried this service, mostly because I have not had my machine break down:

http://support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx/support/en/
dellconnect?c=us&l=en&s=gen

This is the type of technology, however, that appears to be putting the customer's interests first. I would be interested in hearing reviews of the service and to know how it is working both for Dell and their customers. I did notice that your machine has to be under warranty to qualify for the service (that seems to be a bit of a drawback), but didn't notice any other snags. Do still get hooked up with a technician 10,000 miles away for whom English is a forth language or is the service speedy and quick and efficient?

If I were in the market for a new laptop, this kind of service would definitely sway my purchase decision given the propensity of laptops and other electronic devices to break down.

Kudos to Dell, at least in concept, for developing a technology that puts the individual in control and improves on the user experience. I hope the strategy sells more computers, not so Dell can make more money, but because it is a technology that thinks about the customer's needs first.

(Now hopefully they can get that exploding battery problem under wraps!)

I nice stroll in the grass and what...more advertising!

So this comes in from Ad Age about advertising to golfers via the GPS enabled golf cart screens.

http://adage.com/article?article_id=111168

Let's see, I am out to play a nice leisurely game of golf at my local course...what is it that I want most?...I know, more intrusive advertising. I can't get enough of that in my everyday life so where can I go to get more...yes, of course, the golf course.

If I want to connect to a product, I'll choose to connect to it, otherwise, let me play golf...

Enjoy being outdoors, have a nice walk in the grass and get away from all the noisy advertising...that sounds like the best solution to me. Whaddya think?

Here we go again...!

"Yo, yo, yo here we go again." I think that was a verse from an old Bobby Brown song.

Unfortunately I am not here to write about hit tunes from the past but it does appear that some advertisers are singing the same old tune.

Check out the latest in cutting edge intrusive advertising:
http://adage.com/article?article_id=111183

Steve Hall has something to say about it over at Adrants as well:
http://www.adrants.com/2006/08/grocery-conveyor-
belt-ads-to-cause-insani.php

Not much more needs to be said, let's just keep working on innovative ways to deliver content to the individual that they actually want and eventually these invasive solutions will go the way of the Dodo due to their ineffectiveness.

And now...a word from our sponsors...hold the tomatoes

This just in from Steve Hall over at Adrants about "live" theater commercials at the Orpheum Theater in New York: http://www.adrants.com/2006/05/visit-london-debuts-theatrical-ads.php

My, my, my what will they think of next...

Contrast this with the thinking of Seth Godin and the thought process and level of detailed planning and thinking that goes into permission based marketing strategies: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/14/permission.html

Any thoughts on the widely differentiated strategies behind these two aproaches? Which works better in today's marketplace?

Aaaaahhhhh, my eyes!

I'm not in the business degrading people and business models, as a matter of fact I believe that one of the beauties of democracy and capitalism is that they give people the freedom to explore their own visions. That being said, democracy and free speech also give us the right to disagree with, and verbally challenge anything that is not in keeping with our vision.

And since this publication is dedicated to companies and technologies that seek to put individuals in charge of their marketing and advertising, it has to also be dedicated to companies and technologies that are not. So I present to you a company called Aap! (http://www.aapglobal.com/aaprails.php)

A very apropos name in my opinion - it must have been derived from the noise that initialy comes from the mouth of the individual faced with this company's advertising solution. Or maybe it is more of an "aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!"

Can this really be the direction we are travelling? Compare this to the solutions and technologies in my previous post from trendwatching.com...

I have to make a plea to those advocating these types of advertising solutions, please, let's not clutter our world any more than it has to be cluttered. It is already cluttered enough. Let's invest our time and energy in solutions that simplify, streamline and beautify.

I like to think that, in the end, the individual will dictate what works and what doesn't work for them. But there are instances when the owners of certain real estate assets or any other asset visible to the public for that matter will take advantage of their space and cash in for a quick buck.

Instead of looking toward these solutions, let's create a long term plan and integrate solutions that work for everyone involved. In the long run it will be cheaper than installing and then un-installing those escalator handrails because you have so many customer complaints...

Is tracking lacking?

So I read today about Claria reinventing and repackaging their services into a product and service called PersonalWeb. The article, from Online Spin's Mark Naples goes onto detail:

"Users that begin with a straightforward page that delivers news headlines would add new areas of content fed to them dynamically and updated on the fly based on their browsing habits. These smart algorithms would, in turn, inform an ad-serving management system that would leverage the same kind of predefined taxonomy to discern which ads or promotions made the most sense to send these users and at which time. Think contextual and behavioral ad serving rolled into one--with no personally identifiable information ever collected, no pop-ups, and no system-slowing software downloaded--very similar to, but significantly different from, Claria's former model."

So even though this model seems to be an improvement on the adware model, does it fundamentally make sense to create a model based on following people around and tracking their behavior? Am I missing something here or does the individual really want ads and content served to him/her based on web surfing behavior?

I have to believe that individuals know what they want and unless they are in an inquisitive state (i.e. doing a search), they dont want anything "related" to what they really desire.

Look at the latest publication by the people at Trendwatching.com:

http://www.trendwatching.com/briefing/

The entire second section of the issue is dedicated to mobile technologies that are enabling people to connect directly with the exact things that they want...via their mobile phones.

Let's focus our efforts (and our investment dollars) on technologies and businesses that connect, that are "individual-centric", and cater to the wants and needs of the individual. I am no longer a demographic or a target audience or even a psychographic. I am an individual and I know what I want, and companies and technologies that cater to those needs will both deliver our future and thrive at the same time.

Searching for a name...or no name

There's a place called the "No Name" Restaurant in Boston down on the harbor. I always thought that was an interesting name for a restaurant and I always wondered - Could they just NOT come up with a name or were they struck my marketing genius by figuring every restaurant has a name that no one can remember, so if we go with "No Name" everyone will remember it?

To this day I still remember it - must have been genius.

So I came across an article today on the success of mobile marketing and some of the conversion rates of mobile v. other direct marketing vehicles:

http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/crm/mediainsert/archives/008094.asp?rss=1

The content of the article was informative but what got me thinking was the article's use of the acronym OOH (Out of Home Advertising) to reference this type of advertising.

I dont think it's the best acronym for this new frontier but it does bring up a good question - should there be some sort of catch phrase or acronym for technologies and companies that focus on putting advertising and marketing control back in the hands of the individual?

Companies like Hypertag, qtags, us at WIP. Do we need a way to reference ourselves like the CRM's or the UGM's of the world have?

Or maybe we need no name at all. If there is going to be a universal reference to consumer controlled advertising and marketing, my vote is NOT for an acronym like CCAM...but maybe we should just let the masses decide...

Signs of the Times?

There's an article in this week's Economist in the Technology Quarterly section called Signs of the Times about huge video screens that, as the article puts it, "bombard people with ads while they shop".

An excerpt from the article:

With the advent of hundreds of television channels, the internet, and that particular scourge of the advertiser, the personal video recorder, consumers are harder to reach than ever. So where is the hottest place to put advertisements? In supermarkets—because that's where the shoppers are.

And goes on to say...

This ability to reach consumers just as they are deliberating about which item to pick from the shelves—what the marketers at Procter & Gamble, a big consumer-goods firm, call “the first moment of truth”—has huge potential. According to Point of Purchase Advertising International, an independent trade association, more than 70% of purchasing decisions are made in shops.

So is this the future of advertising?...More screens, more intrusive messages everywhere we turn, more manipulation of my eyeballs with the sole intent of trying to get me to buy something.

Keyword search works because you are reaching the user at the point of intent. They are "searching" for something with the intent of finding more information and/or related products and are therefore open to "suggestions".

When I go into a supermarket or a drug store, I'm usually not "searching" for information about products. I know what I want to get most of the time, I just want to know where it is. And even if I dont know exactly what I want - let's say I do put "beer" on my list as the article suggests - I dont think seeing an ad for Molson on a huge television screen is going to steer my purchase decision.

Maybe these screens should be interactive. I could walk up to them and tell them what I'm looking for and they could point me in the right direction and give me options.

Now that would be a technology centered around my needs and my preferences that would enhance my shopping experience.

I mean really, would you rather have a butler looking after your every need or a rather loud mother-in-law screaming commands at you from above?

Think about it

There's an article in todays Behavioral Insider called Targeting the Small Screen by Phil Leggiere, an inteview with Tom Burgess, CEO of Third Screen Media.

Take a look...really read... and then ask yourself: do the paradigms of behavioral targeting, demographics, and even the concept of targeting itself work in radically different medium like mobile?

Targeting and demographics serve advertising "related to" the subject matter the individual actually wants to view. On screens less that 4" across, does it work to serve ads "related to" that content. Think about it, honestly for a second, and then tell me:

Should there really even be "advertising" in the mobile arena in the first place?

Anything less than the individual user being completely in control of what they are seeing and experiencing in the mobile environment, in my most humble of opinions, is simply not going to work.

Agencies may be able to make money, and companies may be able to get exposure but does this really work for me, the end user? Really...does it...think about it.