7 Reasons Print Will Make a Comeback in 2011
Folio

In the era of iPads and Apps, marketers and agencies rally behind print as 2011 approaches.

Here are 7 reasons why print media will make a comeback next year:

1. Getting Attention
2. Focus on Custom Retention
3. No Audience Development Costs
4. What’s Old is New Again
5. Customers Still Need to Ask Questions
6. Print Still Excites People

Come on guys. This sounds desperate and needy. You’re going to have to let it go and let print settle into its own drastically reduced niche. The more you insist that you’re making a “comeback” the less credibility you’ll have.

Print might not be going away completely, but it is not going to make a comeback. Even your own reasons don’t hold water. Customers still need to ask questions? Really? Don’t you think an interactive environment  will provide that opportunity with far less fuss and muss than a print ad? Stop fighting the inevitable and try to find ways to make yourself more relevant. Focus on what you can do and let go of the rest. For all of our sakes.

One thing they don’t look at is which ads will chase you away from the environment in which the ad is featured and possibly motivate you not to return – either during that program/issue or possibly any programming/issue in that environment.

In my case the ads that will always get me to retreat – change the channel, put down the magazine, etc. are any ads that feature cruelty to animals. Not only will you not get a donation from me, you will cause me to abandon the ad environment altogether.

Now I’m sure some of these ads are big money generators or they wouldn’t be run by so many organizations, but I’m a huge animal lover and I will not tolerate those cheap and tawdry tactics. Tell me the good things you’re doing for animals, don’t show a sick looking creature locked up in a crate with a horror story or a tacky sad song.

When I know a network or magazine, etc. features these manipulative ads frequently I ban it from my existence. And I would not want my media buys to be impacted by this sensationalized bullying.

While animal cruelty ads are the number one reason I will “change the channel” there are others as well. I always avoid networks that show horror flick promos while I’m eating a meal – and for that matter I tend to avoid them in general.

As a marketer it is worth evaluating your medium with this concern in mind. How do you think a McDonald’s barbeque special commercial would fare run between two pods featuring animal cruelty? I know it would affect my appetite – that is if I hadn’t already abandoned the channel permanently before the McDonald’s spot even ran!

If you see a Twitter @username at a restaurant or store, on a billboard or on TV, or if you hear one mentioned on the radio, you can simply text “Follow [username]” to 40404 and you’ll start receiving all of that user’s updates via text message. The service can simply act as an SMS-based newsletter or text alert program. This would be a great way for bars and restaurants to simply and inexpensively promote daily deals or special promotions.

Certainly this could become annoying really quick if you follow someone who tweets all the time. But it looks like you’ll have some granular control over SMS messages you receive. Even more control if you have a Twitter account. But with SMS, you can turn text messages on or off by sending ‘on’ or ‘off’ to 40404.

You can follow @twittermobile to keep up with the latest mobile developments.

OTHER TWITTER UPDATES:  Twitter is launching an official Tweet Button for sharing articles on websites and counting how many times a URL has been shared, according to documents Mashable has obtained. The Tweet Button could launch as soon as this Thursday. Read>

Here’s a question: if you’re getting on a plane tomorrow and Thomas Salme is in the cockpit, do you stay on the flight knowing all of the information above? My guess is that you don’t, and my grandmother testing around the office seems to bear this out. But here’s the real question: why not?

This is a guy with more than a decade of successful flying time who takes part in the same intensive annual training of his licensed counterparts. He has the experience. He has the aptitude. Why not trust him to jet you off to a weekend in Luxembourg?

There’s really no reason. Some people mention his ethics. And while those are obviously questionable, ethics don’t safely land a 737. What makes most people nervous about Thomas Salme is that he doesn’t have a real pilot’s license. They want that piece of paper.

Stop for a second and take a look around your office. Think about the people you trust to do a great job. Then think about the people you don’t. In today’s corporate environment, all of them have at least one piece of paper that says they’re capable. Many of them probably have a second piece of paper with the prestigious letters M.B.A. But I bet you didn’t think much about those pieces of paper when it came to who you trusted.

Now think about yourself. Why should people trust you to do your job? Because of your piece of paper? Unless you’re a heart surgeon or a NASA engineer who accidentally stumbled onto this post after googling “weekend in Luxembourg,” probably not.

If you’re in marketing or advertising, people trust you because you have a history of success. You did something. Perhaps you did a lot of somethings. You got noticed. And because success breeds success, someone chose you to help them become more successful. Then someone else. And finally you were the one making the choices.

But again: did all that success have anything to do with your piece of paper? Did your Marketing 201 class really help that much? It may have helped you get into a door, but it didn’t make you successful. Experience and intuition got you where you are today. (That, or you knew whose buttocks were worthy of your lips.)

A lot of us are Thomas Salmes. We have a piece of paper that means very little to our practical, day-to-day jobs. We’re not really cut out for our jobs, because there’s no template. How many times have you made a million-dollar decision on a moment’s notice and thought: “Phew. If it wasn’t for Professor Higgenbotham’s sage advice on embracing the cultural zeitgeist while concepting, I probably would have just tried to sell a client a multi-year campaign based on a loose combination of Cop Rock and Homeboys in Outer Space“?

Because of this reliance on earned wisdom and first instincts, it often feels like we’re faking it. And by any academic definition, we are. But people keep getting on our plane and we keep flying. And why not? We have the experience and the aptitude. They have the increase in sales or brand recognition.

So why not get on Thomas Salme’s plane? I could see why you wouldn’t have been thrilled to knowingly be on his maiden voyage. But after thirteen years of success, the guy obviously knows what he’s doing. In fact, I’d sumbit the only reason I might not fly with Mr. Salme is because of that success. When you’ve gone thirteen years without incident in your job, you’re overdue for a decent-sized failure. And a downed 737 is a much bigger catastrophe than greenlighting Homeboys in Outer Space. (Although, I can’t be as definitive about the disaster that was Cop Rock.)

Which is fine since I’m quite certain I’m not in the target demo. So it’s all good. They’ll attract the younger bloodthirsty crowd and keep away those of us who would recoil in horror and bolt out of the theater. Right?

Actually, what I’ve read about Splice tells me that I might be jumping the gun. Were I to dismiss my instincts and brave the theater on Friday, and assuming that I could make it past all of the gratuitous scare tactics, I might find a heartwarming albeit bizarre tale. I’m still not convinced it would be worth it.

As I read on it became clear that reviewers are wondering if the bloodthirsty aspects are enough for the ghoulish youthful demographics. Is the time right for the “softer side of horror” or are men 18-24 in for a real letdown? Are they attempting to broaden their core audience – is that why so many of the promos are reaching me? This is indeed a mystery.

Has Dark Castle plowed enormous resources into a movie that – like their part human part alien creature in Splice – is only part horror and part poignant drama with a dash of dark comedy for luck? Will it prove to be the next breakthrough genre? Sounds risky. And expensive if they’ve missed the mark.

I don’t know about you but I’m on the edge of my seat – and that’s without any plans for a trip to the movie theater.

She’s had a rough go of it lately. For a few decades, she worked really hard to become the best in her chosen career. She earned a few advanced degrees. She garnered professional accolades. And that’s when it hit her: she was in the wrong job all along. Many people her age are retiring to white sand and accepting applications for cabana boys. She’s starting over at the bottom. It’s not easy.

Yesterday, all she needed to hear was a simple message: Happy Mother’s Day. She didn’t need the brunch. She wasn’t pissed that the florist didn’t deliver on Sunday. Or that I’d forgotten to call the florist in the first place.

Happy Mother’s Day. That was it. I was reminded of other monumental conversations between the two of us. All of them revolved around simple, sincere messages.

The night that I brought home my first daughter from the hospital, I called to tell her I was sorry. I was sorry that there was a time I’d caused her to worry and taken advantage of her goodwill and occasionally exploited her love and generosity. In other words, I called to apologize that I’d been a teenager.

More recently, she went to great lengths to ensure that my kids were as comfortable and stable as possible during an extremely difficult part of their lives. All I could do was call and give her my heartfelt thanks.

Then there are the times that I simply call to see how she is and tell her I love her.

Since good relationships are based on good messaging and good relationships are the foundation of good business, it made me think about good business messaging.

We put a lot of emphasis on creativity in marketing and advertising. Rightfully so. A lot of the time, the only thing that makes someone pay attention to our messaging is the Big Idea. Have a better-than-average cell phone? You need the Big Idea to get that better-ness across. Want to sell more body wash or feminine hygiene products? Find the Big Idea that separates you from the competition.

Most of our messages are based on better, different, more creative executions. We fervently pursue them. And we should continue. Because 99% of the time that’s what works. But don’t forget the other 1%.

Thank you. I’m sorry. Happy day. You’re special. These messages don’t require hoopla or creativity or a Big Idea. They’re simple messages that simply require your sincerity. But they are the most powerful messages you can send. And they may only be 1% of your messaging, but the relationships they forge or maintain could make up 99% of your business.

That’s something to think about it. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a phone call to make. I hope FTD has a nice Sorry-I-Forgot-to-Send-You-a-Mother’s-Day-Bouquet bouquet.

Yes, both Dawn and Tide have campaigns touting their endeavors to aid the world in times of catastrophe. Dawn is cleaning the furry and feathery little victims of oil spills and Tide is enabling disaster victims to clean their clothing. Both very noble enterprises.

I just melt when I see those adorable little creatures being bathed to remove the viscous oil that coats them. My heart breaks as I listen to the sweet music that accompanies the ritual washing. It’s just perfect – too perfect maybe. As the spot concludes I’ve generally reached the point where I’m wondering if this “bath scene” has been staged and if these poor little darlings have been doused with heavy oil so that Dawn can stake its claim to heroism. It doesn’t leave me with a warm feeling.

Tide, on the other hand, looks real. And they appear to let real people do the talking. These people manage to convey the true bliss of clean clothing when you’ve got nothing. And they give you a warm and fuzzy feeling toward Tide even though the spot is anything but perfect looking.

After viewing both spots on numerous occasions I’ve reached the conclusion that cleaning up after catastrophe isn’t neat and tidy. If you make it look too perfect to be real it tests my sense of credulity. And you never want to do that.

OK OK I get that this is all about the humor. And no one loves humor more than I. But very honestly, I want to feel a little brand pride in what I own – especially if it cost a bundle. And honestly, I’m starting to feel as though I’ll have to hide my Sienna so no one knows it’s mine.

When the ads run my first reaction is to laugh at these foolish people but my next thought is “Oh %#&*@@, am I one of them?”

After I scare the bejesus out of people with what it takes to become a copywriter or art director, I usually give them a recommended reading list. I did this for the hopeful copywriter last week. The process for detailing that list is always the same.

1. I dig through my old emails looking for the last reading list email I wrote.
2. I don’t find it.
3. I curse myself for being over-organized and delete-happy when it comes to email. (Thanks, Inbox Zero.)
4. I write another email.

Not anymore.

Now I’ll just send them this link. This is the actual email I sent (with a few four-letter edits) that covers the basics of what all aspiring agency creatives need to read for the  knowledge these books hold, as well as the interview fodder they provide.

Dear (Young/Career-Changing) (Copywriter/Art Director) & Current (Student/Barista/Truck Driver),

Sorry it took me so long to get this to you. It’s been a heckuva (week/month/decade). This is by no means a complete reading list, but it’s a really good start.

The most comprehensive look at the industry and how to put a portfolio together is Luke Sullivan’s book Hey Whipple, Squeeze This. It’s pretty much the best book out there. I only have the first edition, so I don’t know if his later editions get into digital/interactive media (the first edition doesn’t). But it should be pretty easy to interpret his general philosophies and how they’d play in the brave new world of 1s and 0s. If you buy nothing else, buy this one.

You’ll hear a lot about two pioneers of this industry: David Ogilvy and Bill Bernbach. For the most part, [expletive deleted] Ogilvy. (Only my opinion, and it’s pretty much heresy. But whatever.) You should probably read his book just so you can say you read it. Better than Ogilvy by far is Bill Bernbach. There’s a book on his campaigns that will set you back about as much as a Ferrari F50. Luckily, his old agency (DDB) is very proud of him and supplies a free downloadable PDF of his most famous quotes. He was a genius and his work still beats 99% of the stuff that’s out there.

Then there’s Howard Gossage. He’s my advertising hero. Half of the “revolutionary” stuff that’s out there today is a direct result of Gossage, even if the people who created the work have never heard of him. And a lot of people haven’t. For a large part, he’s an underground, cult figure to this day. The Book of Gossage is never cheap. It was out of print for years, and it looks like it might have gone out of print again (if I were to guess by the price). But it’s the Master’s Degree to Luke Sullivan’s Bachelors. If I’m remembered for anything in this industry, it’ll probably be for spreading the word on Howard. Call me Johnny Gossageseed.

Lastly, there’s How to Succeed in Advertising When All You Have is Talent. Honestly, I’ve never read it. I was too busy working and stumbling into success to ever get around to it. But a lot of people I trust and admire say it’s a great book. I’d definitely go for a used copy. Looks like it’s out of print.

Those are the How-Tos. To figure out things on your own once you have a foundation, start shopping around eBay or other places for three books published annually that showcase any particular year’s greatest work. First, there’s The One Show. Then there’s D+AD. Finally, there’s Communication Arts Advertising Annual, which is one issue out of eight that the publisher puts out annually. Good mag in general. The Ad Annual is usually pretty great (as are the Design and Interactive annuals). You should be able to find back copies on eBay, or maybe even on their site.

I hope some of this helps. I know it will help me the next time someone calls who’s “always been creative” and wants to get out of emu farming/taxi driving/hamburger flipping and into what they will unfortunately and inevitably refer to as “The Biz.” (Please don’t do this. There is only one Biz.)

That’s right. No billboards. No print. No TV. No radio. They used their website, their team of product evangelists, Twitter, Facebook, and plenty of other social media outlets. It also surely helps that, well… they’re Adobe. Not quite Apple in the buzz department, but they are up there. Knowing that they have made the decision to go all-digital in their software marketing and promotions is indeed interesting. Perhaps a good indicator of where things are headed? I think so.

Here’s another interesting tidbit: They did this with CS4 as well. So the last two releases of their flagship software suite have been all-digital campaigns. And they have been very successful.

The newsworthiness of this is that Adobe is a big company. They could spend the money on a fully integrated campaign to promote their newest software launch if they wanted to. Instead, they go digital. They’re likely focusing on hitting their core customer in the most direct and efficient manner possible. The designer, publisher, programmer, editor, and general creative user base that buys their product and uses it every day. Heck – I just cropped the above image out of a screenshot using Photoshop. It’s my go-to tool for image editing. So why try to hit up creatives on any other channel?

How soon will other companies fully embrace this strategy? How many have the guts to make the jump to all-digital marketing? More and more businesses are moving budgets to digital methods over traditional methods every day. The ability to target and track your core customers and measure your ROI makes it an increasingly smart move.

Is Adobe risking anything by going all-digital, or are they just showing us what the future is going to be like?

This week the company announced exclusively through Mashable, the 12 finalists for the competition. They are now asking customers to vote on the new creations in order to determine the champion and therefore the latest delicious product in the Dunkin arsenal.

The number of entries into the contest is truly amazing. Along with the company’s  decision to announce the finalists using a Social Media News website, it shows their understanding of the new media and it’s power to relay brand and promotional messages.

And secondly, if you are sitting at the computer feeling stumped, peel yourself away and open your eyes to a new

experience. Fresh air, a new place, walk – get out of the familiar. Can you imagine life like groundhog day?? Brilliant breakthroughs rarely come out of repetition…unless you are a robot.

Today, I thank the offsite photoshoot, the beautiful people and their wonderful stories, and the wisdom of the creative team for this surge of inspiration.

Ghirardelli is employing social media tactics, among other elements,  and encouraging chocolate fans to go to a micro-site (www.ghirardellimoments.com) and share comments/memories about when/where they enjoy eating the squares.  The comments are broadcast in New York’s Times Square and streamed live on the website.  I would imagine that the comments will be fodder for some future marketing efforts.  Fans can enter the sweepstakes and be eligible to win a number of prizes including a fabulous trip to one of four famous squares in the world, i.e. Times Square, Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco, etc.  A tour of major cities utilizing street teams is also a part of the campaign. 

 In the current economic environment people are looking for simple, affordable indulgences – chocolate is one of those.  In addition, leisure travel has taken a hit (leisure travel is still projected to be down throughout 2010 according to a variety of sources) so the opportunity to win a trip is extremely attractive and timely.  These factors that key in on the current consumer mindset,  joined with a dose of fun and creativity,  makes it an interesting campaign to follow.

 It is thematic, engaging, fun, sophisticated, relevant and an integrated initiative that fits the brand.  And when it’s all said and done, chocolate simply makes us smile, doesn’t it?

Wondering around

I stumbled on a great typo last night. “Staff in the lobby were wondering around…”

Wandering around is an aimless waste of time.

Wondering around, though, that sounds useful.

Wondering why this product is the way it is, wondering how you can make the lobby more welcoming, wondering if your best customers are happily sharing your ideas with others… So many things worth wondering about, so few people actually taking the time to do it.

Wondering around is the act of inquiring with generous spirit.

http://tiny.cc/dnNon

Lindsay Lohan has sued E*Trade for $100 million, saying the “milkaholic” baby girl named Lindsay in one of their recent ads improperly invoked her “likeness, name, characterization and personality” and that Lohan has the same “single name” recognition as celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey.

If you haven’t caught this ad on TV, have a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEXZ2hfD3bU

Peeps…a cultural phenomena. It’s hard to believe they were introduced half a century ago. I totally remember looking forward to them every year in my Easter basket. The lovely sugar-coated gooey goodness. Even though you had to open the entire pack of 12 to get 1 out, and the others solidified in a matter of hours, we loved our Peeps. AND we loved messing with them. We nuked them in the microwave, we put them through torturous “science experiments,” and we glued them in ways that any avant garde artist would bite his hand in envy…

Just Born, maker of the chick- and bunny-shaped marshmallow Easter favorites, is officially opening the first store devoted to Peeps last month. The shop, located in a mall near Washington, D.C., sells over 800 Peeps products, including plush toys, china, and even a fancy hand-blown glass Peep.

First Peeps store in Oxon Hill, Maryland.

http://www.peepresearch.org

Apple (and Steve Jobs) is the poster child for bold. It seems everywhere you turn today you encounter another story of triumph for Apple, a company that has certainly faced its share of difficulty.

Via Flickr - Illustration: Tsevis Visual Design

Think about this — back in 1997 when Jobs went back to Apple, it was an underdog. A mere 6 months from bankruptcy when it moved forward to boldly position itself as the “Think Different” company. In 2000 Apple missed its financial targets, sending its stock price plummeting to the equivalent of $7 in today’s prices. Yet in 2001, as global markets fell apart and the world headed into recession, Apple boldly launched iTunes, Mac OS X, the first Apple retail stores, and the first iPod.

The obsession with innovation and focus on amazing design never faltered. Everything about Apple and its products is simply cool. (I still have the packaging from the U2 iPod I bought years ago and my husband finally tossed the box from our two year old iMac.)

Fast forward eight years to 2009, a tough year by all measures, and a time where much of the computer industry struggles, yet Apple reported that it had sold a record 3 million Macs in its fiscal fourth quarter — a 16.4% increase compared with just 2.3% growth in the PC market. And it has held a higher price point and margin, despite the recessionary environment and the increasingly competitive landscape. Plus the revenue from the computer industry is a shrinking piece of its overall revenue pie given Apple shipped over 22 million iPods during its first quarter (up 3 percent from last year) and 4.4 million iPhones.

Here’s another one of those “Ohhhh I wish I had done that!” head slaps. If you had invested $1,000 in Apple ten years ago (Dec 1999), today it would be worth over $7,500.  (Crap. I wish I had done that, but I was licking my wounds from taking a beating on some dot coms stocks.) Today, Apple is valued at about $170 billion, slightly more valuable than Google and a far cry from the $5 billion valuation in 2000.

For the second year in a row, Apple is the #1 most admired company in the world and recently Steve Jobs was named Fortune’s CEO of the decade. Just today, I read that Macs held the top three spots on Amazon’s “Most Wished For” laptop list this holiday, as well as the top four spots on the desktop computer wish list.

Apple didn’t create personal computers, but it made them personal.  It didn’t create digital music, but it did create a cultural icon.  It didn’t invent the smartphone, but it made one that people lust after and are willing to stand in line for hours to buy.

With 275 retail stores, a 73% share of the MP3 player market, and the undisputed leadership position in innovation when it comes to mobile phones, Apple and its CEO are no one’s idea of underdogs anymore.

It’s been a difficult year, one where my natural reaction has been to pull back and play it safe, even when I know in my heart that now it the time to take risks. I’ve kept moving forward, and taking risks. But it’s been hard. And every so often, I need a boost to keep going.  Today I needed that energy boost again (not to mention I was desperate for a hair color — which is why I had two hours of uninterrupted time to catch up on some reading in the first place.) Whenever I read about the journey of Apple, I feel re-energized and more determined than ever to take bold steps.

BTW, I know I enjoyed this laugh, so I bet you will too. Check out this article titled the Great iPhone Death Watch. I bet there are a few people listed here with a little crow on the menu.

1. He’s one of the funniest people on Twitter.
2. He developed one of the coolest apps available for the iPhone.
3. He’s 1/3 of one of the best podcasts on iTunes.
4. He is the world’s foremost Fishstick instructor.

He also has a blog rich in found content, which I unintentionally visited last night while sorting, filing, and cataloging more than 400 loose bookmarks in Firefox (please don’t ask). During this task, I clicked on a link that — several months ago — I had re-titled simply: “Genius.” (This is ironic, because I didn’t remember where the link would take me, which seems to be the opposite of genius.) It directed me to one of Mr. Lisagor’s entries, the main content of which is reproduced below. It is wisdom about art and performance and ultimately life imparted by Thelonious Monk to a young saxophone player. It is genius and applies to much more than the mastery of reed instruments. We could all heed Monk’s advice, regardless of profession.

[Unfortunately, I end this post on another note of non-genius. I now realize that the original post was from Neven Mrgan, another funny, funny guy. My apologies, sir. Thelonius said: "Always know." One of these days I might absorb that.]

These new text based ads will appear in Google search results next to standard business listings, and will be displayed based on the location of your business, the categories your business is defined for and the location of the searcher.

Unlike the current AdWords model, all ads are based on a flat monthly rate. This rate will vary however based on your business type and location. Official pricing for this product has not yet been announced by Google.

The analytics provided with this service are quite nice. You will get full reports on:

• Ad Impressions
• Click-Thru Numbers
• Calls (Based on an 800 number automatically provided by Google that redirects the call to your business number)
• Search terms used when you ad was displayed

Along with these statistics you have two options on where to send people from you ad. You can send them to your current website, if your company has one, or you can create a special business listing within Google Maps.

It will be very interesting to see the initial feedback on this new product. If all goes well, I’m certain this Google Local Advertising will roll out nationally relatively quickly.

And you know what…she did. Nine bags of groceries for just over $13 bucks.  And people around her cheered her on.  Me included.  Then I checked out, without a coupon to my name, and walked out with my $100+ in groceries in 5 bags feeling kind of stupid.  And maybe a bit irresponsible.

As I was putting away my groceries, I kept thinking about the coupon lady.  I know who she is because her daughter goes to school with mine. She’s probably in the same income bracket as me.  Which made me wonder if coupon use was up among all income brackets or just some.  Turns out data from Nielsen published last month underscored the growing usage trend among higher incomes, showing that households earning $70,000 or more a year were among the top coupon users.

Which of course made me wonder if I should take a more active role in trying to save money.  However, I hate clipping coupons.  Really hate it.  And on the rare occasion when I do take the time to clip, I don’t sort them and don’t end up using them anyway.  (All of this was running through my head while I unpacked the cans and stacked them in my pantry.)

Then as I sat down a few minutes ago to glance through the paper, I see an article about this very subject headlined:  “Great time for U.S. consumers; Bargains are the ‘new normal’.” Jeezzz.  OK.  Maybe I need to pay attention and actually do something.  Other than sigh when I read, “there is a new societal pressure to be careful and smart when buying almost anything.”

No kidding. Everywhere I turn tonight, I feel like someone is trying to tell me I need to be smarter with my money.  I have thought more about “should” tonight than I ever have.  But I’m not a filer.  I lack the discipline for organized grocery lists.  And most coupons are paper that require organization. So I’d probably end up with 20 things of deodorant I don’t like and would never use if I started clipping coupons at this point.  Simply because it was a good deal.

I’m amazed that paper coupons still rule.  Because they are so cumbersome.  But they do.  In fact in the first half of this year there was a 29 percent increase in coupons distributed for food products, and coupon redemption climbed 23 percent during the same period.

Obviously there are a lot of organized people out there.  But maybe a little something else is at play as well, given this insight in a recent New York Times article.  “Consumer psychologists posit yet another reason for the popularity of paper coupons: Because it takes more work to acquire them, the people who do so feel they have outsmarted other shoppers.”

Well, I definitely felt outsmarted tonight. And have vowed to do something about it.  Obviously there are dozens of coupon web sites, but they still require printing and organizing. Not my thing and I know I wouldn’t stick with it.   So instead I signed up for Cellfire, which lets me download coupons to either my Bakers value card or to my cell phone.   No organization required and I can still feel smart (or at least smarter) next time I go to the grocery store.  Somehow I doubt I’ll best the coupon lady with her cart of stuff for $13, but at least I won’t feel irresponsible anymore.

Word-of-mouth has always been a company’s biggest ally or largest nemesis based on whether or not it fulfills its brand promise. I have a friend who’s pretty pissed at Disney right now because they failed today. Disney’s brand promise is magic. They charge a premium price for submersing their park’s visitors in that magic. But today they didn’t deliver fantasy. They delivered reality: stuff breaks.

That’s cool. Stuff does break. And that’s why this isn’t a rant on perfection. It’s also not a rant on word-of-mouth, as you might have guessed. But today the flu trumps transition. In fact, it’s not a rant at all. It’s a simple question.

Why shouldn’t Disney refund my friend’s park entrance fee? And her airfare? And offer her a written apology promising to fulfill their brand promise if she ever decided to give them a second chance, which they understand probably won’t be the case?

I’ve been to a Disney property four times in my life. Three out of those four times I’ve spent more than 70% of my day either in line for or actually riding Space Mountain. You could say that I went to the Magic Kingdom just to ride Space Mountain. Know why you could say that? Because I did. And if it were closed, I can almost guarantee that I’d end up on the front page of the Orlando Sentinel the next day in a less-than-flattering news story that would undoubtedly include a mugshot. I’d make Clark Griswold look like St. Thomas of Aquinas.

So as absurd as it sounds, let me ask again: Why shouldn’t Disney go out of their way to make reparations?

“But, Cliff, c’mon. Seriously? There’s so much more to do than just Space Mountain. You want them to refund the whole thing just because one ride was closed?”

Yes.

Why? Tickets for four people were $1000. If she’d called last week and told Disney that she’d had an unexpected expense that month and she could only give them $600 for her tickets, what do you think the magical customer service rep on the other end of the phone would have said?

“Ha.” That’s what he would have said. “Ha, ha, ha. It doesn’t work like that. It’s all or nothing.”

All or nothing. What a concept. That’s the rule we – as consumers – follow every day in the marketplace. A BMW M5 starts at $85,000. I can’t give a salesman the keys to my crappy trade-in and a check for, say, $8000 and expect to drive that incredibly sweet ride off the showroom floor. Doesn’t work like that. All or nothing.

So why does it work for Disney? Or for major airline carriers when their cancelled or delayed flights cause you to domino your way into travel hell? Or for any company that delivers an inferior experience?

I know some of you are saying: “Well, when you have a poor experience, you don’t have to go back.” That’s true. But why should I pay you for your first failure? It’s your brand promise, after all.

Why are individuals playing by one set of rules and businesses often playing another game altogether? Why aren’t they forced to say: “We screwed up, and this one’s on us”?

More importantly, why aren’t they smart enough to say it? Because those who do often win customers for life. Or at least until they screw up again.

Until today, there was only one time this wasn’t the case: Saturdays. You see, I’m a transplant from the South. While the rest of the state is working itself into a frenzy over the Cornhuskers, I’m frantically trying to find which station is carrying my beloved Alabama Crimson Tide. Most Saturdays, I get lucky and find the game on my actual television, because the Tide are currently ranked third in the nation. Not today, though. Not in Nebraska.

I’m sure the game was on television East of the Mississippi, but I had to sidle up to my laptop expecting to periodically check the score on ESPN.com. Luckily, that wasn’t the case. Instead, I opened ESPN.com to find that I could watch the entire Alabama game on their new ESPN 360. Not only could I watch Alabama. I could watch dozens of games. And that was just football. As soon as the Crimson Tide rolled over the Wildcats, I watched Barcelona beat Almeria 1-0. That’s right. I switched from live American college football to live European professional futbol in about three seconds. And I never touched my television.

It was great. But while the content was fantastic, the advertising opportunities – from both the “channel” and the brand (yes, singular) on that “channel” – weren’t fully developed. It was as if the ESPN sales guy called a company and said: “Hey, uh, we’ve got this new place to do…something. Maybe run some commercials or something? Cool?” And that company guy said: “Um, cool. I suppose we could…I don’t know…run some commercials or something.” And they did. And it was pretty lame.

So let me point out the obvious to everyone involved. The Internet is not TV. Even when it is TV. Figure that out. When you do and you begin to offer the user (not the viewer) a relevant brand experience (instead of a commercial break), everyone will win.

Until then, the only winner is me. I never have to turn on my television again. Except to annihilate Guitar Hero V. But that’s another blog altogether.

But try they might.

According to a new survey conducted for the American Press Institute, more than half of newspaper publishers believe readers will pay to access online newspaper content.  The results from the first survey are being presented at API’s Newsmedia Economic Action Plan Conference this week.

Newspaper companies including News Corp. and MediaNews Group are among those that have already said they will begin charging for online content. News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch says the company will charge for all of its news sites, including FoxNews, by the middle of 2010.

One approach favored by many is to erect a pay wall around virtually all stories. Print subscribers are often—but not always—allowed to read articles free of charge. Everybody else must pay, either on a story-by-story basis or on a subscription plan. The Newport Daily News, a small Rhode Island newspaper, recently began charging $345 per year for online access to stories (that’s more than the print version).  (Interestingly enough Google is now developing a micropayment platform and pitching newspapers… which seems at odds with what Google CEO, Eric Schmidt told publishers at NAA in April that “consumers won’t pay for most online news”.  But based on how I read the proposal from Google, it sounds like they might also get a share of sales, which could explain the approach.)

Another option is to charge for just some content and make other content available free. The best example of this approach, with more than a million online subscribers, is the Wall Street Journal. Roughly half of its articles—generally financial news and business reports—sit behind a pay wall, although they are free if accessed via Google News.

This approach is much harder to emulate than it may appear. Between 2005 and 2007 the New York Times charged a subscription fee to read the paper’s most popular columnists online. It ended the experiment exactly two years ago because it seemed to be cutting traffic to the site and harming advertising revenue. The Los Angeles Times dropped an attempt to charge for arts coverage for the same reason.  A newspaper that wants to follow the Journal’s approach must produce copy that is both narrow in its appeal, highly valued and useful.

Paralleling these approaches are two other news content initiatives that could further impact the industry:

First is a content-management approach by Associated Press which includes plans for a system to detect unlicensed use of its content and potentially create new ways for the news cooperative to make more money online.  AP will bundle its stories in an “informational wrapper” that will include a built-in beacon to monitor where stories go.   This news registry will debut in November and will later expanding to videos and photos. Starting in 2010, newspapers that own the cooperative will be able to put their material into the registry as well.

The second approach, by start up Attributor, called the Fair Syndication Consortium includes Reuters and more than 1,000 publishers.  This one looks to be more of direct revenue-generating tactic, but still faces technical and legal hurdles.  Rather than trying to merely corral copyright-protected stories, the consortium hopes to take a slice of the ad revenue collected by an unauthorized Web site. However, to do that, it needs the cooperation of the big networks like Google and Yahoo, who so far have reacted coolly to the proposal. If a split can’t be agreed upon, the consortium will demand that the advertising running alongside the copyright-protected material be removed.

The issues are complex. I get that.  Newspapers pay their reporters to write stories and then many sites republish those stories and make money via advertising using content someone else paid for.  I get the angst.  But personally I don’t think the pay for content model is going to restore the news (and particularly the newspaper) industry to its level of previous profitability or even save it.  I think it’s short sighted and even misguided thinking.  Given the nature of the net, “news” won’t stop because news organizations wall off their content.  While I have all the respect in the world for a good, thorough reporter, they no longer have a dominance on reporting and analyzing the events in our world. My concern is that this move will only further marginalize the profession of news reporting with large segments of the population.

The hand wringing is about the art of journalism, but isn’t all of this really about advertising revenue? If you think about it, I mean really think about it, our subscriptions to the paper never really paid for the creation of news.  You can’t tell me monthly subscription revenue even came close to paying for the costs associated with producing a paper.  As a percentage of revenue, I wonder if subscription costs even cover the cost of paper and the home delivery.  In reality, advertising dollars underwrote the cost of journalism and those shrinking dollars are the cause of all the hand-wringing and why newspapers are in a world of hurt.

Not too long ago, we had the publisher of our local paper publicly say in a speech at a function that the paper wasn’t in the journalism business, it was in the ad business.  Many were shocked, but I gave him a lot of credit for having the balls to come out and say it.  To me it’s innovation newspapers missed and innovation they need.  Rather than trying to return to what they were, they need to face what is and get on with it.  And there are some very progressive thinkers in the industry with some great ideas for how newspapers can build community on and offline and regain a more progressive, leadership role.  But the train on pay for content has left the station and seems unstoppable at this point.  I just hope no one in the industry thinks it is a magic bullet.

By no means are the issues or ideas being discussed in the industry simple or unanimous. Opinions are as heated as they are varied.  Yet the simple question remains:  Will consumers pay for news online?  Will you?

I doubt I will.  At least for general news. I have too many other choices.

Some very insightful and thought provoking commentary has been written on this subject. If you haven’t followed the subject, here are some posts worth a read:

• Veteran alt-journalist Bill Wyman, in a piece in the web magazine Splice Today (headed by New York Press founder Russ Smith) summarizes the challenges of the newspapers in five easy pieces. His two-part essay, Five Key Reasons Why Newspapers Are Failing (one here and two here) takes aim at claims of civic virtue.
• Chris O’Brien, a business reporter at the San Jose Mercury News, contributing to the MediaShift blog, wrote one of the best explanations I have ever read about the inherent fallacy of the paid-content issue.
• In response to O’Brien’s post, and in further exploring the concept of the so called “original sin” committed by newspapers, Steve Buttry C3 Coach at Gazette Communications in Cedar Rapids, Iowa wrote a thought provoking post that basically summed up why the original sin in the newspaper model was more about failing to innovate rather than about failing to charge for content.  I agree with him wholeheartedly.
• In another post from Chris O’Brien, he advocates more of a anecdotal and observational approach to problem solving and innovation rather than a pure numbers approach which can often obscure the important lessons of the way people behave.  This struck a chord with me.  While I certainly value data and models as part of the analysis and planning process, I have found that anecdotes often provide me better insights into how to creatively solve a problem than numbers do.  In his post,  he states: ” I don’t believe there’s a magic data set waiting to be assembled that will lead us to the big “Ah-ha!” I don’t think we’re one reader survey away from figuring it all out. We live in an era where people turn to data as a crutch, leaning on it to give themselves a false sense of certainty. The facts don’t lie, right? Except we know that they do. A lot of such data is formed by the biases and frames through which the questions are formulated, asked, and then interpreted. The newspaper business has failed to recognize its own flawed frames. To this day, no matter what you hear from a newspaper executive, they still believe their primary purpose is to get people to read them in print. It’s why newspapers still spend so much money propping up circulation by subsidizing a large number of people through persistent telemarketing.”

Nice job. Very clever. It’s like a little game you decided to play with your cardholders. I like games, too. So since you like games and I like games, why don’t we play a quick guessing game. Cool? Okay, here goes. I’m holding up one finger over here on my end of the internet. Guess which one.

It was a cheap screwdriver. Cost me a buck at Target earlier in the day. There were two pieces of information stamped onto it. The first was a brand: Durabuilt. The second was a country of origin: China.

As I flipped it, I realized there was a factory worker half a world away whose sole job was to sit in a manufacturing plant every day and run the machine that identified a bazillion screwdrivers every week. He (or she) undoubtedly had no trouble understanding “China.” But what about the other word? That had to be confusing – even if the guy (or not guy) had a working knowledge of English. After all, what’s a Durabuilt? At some point that worker asked the question to a trusted, knowledgeable source.

Factory Worker: “I started my new job today.”

Grandfather: “What do they have you doing?”

FW: “I’m stamping screwdrivers. But I don’t get it. On one side of the screwdriver, I let everyone know where it came from. On the other, I stamp a word I’ve never seen.”

GF: “Didn’t you take English for a few years?”

FW: “Yes. But I guess I didn’t make it that far.”

GF: “What’s the word?”

FW: “Durabuilt.”

GF: “Oh. Don’t worry. They wouldn’t have covered that in your studies.”

FW: “Why not?”

GF: “Because that’s not English. That’s advertising.”

I’m really not sure what makes that conversation better: comedic timing or a Greek chorus.

You’re wrong.

Not that you don’t matter. You do (unless you don’t, but that’s another rant altogether). While you’re oiling the machine, though, you can’t lose sight of the fact that it’s a machine. The inner workings of any business never rest on one person. It’s a vast network of knowledge, relationships, and stakeholders. Many people shake hands and hold hands, not just you.

Sure, an account occasionally follows one person. Yes, a client – whether internal or external – may sabotage a larger relationship for the sake of an individual relationship. But it’s the exception, not the rule. Smart clients and managers never lose sight of the machine. Those who dismantle it over the removal of a single cog often find themselves unnecessary in the new machine they’ve created. That’s called irony. Or karma.

This isn’t to say that you’re not special. There’s a good chance you are. It would take a lot of effort to replace you. It would take weeks to bring someone up to speed. Months or years would pass before anyone could have the kinds of relationships you’ve fostered or the knowledge you’ve absorbed. That said, it happens every day.

Advertising and marketing are industries built on Ego. Insecurity often masquerades as Ego. I think a lot of us want to believe that no one can live without us. We don’t want that to be the case. But it is. When you realize that – and then embrace it – you’re actually better for your business. Your work means more, because it becomes about progressing towards goals instead of focusing on the preservation of the individual.

Still think the office would fall apart without you? Take a vacation. A real vacation. Put down the iPhone. Unplug your laptop. Read a book. Walk. Bike. Eat without looking at your watch to see when you need to be back at work. Because you don’t. Just breathe, relax, and forget about the office.

Then…go back. Hey, look. An entire week passed and the place is still standing. The machine is running. It found another groove while you were gone. The irony: once it’s proven that you’re indispensable, the machine always welcomes you back. You’re renewed and refocused. You have new energy. And that’s what makes a machine based on networks, relationships and knowledge thrive.

Last week I took a vacation. Today, I’m ready to work.

It really amazes me how sexualized the fast food industry has become over the years.  What happened to the good ole’ characters like Ronald McDonald, Hamburglar and Grimace?  Now B-list celebs are the main characters in barely there outfits on top of cars eating burgers.  I get the whole “play to your audience” strategy and buzz worthiness, but do we all really need to be subjected to this crap?  There is a difference between being edgy and being repulsive.

Burger King really takes the cake with their new ad running in Singapore (pictured here and wasn’t created by Crispin Porter).  It references the word “blow” and the wide open mouth of a lady with a seven inch sandwich in front of her.  What message is this exactly sending?  Pretty disgusting if you ask me.

Burger King isn’t the only offender in this sad display of marketing.  Carl’s Jr, Hardee’s and Quiznos all get thrown in the pot as well.  Paris Hilton, Padma Lakshmi, Audrina Patridge and many other women have shown skin all in an effort to sell more burgers and sandwiches for these huge corporations.

What is the psychology behind this anyway?  Do guys think they are going to get this “hot” girl if they eat at one of these fast food chains?  Do women see someone skinny like Paris Hilton eating a burger and think I could too?   Don’t get me wrong I am always up for some risqué ads but sometimes it’s a little too much.

One of my favorite producers and dear friends, Alan Siegel of November Films: http://www.novemberfilms.com/, visited Omaha this week with an extremely gifted documentary filmmaker, Chris Taylor to unveil his new film called “Food Fight:” http://www.foodfightthedoc.com/ The viewing was sponsored by Alegent Healthcare and this was a true testament to how certain foods and food habits have affected our entire country in not so good ways. (diabetes, obesity, cancers, etc)

This is a brilliant film that I would strongly encourage everyone to see. It takes a look at how the American Agricultural food policies developed in the mid 20th century and how various food movements popped up (first starting in California and then spreading to place like Wisconsin, etc.) creating a “counter revolution against big agribusiness.” After WWII, there was a HUGE shift into convenience foods (dehydration, flash freezing, fast food, TV dinners, etc.) Twinkies were being sold as nourishing treats for growing children! Unreal! This movie is fascinating to say the least and you have no other option than to take action with your own food choices. This is more than just creating meal plans and making grocery lists. This is going to take a cultural shift in the way we think.

I am going out on a limb to say it is a life changing movie…it IS. Things you never thought were in your food. No more pink tasteless tomatoes! Fight for the quality of your food! We as a family are personally taking a pledge to CARE about where our food comes from. Buy Fresh, Buy Local is a group that you can contact, at least in the Omaha/NE metro area to find farm fresh whole/organic foods that are near you. http://buylocalnebraska.org/ and on a national level: http://foodroutes.org/

And lastly, you CAN taste a difference if you boil it down to just taste alone. Clean Plate is a whole food restaurant opening this August at the Empty Room: http://cleanplateomaha.wordpress.com/

Start a revolution with your food and your life!!

Has the American consumer been reduced to such a demographic statistic in our industry that they could only possibly be responding to company dogma or PR spin?  In reality the American consumer consists of people.  People who don’t want to commit a large chunk of their hard earned income only to get stuck with an inferior and unreliable product.  People who are paying attention to what’s going on around them and making intelligent decisions.

Let’s give the American consumer a little credit.  Granted, they’re not getting the full story on any of these companies, Ford included.  But they’re taking the information available to them and using it to make cogent and reasonable decisions to the extent that they can.  And they’re doing it in numbers great enough to be counted.  And that’s the best anyone can be expected to do – even some of the marketing geniuses who analyzed this data in the first place.

Here is what happened when they took the dispenser onto the Caltrain ride back to San Francisco.

http://designthinking.ideo.com/?p=175#content

There’s confusion, trepidation, and a general feeling of being overwhelmed.  Add to that the pressure to get more bang for your marketing buck in today’s economic climate and the anxiety increases.

More and more companies need or want to expand their visibility online.   To be found where people look.  That often means tapping the potential of social media, but they don’t know how to enter the conversation or are paralyzed because of a stumble.  We’ve heard tales of being banned from Digg, kicked off Facebook, deleted from Wikipedia, stumped by Twitter, slammed by bloggers or caught off guard by employee comments in cyberspace.  We hear the the same question over and over, “What do I do?” And the dozens of books, hundreds of articles and thousands of web pages dedicated to the subject only seem to make it feel more overwhelming.

So we’ve developed this series of seminars, starting with social media marketing, to go beyond theory and platitudes to practical applications to answer your questions and give you tips you can put to work immediately.  We also have sessions scheduled that will focus on increasing your visibility on search engines and on smart marketing tips to turn data into intelligence and insights. You’ll take away not only a better understanding, but also a little peace of mind  and some tools to get you started.

Why the Sausage Factory name?  Because it fits (and it sounded better than Bozell Seminars).  People once referred to marketing like a recipe for soup — a little of this, a little of that, add a little seasoning, simmer it for a while and you’ve got a meal.  Now it’s not nearly so neat or orderly and time to simmer…fat chance.  It’s all about now.  And piecemeal doesn’t cut it anymore.  It has to all be ground together to create something cohesive and tightly integrated.  It really is like making sausage. It’s messy.  But at the end of the day, it’s much tastier and more popular at parties because it’s centered on the consumer.  Could the name Sausage Factory raise a few eyebrows?  You bet.  But that itself is part of what the marketing game is about today.  To have a voice, a point of view, something that might be worth talking about.  Check it out:  www.sausagefactoryseminars.com or on Twitter at www.twitter.com/SausageFactory.

The Barry White-esque voice and overly cheesy graphics are just bad enough to be kinda good.  Plus, for just $3.99 you can enjoy the flame-broiled qualities of the Whopper calorie-free.  Perhaps a thrifty valentine gift for your burger-loving friends?  I’m not sure it sells more Whoppers – unless the smell of it makes you continuously hungry.

“The Wall Street Journal’s print edition and The New York Times Online will both introduce new elements Thursday morning as The Journal makes a play for new ad revenue and The Times tries to increase its allure to web surfers.

The Journal is running an advertiser’s cover wrap on Thursday for the first time in its history, covering one-third of the front page and all of the back with an ad for Dell. Cover wraps are common among New York City’s Post and Daily News tabloids; just Tuesday, the Daily News distributed copies free to commuters wrapped in ads for the new Tomb Raider video game. But The Journal has traditionally declined to obscure its front page with overlaid ads.

Michael Rooney, chief revenue officer at Journal parent Dow Jones, said the move was part of an ongoing series of recent changes, and not just since Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. bought the company. “We launched the Weekend Edition, we launched Personal Journal,” he said. “There’s lots that has happened over the last five years.”

Dell and its agency Enfatico are pulling out of some long-term magazine buys, but remain heavy users of print advertising.

The Times Online, meanwhile, is finally activating Times Extra, an alternate view of the home page that offers links to related coverage from other news sources and blogs. Using the home page, some of the most valuable real estate on the internet, to link to competitors such as Fox News, The Wall Street Journal Online and the BBC will mark a big departure for the news brand that many consider the newspaper of record.

That’s a big part of the point, of course, as Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and other Times executives told Ad Age over the summer. The broader idea is to weave the Times more tightly into the internet by making its content friendlier to application developers, building community and offering links even beyond its border.”

Source:  AdAge MediaWorks

The agency has enjoyed particularly robust growth in the last several years, as the expansion of cable ad interconnects allows the NCC to reach 99 percent of wired cable homes in some 132 markets.

Jointly owned by three of the nation’s largest MSOs (Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cox Communications), the New York-based NCC reps all of the major cable operators, as well as DirecTV and Verizon’s FiOS TV.

“This is a proud day,” said Greg Schaefer, NCC president, by way of announcing the milestone. “The confidence and support that our client and ad agency customers have show is a testament to the special value they place on cable television’s array of programming, geographic and consumer targeting, and exclusive digital advertising platforms.”

There are numerous reasons why a person should obey the speed limit. Safety. Legality. Even energy conservation and a smaller carbon footprint. I ignore them

I drive fast.

In a world full of vices, it’s about all I have left. I love to drive. Every time I get in my car to commute, I have 25 miles from point A to B. About twenty of those miles are on eight-lane highway. Might as well make the most of them. So I drive.

But not last Wednesday night. As I merged onto the interstate, I fell a few cars back and a couple of lanes over from one of Omaha’s finest. That was it for the late rush hour rally.

I’m allergic to boring. And nothing sounds more boring than driving I-80 while doing the speed limit behind a cop. I thought I was in for the dullest night of my life. I was wrong.

I hadn’t been behind the squad car for more than a minute when I noticed a set of headlights in my rearview mirror. It was an SUV. And it was doing 20 miles over the limit. About the time it passed me was also about the time the driver saw the cop.

Hello, brake lights.

The guy was in a seven-passenger Suburban and suddenly had the unenviable task of making himself inconspicuous. He dropped back in traffic, made a couple of lane changes, and ended up behind me.

Soon enough, another set of headlights was making a move in the outer lane of what was now a group of more than fifteen cars with Officer Friendly leading the pack. The driver of that car also found his brake pedal. After a few seconds, he fell in line with the rest of us.

This happened ten times before I found my exit, but I could have watched it all night long. I suppose this is the same reason that America’s Funniest Videos is still in production after two decades. No matter how many guys you see take a baseball to the groin – “Ball three!” – it never ceases to be disturbingly hilarious. But I digress.

That night, I was looking forward to something. I was stymied. I ended up enjoying something else even more.

The next time you’re trying to solve a business problem, take that into consideration. Undoubtedly, someone’s going to screw up your plans. You will be thwarted. The easiest or most enjoyable path will be blocked.

When it happens, you can use it as an excuse to produce mediocre results. Or you can check your rearview mirror, watch the idiots behind you, and find another solution.

     Bill Bernbach once said: “I warn you against believing that advertising is a science.” But in tough economic times when CFOs begin to question and cut budgets, many marketing people feel the pressure – or are outright asked – to justify their brand advertising through scientific measurement.

     This is dangerous ground.

     We can measure practically anything in this business: awareness, preference, recall, linkage, attention, motivation, ad nauseum. We can tell you where a reader’s eyes focus when seeing an ad for the first time. We can tell you when viewers are bored or entertained during commercials.

     But it’s a slippery slope when someone asks you to prove a campaign’s ROI. You can throw millions of dollars into a black box to do this. And the owner of that black box will give you a very thick report detailing a campaign’s effectiveness. I’ve seen those reports. I’ve worked for agencies whose clients took a lot of money out of their media or production budgets in order to have those reports produced. Personally, I’ve never trusted any of them. 

     Why? One simple reason. Since we’re just coming out of an election, let me borrow a concept from politics: exit polling. Exit polling is simple. A person with a clipboard stands outside of a voting location. After someone votes, Clipboard Guy asks how they voted. Tally up the answers and you have a fairly decent idea of how each candidate is doing.

     Now, apply that methodology to an ad. Put someone with a clipboard next to a reader or TV viewer or radio listener. After each ad or commercial, have them ask one question: “Will the ads you just saw make you buy a particular shoe/switch your checking account to another bank/stop at the grocery on the way home just to buy the new flavor of Pop Tart?”

     If you think anyone would actually admit that they were influenced by an ad, I have a black box ROI calculator I’d like to sell you for a few million dollars.

     No one would admit it. Would you? Would you admit that your thought process was so easily manipulated that you would actually spend your hard-earned money on something you saw on TV for thirty seconds or read about in the latest issue of People?

     I can only think of one exception to this: people who actually work in advertising. We’d be the first to say, “Yeah. I totally bought these new adidas because the ‘Jose +10’ campaign was so freaking cool.” Other than us? Nobody.

     Again: advertising is not science. If no one will tell you that they based a decision on an ad, there’s no way to directly correlate a brand campaign to ROI. You can take all of the peripheral data and information and run all of the algorithms you want, but it still becomes guesswork. It’s a very expensive best guess. And in a down economy you don’t have the money to spend on advertising, much less black box research.

     So when your CFO asks you to prove the return on the company’s investment, tell her there’s only one way to do that. Tell her you’re going to stop advertising. Kaput. No more. Tell her it’s the only way to show the correlation between your job and the company’s stability or growth.

     I bet you get your budget back.