Branding is No Longer the Future of Business

BrandchainsBranding is dead. Bla bla bla...

My eyes roll back in my head when I start reading something like this nowadays. Spend enough time around the blogosphere, and it's real easy to get that 'heard it all before' mentality. But when it comes from the mouth of someone like Russell Davies, there's a reason for pause. If you're in marketing, this post is a must read.

"Branding is no longer the future of business.

There was a point in the 80s when branding was the future of business. Businesses realised you could stick brand value on their balance sheets, so they did. Consultants realised they could charge a lot of money for advice about brands so they did. And the money people looked to the branding people (often conflated with the marketing people) for all the money making ideas. So you got line extensions, big ads, expensive logos, brand onions. You got branding. And most of it was as intellectually rigorous as phrenology. Actually it was probably more like Scientology; it was somewhere between a fake religion and a false science."

And he continues, branding has changed from affecting perceived value to creating actual value.

"Branding is being replaced by design/technology as the future of business.

The dismal nature of the branding science has started to become clear to business recently and they're starting to vote with their investments and appointments. They're turning from the people who create perceptions of value to the people who create actual value - the designers, technologists, innovators. Hence branded utility, hence 'design is the new management consultancy', hence the current Business Week heroes being IDEO and Ives not CHI and Chiat Day. Hence the limited tenures of CMOs. Hence the rise of communications businesses that can actually make stuff rather than just think of stuff."

Obviously, what it means to be in advertising or branding, or whatever is completely different than it was 10, 5, even 2 years ago. Making tv commercials isn't enough to build the relationships, create fans and stimulate business (at least not in the way it did), and doing that one thing won't be a replacement for the other ever again. But, it's still all branding. Surely technology drives the business further, but branding still has a job of not just pushing things to push them, but when they need to be pushed, and then pushing them in the right direction. Or sometimes restraining them in the right way.

And, perception still pulls the emotional weight. Design and technology can create this sort of need, but there's different kinds of design and technology. Creating a better cereal box isn't necessarily in the same realm. We've always had a hand in that on some level.

As I write this from Mexico, I haven't found one damn bottle of Patron. Not one! My favorite of the "Mexican" premium tequilas, and nothing. But still, there I was each Cinco de Mayo slamming Patron shooters. If that's not branding, I don't know what is...

If that made no sense, I apologize. It's not easy to write with the beach in front of you.

As Television Shifts Towards the Consumer, Will Advertising?

Tapdance3My latest Madison Avenue Journal article just went live today. Shockingly enough, I'm annoyed with how poorly we've made our way into these new interweb video platforms.

"Television is in the middle of a revolution. Even the dissenters decrying the death of the thirty second spot are coming around, accepting the fact that declining influence and escalating prices will eventual equal abundant unsold inventory for less and less valued networks.

But, these dissenters are wrong to admit it so easily. While there has been some innovation with advertising structures for those involved in these new platforms, they have still remained heavily reliant on the thirty second spot. It's the umbilical cord that advertisers have grown far too old to have still attached. I don't blame NBC, CBS, Joost or anyone else fleshing out these new distribution models nearly as much as I blame us, the lazy advertiser looking for something that more closely resembles the things we're most used to."

Read the whole article here.

The Un-Sears Campaign

Christmas_bathroomI love those days when I find something that just overwhelms me with bloggy goodness. Today, that pleasure was brought to me by Kate of mynameiskate fame. Sears in Canada has launched what they consider to be a CGM campaign by allowing consumers to vote on their choice of four (4!) possible covers for their 2007 Christmas catalogue. Apparently, they are unaware that a vote between four shitty choices does not a CGM program make.

So, Kate made her own. And it's better, much better. No unnecessary flash sites (hosted on their agency domain, dumbasses). No over the top brandiness, just good old-fashioned consumer empowerment.

Read the post for all the ins and outs, but essentially, she created a flickr group to host photos uploaded by the Sears constituency, so that she could find the next Sears Wishbook faux cover.

I do think we're missing one thing. An actual prize. Now, I'm not a rich man, but I've got fifty bucks on it. Anybody else care to make this interesting?

Sears.ca - Bullshit CGM site - Kate's 2007searswishbook.com - Flickr Group

The Conversation Age: How to Beat the Bible in Book Sales

Drew and Gavin kicked a liitle e-ass with the new e-book, "The Conversation Age," featuring 100 marketing luminaries from across the blogosphere, and beyond. Although I don't envy the amount of time these boys had to put in on this project, I am jealous that they've already gotten to read it. I get the feeling the benefiiting charity, Variety, will be more than pleased.

And for those of you just dying for a hint, here's a selection from my contribution, Television in the Conversation Age.

2005_3

I must admit, it's a little creepy out of context.

I'm hoping these marketing rock stars will make up for my cartoonish oddities...

Gavin Heaton, Drew McLellan, CK, Valeria Maltoni, Emily Reed, Katie Chatfield, Greg Verdino, Mack Collier, Lewis Green, Sacrum, Ann Handley, Mike Sansone, Roger von Oech, Anna Farmery, David Armano, Bob Glaza, Mark Goren, Matt Dickman, Scott Monty, Richard Huntington, Cam Beck, David Reich, Mindblob (Luc), Sean Howard, Tim Jackson, Patrick Schaber, Uwe Hook, Tony D. Clark, Todd Andrlik, Toby Bloomberg, Steve Woodruff, Steve Bannister, Steve Roesler, Stanley Johnson, Spike Jones, Nathan Snell, Simon Payn, Ryan Rasmussen, Ron Shevlin, Roger Anderson, Bob Hruzek, Rishi Desai, Phil Gerbyshak, Peter Corbett, Pete Deutschman, Nick Rice, Nick Wright, Mitch Joel, Michael Morton, Mark Earls, Mark Blair, Mario Vellandi, Lori Magno, Kristin Gorski, Krishna De, Kris Hoet, Kofl Annan, Kimberly Dawn Wells, Karl Long, Julie Fleischer, Jordan Behan, John La Grou, Joe Raasch, Jim Kukral, Jessica Hagy, Janet Green, Jamey Shiels, Dr. Graham Hill, Gia Facchini, Geert Desager, Gaurav Mishra, Gary Schoeniger, Gareth Kay, Faris Yakob, Emily Clasper, Ed Cotton, Dustin Jacobsen, Tom Clifford, David Pollinchock, David Koopmans, David Brazeal, David Berkowitz, Carolyn Manning, Craig Wilson, Cord Silverstein, Connie Reece, Colin McKay, Chris Newlan, Chris Corrigan, Cedric Giorgi, Brian Reich, Becky Carroll, Arun Rajagopal, Andy Nulman, Amy Jussel, AJ James, Kim Klaver, Sandy Renshaw, Susan Bird, Ryan Barrett, Troy Worman.

The Advertising Lessons of the Violinist

JoshbellWith the news that YouTube plans to offer pre-roll ads this summer, I fear for the looming onslaught of online video. It seems the advertisers are lazy, and need all this "new" to feel like the old way. Only then will they be comfortable enough to spend the money. And we get screwed.

Three minds points us to this story about a Washington Post experiment gone depressing. Violin virtuoso Joshua Bell engaged in a test of context, or at least our collective morning consciousness. One of the most incredible musicians in the world played some of the most fascinating classical pieces ever written, for free, in the DC Metro. He wore casual clothes, and left his case open for tips in normal street musician style, while he bowed his 3.5 million dollar Stradivarius.

Interview magazine once said his playing "does nothing less than tell human beings why they bother to live."

Yet, only 7 people of over a thousand even stopped. He only made a little over 32 dollars.

Why? Context. He was largely ignored because someone standing where he was, looking like he did, didn't deserve attention, no matter how well he performed.

So, as we work to preserve our same old context in these new video surroundings, maybe we should ask ourselves why. We should try a little harder to surprise and delight, not necessarily preserve and make more palatable.

Because the 30 second commercial, the newspaper ad, the billboard, the radio spot, you can make them just as good as Joshua Bell, but they'll still be ignored. You can't fight complacency with context. You'll just fail more quickly.

Below is the hidden camera video of the experiment.

ad:tech For The People

ad-tech-paul1.jpg

Marketing and Technology. For the People.

In case you didn't notice, Advertising as we knew it is gone.

Okay, maybe it's not completely gone, but it's fledgling, struggling, whatever you want to call it.

I think Dana Todd's view says it best:

"The prevailing wisdoms of our past in terms of advertising, media, publishing, science, and computing are being tested constantly, and occasionally pushed aside to make way for entirely new things. Old isn't always bad, but new isn't always good either. There's an element of destruction in much of the technology in terms of disintermediation of business models (which is potentially threatening to thousands of jobs and millions of dollars) and destruction of our social fabric as we know it (teens who only communicate in text, the breakdown of family time around the TV, and the pervasive role of new media in our lives).

Fortunately, the public doesn't seem as scarred as we might have feared. We embrace the efficiencies that technology brings us, but we still continue to value our human relationships as highest priority. We just use different means of interacting and communicating now."

--Dana Todd, Co-founder and Principal, SiteLab International

ad-tech-paul2.jpg

For most, it won't take much more than a mirror to recognize how easily and thoughtlessly we, the masses, make advertising obsolete. And, just as Todd said, we use different means of interacting and communicating now. Only problem is, that doesn't leave much room for interruption, a skill that's been our bread and butter for decades.

So maybe it's time we just stop calling what we do advertising. What it is now is much too personal to be so shorted with that brand of commercial artistry. When before we were segmented and massified at the same time, today we are increasingly individualized, personalized, and magnified. 10 years ago I wasn't much more than a 25-34 year-old male with a paycheck, but today, I stand before you proudly as me and only me.

As Richard Frankel of Yahoo! said, "If consumers feel like their web experience is tailored to their actual interests, they are going to feel better about their experience overall. Old media technology tells consumers to be like the mass. Interactive media technology tells consumers to be themselves -- and consumers like that."

It's a brand new day for advertising, but more so, it's a brand new day for people.

I'm obviously more connected than I've ever been. I generally have two laptops buzzing around me. I write two different blogs, and for the Madison Avenue Journal. If you don't find me there, you can see me mini-blogging with twitter. I check my email constantly on my Treo. I've got profiles on MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn, among others. It doesn't take a master sleuth to find my cell phone number, and my email address is all over the web.

I'm more open than most, that's for sure. But, as you already know, it doesn't take much more than a Google search to get a pretty good level of knowledge about almost anybody. Web 2.0 is usually described as the growth of social media, but it can just as easily be called open media, because what it did is start to remove the anonymity of the internet. While there is still room for leading separate digital and actual lives, for many, the two are seamless. The identity is largely the same. And that's a good thing.

But with all this openness, advertisers are becoming mostly shut out, left unwelcome on the doorstep.

"For me personally technology is all about freedom," says Director of Buzz marketing at Microsoft Sean Carver.

My openness makes it easy to find exactly what I want, when I want, without the need for the one-way messaging that is the status quo for our business.

[Check out: Social Networks and Consumer Generated Media: Re-examining the Value Proposition, Thursday, April 26, 2:45pm-3:45pm]

Sure, I watch plenty of TV, but I haven't seen a television commercial in weeks. That is, besides on YouTube, but that's reserved only for the incredibly good and the hopelessly bad. I spend copious amounts of time on the web, but with robust ad blocking software, I hardly ever see a banner ad, pop-up or the like. I still listen to the radio, but the play button on the IPod is pressed at the mere hint of a break. I don't read magazines. I don't read newspapers.

[Check out: The On-Demand Universe, Wednesday, April 25, 10:45am-11:45am]

ad-tech-paul3.jpg

So, for all my openness, my consumption resembles this chart. I talk to people, who talk to other people, with brands and recommendations flying all around. But, there is no tolerance for the unwanted, the unrequested. I have no patience for interruption, and neither should you.

As Rohit Bhargava of Ogilvy Public Relations said, "Consumers are generating everything from their own entertainment to their own advertising (and often they are one in the same). All these messages are highly personal, driven by the passion of individuals. More than ever, the personal side of Ad-Tech is about marketing for the people, by the people - and what role professional marketers have to play in this."

Well, maybe it's marketing for the people by the people, but I don't think you can call it advertising.

[Check out: The Next Big Thing: Is Advertising Really the Solution? Wednesday, April 25, 12:00pm-1:00pm]

So, the picture should be even clearer. Advertising is dead, but marketing isn't. We've started to adapt to this new environment by doing the only thing we could do, stop advertising, and just embrace the humanity of it all.

Now, we've become conversationalists, trying desperately to elicit some response where before we simply ignored it. And that's a good thing. The implication is that we no longer own it or control it. Now we earn it.

ad-tech-paul4.jpg
Diagram above by David Armano.

[Check out:  The Art of Conversation: Establishing Brand Dialog in the Digital Era, Tuesday, April 24, 4:00pm-5:00pm]

And it's so important, because it's all about people now. Sure, it's always been about people on some level, but before we spoke about consumers with a more war-like attitude of targeting and capturing them. It is this 'us vs. them' mentality that stole our popular credibility in the first place. Luckily, we're all in this together.

ad-tech-paul5.jpg

While "targeting" the right consumers is more important than ever, our focus is expanding to trust, to improving the lives of our customers. It's evidenced when you hear ad:tech attendees like Carver say, "The first question that should be hardwired in our product skulls is how will this help someone do something better, or faster or with more enjoyment...my mom, myself, my friends, etc. If we didn't believe in our technology and the effort then there would be no enjoyment in bringing an app to market. In the end today's market and media should be about many levels of choice and the opportunity to participate at whatever level a person finds most rewarding."

[Check out: The Path to One-to-One Marketing: The Evolution of Behavioral Targeting, Tuesday, April 24, 10:45am-11:45am]

And, the same pierces through the fabric of Yahoo!, when senior product director Richard Frankel says, "Yahoo!'s mission is 'to connect people to their passions, their communities, and the world's knowledge.' If we succeed at this mission then everything we do improves the lives of consumers. We know we are getting it right when consumers come to Yahoo! and stay here in droves."

The same can be said of advertising agencies. We're still in the business of selling products and services. That never changed, but we just finally realized that making money isn't mutually exclusive with retaining a descent level of righteousness and connection.

As Harold Mann of Mann Consulting said, "But those that definitely work to improve people's lives tend to make money more easily. When the money is the byproduct of the work and not the reason for it, it is easier to sustain one's career."

My point is that while fear swirls throughout the traditional towers of advertising, we should be rejoicing together in the knowledge that when we go to work tomorrow, we can stop talking about interrupting, annoying, and pestering a passive target into a purchase, but focus on working with our customers towards a more mutually satisfying goal. And, when the consumers get what they want, when they want, and we make a little money facilitating the process, we can all sleep better at night.

[ad:tech check out:  The State of the Agency, Thursday, April 26, 4:00pm-5:00pm]

ad-tech-paul7.jpg

Breathe easy. Technology has made marketing all about the people. This time for real.

Repost of the latest Madison Avenue Journal article, part 1, part 2.

Ad:Tech San Francisco, April 24-26.

Clown Co. Launches a New Mass Market

ClowncoErnie Schenck is brilliant. So is the Hill Holiday blog, to which he is a regular contributor.

"General Motors, E-surance and Royal Caribbean, are among the first advertisers to line-up for the yet-to-be-named "YouTube-killer" planned by NBC, News Corp., and Yahoo among others. No surprise there. The new site, yet to be named, promises content from a dozen networks to say nothing of three major film studios.

This is a problem for YouTube. User generator content is great. And it’s likely more than just a momentary phenomenon. But it often comes at a risk for advertisers worried about connecting their brands to possible– and let’s face it, probable–objectionable content. It’s a problem. And YouTube needs to solve it. Soon."

Sorry, Ernie, I'm just not buying it. The fact that advertisers are flocking to the so-called "Clown Co." has nothing to do with YouTube (besides maybe because the youtubers actually created the market in the first place). Advertisers are swooning over the corporate child because it lets them have a few more months of hope that the mass market isn't going anywhere, that there will still be one-stop shopping, and all this may happen without another addition to their rolodex.

Too bad it can't be that easy.

The Bumper Sticker Republic

Simplicity_or_lazinessNobody ever said anything worthwhile that could fit on a bumper sticker.

If it won't fit on a bumper sticker, it's not very likely people will remember it.

Which is true?

Probably both. Unfortunately. The sound bite republic would argue that you "support our troops," or "just do it." You can definitely win a short conversation by saying "shock and awe," but it's a little more difficult to actually shock anyone, or make them awestruck.

Unless they give a shit about what you have to say already. If you can create a context for caring with your actions, it's possible to continue a conversation past three words. Maybe not so easy for most, but it's probably better than following Maurice Saatchi into the fool's paradise of one word equity, or any reasonable facsimile.

So, where does that leave us? We're not really just advertising anymore, are we?

photo thanks to Elliot Swan

I hate you Viacom.

Viacom_old_logo1Stupidass Viacom. Go sit in the corner with the RIAA.

At first glance, that statement looks a bit incongruent. Viacom is suing a company, not 16 year-old music lovers like the RIAA. But, YouTube is a community, full of protective members looking to hold together a good thing, a place where they're comfortable and happy. And Viacom doesn't give a shit about them.

I get why they do it. The lawyers come in, blind to the free advertising, and want what YouTube already has. They look at it as if it were a series of x's and o's or 1's and 0's, and think they can offer us the same. Instead, they rush a shit product, and think sueing is a sufficient way to stuff it down our throats.

Maybe my view of what we need is a bit utopian, but I really just want to go to one place for all my video watching needs. Viacom can fuck off.

One of the great parts of Digg is the comment section. It'll always give you a quick overview of community reaction. Here's some comments:

From retroduds. "Boycott Viacom."

From the captainjs. "Man... is it just me or are companies turning into big greedy babies."

From moocat. "Viacom had all the time in the world (and still does) to make a simple video site where you can go and watch their shows with small advertisements but they chose not to. Instead they load up a page with crappy graphics, slow loading times and a bad player and then complain that they tried to do the same thing but YouTube stole all their traffic. It's a total setup of moronic proportions. This is a problem with most of american "competition", people don't fight at the product and quality level anymore, they quibble over legalese and faux marketing tactics."

From Stonewaljackson. "how can we collectively tell viacom to suck our balls?"

From Yez70. "I have parental blocked their channels on my cable box and cancelled Showtime and The Movie Channel. My Blockbuster Online membership is also being cancelled. The greedy SOBs can forget about winning me back this time.

I really liked Viacom when they had started playing nice with Google.
"

From DCgamer. "Here are the Viacom channels to Boycott...someone else can work out the advertisers.

  Atom Entertainment, Inc.
  BET
  College Publisher
  Comedy Central
  CMT: Country Music Television
  GameTrailers.com
  Harmonix Music Systems, Inc.
  IFILM
  LOGO
  MTV: Music Television
  MTV2
  mtvU
  MTV Networks International
  MTV Networks Online
  Neopets
  Nickelodeon
  Nick at Nite
  Noggin
The N
Spike TV
TV Land
VH1
Xfire
MTV Networks Digital Suite"

And it goes on, and on and on. Haven't we seen these mistakes before? Will these companies ever learn? Probably not as long as lawyers are running the show...

We Sell things

It's been much too quiet around here this week, so with Sean and Gavin doing so much good thinking, I thought I'd upload something I was screwing around with a few weeks ago.

Marketing_medconv3

Looking back now, it looks like a total mess. In a way, I like it. It sort of visually explains just how disorderly the branding process is in reality, no matter how much we like to think we can control it. (we=they).

The idea is this, a person plus their community feeds the brand idea, which is revealed through various media, etc. These media then support the evidence of the brand idea which feeds the community that filters the message back to the person.

I feel like it's missing something. Which is ridiculous considering what a wreck it is already. It's probably missing space.