What's an Apology Worth?

What’s an apology worth in the world of business and marketing? 

I received an unusual email the other day.  It was an apology note from Posterous (where this blog resides) for their service difficulties experienced last week due to some pernicious Denial of Service attacks (here’s a link to the Official Posterous Posterous blog that contains the same apology note).  It’s a sincere, open, direct apology for problems on their end. 

On the one hand, it wasn’t all that unusual.  But, at the same time, it was.  Confused?  You won’t be.  Let me take just a marketing minute to explain this paradox (and how an apology can be a good engagement strategy).

No Big News, But Big News

On one level, I don’t find it unusual to receive an apology from someone…it’s standard etiquette.  Isn’t that what our parents, pre-school teachers, elementary school teachers, guidance counselors, college counselors, bosses and shrinks have told us for years?  You goof up, you ‘fess up and say you’re sorry.  The same goes for companies and brands that screw up.  Bottom line, a sincere “I’m sorry” sure helps the relationship and seems like the right thing to do.

On the other hand, how often do we NOT receive an apology when someone or some company causes us problems we never asked for?  I can’t recall Mark Zuckerberg ever saying, “I’m sorry that I trampled on your privacy and tried to turn you all into retail shills based on your online purchases.” (remember Beacon?)  Steve Jobs?  “Oh, that iPhone connection thing…did you want that to actually work as a PHONE?!”  (The man is brilliant, but I doubt the words “sorry” and “apology” are in the version of the English language he speaks) *

And, how do you feel when you’re treated like that?  Even for those with healthy self-esteem, it feels like we’ve been treated poorly.  It’s annoying and disappointing enough when that happens in “real life.”  When it happens in business, it smacks of arrogance (for lack of a better word).   And, some of our “technology leaders” seem to have created a whole new level of arrogance that disconnects them from their “real world” customers.  But, as Posterous shows us, that’s not necessary. 

Bad Things Can Lead to Good Engagements 

That’s why I found this apology note so refreshing.  With this one little note, Posterous not only apologized, but gave me some insight as to what happened and how they dealt with this unpredictable mini-catastrophe.  Having worked in young tech companies, I could relate to the pain (and lack of sleep) they must have personally experienced.  I could feel their anxiety and sweat, feel the wheels turning in their brains as they tried to solve this problem.  And, here they were, apologizing to me for falling victim to an aggressive, senseless attack on their system.

The irony is…I didn’t even know about this problem as I’d been off Posterous for a while tending to other life matters.  I missed the whole “disaster.”  But, in some ways, my obliviousness made me appreciate their apology all the more because of their honest admission and sincere contrition. 

The net of all this: Posterous ENGAGED me.  Maybe it wasn’t part of an “engagement strategy,” but the outcome sure felt like engagement on my end.  And, maybe that’s the ultimate strategy in our ever-evolving social world…maybe the best engagement occurs when we’re not trying to engage others for strategic reasons, but are just being honest and true to ourselves, our brands, our company values. That brings to life and makes an overused phrase like "transparency" real and meaningful. 

This “non-strategy strategy” seems to have worked for Posterous.  Their sincere mea culpa has turned me into a bigger fan than ever.  They’ve made a fan for life, created a cheerleader and advocate just by saying: “we’re sorry”…and, meaning it (okay, it helps to have a good product, too!).

Hmm…deeply engaging your audience and customer base in a way that creates appreciative, loyal, vocal ambassadors for your brand.  Does that sound like something of value in today’s business world?  What business or marketing leader wouldn't want that for their brand?

So, now, let me ask you…how are YOU treating YOUR customers?

P.S. As an appreciative, loyal, vocal ambassador, I encourage all of you bloggers and potential bloggers to check out Posterous (if you haven’t already).  It’s a great, easy to use service with excellent features that are getting better every week.  And, it’s run by people who really care about their customers…for real.  They deserve your business.

* Author's Note - I don't know Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs personally or professionally.  So, if I mis-stated or mis-characterized what appears to me, an outside observer, as arrogant or unconcerned behavior on their part toward their many customers, I sincerely apologize.  In fact, I'd be happy to buy you guys lunch to talk it over if you think it would help clear the air.  Let me know.

Social Media is Wrong

“Social Media” is wrong.  There, I said it.  Now, if you’ll kindly give me just a marketing minute, I’ll tell you why.

I was reading a thought provoking post by Eric Flethcher, ”Conversations, Relationships and Renaming Social Media,” over on The Social CMO (excellent blog – I highly recommend it) that got me thinking about this.  Eric raises many good points in his article regarding some barriers to companies accepting/embracing social media - corporate fear of losing control, executive fear of engaging in a “conversation” (being “forced” in this direction), etc. 

Eric does a nice job of reframing the issue, and the opportunity.  One of his final suggestions: come up with a new name for “social media.”  He has his reasons, but this thought resonated with me for a different set of reasons.  Actually, it’s a thought I’ve been struggling with for some time.

  
Misleading and Limiting
"Social Media" as a term is wrong on a number of levels.  Primarily, the term is misleading and limiting – it creates misperceptions, conjures up thoughts that narrow the outlook, potential and application of these new technology tools on behalf of an organization.

For most, the word “media” is associated with the communication channels we’ve all grown up with and which continue to sprout up around us.  Per the dictionary, the noun “media” is most commonly defined as "the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely." I think in today's world we can add online, and even some social networks, to that definition.

Certainly, one can argue that this IS one way that these new social networks, tools and technologies can function.  They certainly CAN be used as communication and/or promotional conduits for our messages.  No argument with that. 

 "Social" is NOT Just "Media"
But, that’s only one usage and potential application of these powerful tools.

• Is asking the opinion of hundreds or thousands of people in your target community for input or feedback on your new product concept, new flavors, features, etc. really “media?”  IMO, not really – that’s marketing intelligence, real-time feedback, research...not "media."
• Is paying close attention to customer comments and/or complaints on the Internet through the use of sophisticated “listening tools,” then swiftly responding to them really “media?”  Not IMO – that again feels like real time market intelligence with a good overlay of customer service on top.

I could go on, but the main point is this:  “Social” is not just “Media,” at least not in the way that the overwhelming number of people (including business and marketing types) think of it.  It is so much more.

What's Wrong With This Picture
This mislabeling can have two (at least!) potentially negative effects:

• It encourages the wrong set of actions – Companies and executives are too quick to only view these tools in the context of a marketing communication channel, and may therefore rush out to stake their claim in this new form of media.  That can lead to what I call SNOS, or “Shiny New Object Syndrome.” It’s not strategic, it’s not integrated or related to the organization’s objectives and it could lead to serious disappointment, wasted time and money...you get the idea.
• It limits strategic application of very powerful tools – Today’s tools have many uses for the savvy business executive and marketer.  From product research to consumer insights to evaluating brand perceptions/saliency to customer service…and, yes, to the more prevalent ways we think of these tools for marketing communications and relationship building.  Right now, many companies are struggling with social because they are only looking at a small portion of how they can utilize these tools (Twitter accounts, Facebook fan pages and promotional activity, etc.).  That’s a tremendous opportunity lost, in my estimation.

One can (and many probably will) argue that all of my above examples are still forms of "media," that it all leads to building better, more productive relationships no matter what an organization does (as long as it is engaged in these conversations and building these relationships).  Some may say we're dancing on the head of a pin here.  I can understand these perspectives; but, I don’t fully agree with them. 

 In a world of short attention spans, limited time and a tendency to be reactionary rather than strategic, little things like “names” can be very powerful signals that lead us in one direction or another.  And, I’m of the belief that using the term “social media” is sending the WRONG signals and making it MORE difficult for those who grasp the potential of these tools to make headway in helping their companies fully leverage these potentially powerful technologies.  As much as the old term “Web 2.0” was derided and lacked clarity, it did allow for a broader platform of potential application and uses.

So, I’d like to see another name.  I’ve been using the clunky term “social tools and technologies.” It will not win me any prize for brand naming brilliance, but it more clearly describes what I’m talking about and allows me to focus on the objectives and strategies of an organization and how we might use these tools to further those goals.

What about you?  What would you do if you were to rename “social media?”

A Debate for the Soul of Marketing

"Our Biggest Brands Can No Longer Be Managed By Nerds"

The above headline grabbed me.  Turns out it's a thoughtful Ad Age/CMO Strategy commentary by Tom Hinkes on the state of Brand Management.  It got me thinking, so I had to take just a marketing minute to post and share it with you.  

I highly encourage every marketing professional, from CMO to assistant marketing coordinator, to read this article and think about it.

While the headline may be a bit much and the term "nerds" may offend some, the point is well made – the marketing world is increasingly hiding behind numbers to justify business decisions, rather than using data to inform and stimulate forward thinking and creative solutions.  As the author points out: "More data is not better data."  And, he goes on to paraphrase David Ogilvy by saying: "The result is today's brand manager who...uses data 'the way a drunk man uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination.' " (Gotta love that Dave Ogilvy)

Are You Right or Left? - And I Don't Mean Politically
One thing that drew me into this profession was the requirement for right brain/left brain thinking.  Personally, I'm all for appropriate use of data, research, and analysis, and enjoy applying these skills in my job.  Some of my best friends crunch numbers.  I've been known to bask in the glow of a well-designed forecasting model (don't spread that around too much).  And, I insist that we track and measure our marketing program performance so we know if what we are doing is on track, off the track or somewhere in between.

However, I agree with the general thrust of the article that the pendulum can swing too far -- great breakthroughs don't all stem from the left side of the brain.  In fact, it works quite the opposite. 

To be clear: that left side of the brain is absolutely critical.  We need that side, and we feed the left hemisphere of our brain data, information, numbers, statistics, research, etc. until it is full and about to burst.  Then, we let it digest.

That's when the magic begins.  Studies have shown that the subconscious mind takes all this data absorbed by the left and plays with it, turns it over and over, looks at it sideways.  Eventually, insight, inspiration and ideas begin to bubble up over on the right side of the brain.  The proverbial light bulb goes off, the "aha! moment" occurs.  Some call it "vision." 

Balancing the Pendulum
So, both sides are important.  And, neither side is effective completely on its own.  Imagine a world run by exclusive right brain thinkers -- lots of ideas, but little in the way to filter, screen, evaluate, monitor, etc. those ideas.  Feels kind of chaotic, lacking in discipline and focus.

At the same time, when the left brain assumes totalitarian leadership, the results are static, minute, uninspiring, lacking in breakthrough.  Feels pretty boring to me.  It's brand paralysis by analysis.

I believe that great marketers and the best marketing leaders have that right side/left side balance.  They know how to analyze, dig, research, evaluate all sorts of data.  But, they also know how to synthesize, interpret, extrapolate and use that data to create a new vision for their Brand and/or company.  These are the people who lead true innovation, create breakthrough products or methods; these are the folks how are truly game-changers in their fields.  

It doesn't feel to me like there are enough of those people in this world, nor does it feel like those right brain/left brain folks are valued as much as they should be.  It's not easy, it's hard.  It's not safe, it's risky.  It's not immediately measurable, it's intuitive.  It's not tactical, it's very strategic.  But, it's necessary, lest every product we see on a shelf or in a store or online be a line extension of something that already exists. You know how that feels? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...

The Great Debate for the Soul of Marketing
To me, this is really a debate over the soul and future of marketing.  (pause for melodramatic effect)  But, it's really not a new debate.  It's really a heightened debate, one fueled by the explosion of technology and tools, and compounded by an economic recession that has scared most people into greater fear and risk aversion than normal.

Whether you agree or disagree, it's hard not to have an opinion.  So, what do you think?  Is this a trend?  Is it good or bad for the future of marketing and business?  Let me know what you think and let's get a conversation going. 

Can Social Media Marketing Replace Advertising?

“If you can harness social media marketing, you don’t have to pay for advertising any more.”

So said Sequoia Capital partner Mark Kvamme, citing examples from campaigns run on Funny or Die and AdMob as he presented to an audience of marketers at OMMA Global in San Francisco on St. Patrick's Day (GigaOm did a nice job of encapsulating his speech in Liz Gannes' post, "Sequoia's Kvamme: Social Media Marketing Can Replace Marketing")

HO-boy!  I may need more than just a marketing minute to digest and dissect this one.  Maybe just a marketing hour or two.  But, I'll stick to my guns and keep this reasonable for you.

There are a couple things that I think are dangerous here.

Problem Number One: There Is No Such Thing as Free
First, Mr, Kvamme is engaging in the frequent falsehood that anything one chooses to do in the social arena is "free."  That mistaken belief is one of the biggest barriers that is keeping companies and organizations from properly planning for and implementing social tools and technologies into their overall business plans.  Many have written on this subject, so I won't belabor it.  Bottom line, social efforts are NOT free.  It may not be like shelling out $2+ million for a Super Bowl :30, but it is by no means free.

Problem Number Two: Change Does Not Equal Extinction
Mark, we get it. The world of marketing is changing. Correction: HAS changed. But, your comments imply that because change is occuring, something must die.  Something will become unnecessary, unwanted, unused (that would be the aforementioned "paid advertising").

However, “change” does not mean "extinction."  I hardly think that all other forms of media, communication or entertainment are going to go away completely. After all, even extinction takes a long time (see Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species’ and the theory of evolution).

One Big Misunderstanding?
Are we misunderstanding what Mr. Kvamme is saying (or said)? I mean, I can’t imagine that a high profile VC would EVER make any sort of bombastic, outrageous, hyberbolic statement in front of a big audience like that in order to get some press.  OK, maybe he (or someone) would.  So, let's stick with the hyperbole path for a moment.

The problem with hyperbole and rhetoric like this is that it rests on an assumption that everything works in the same way. That’s naive and dangerous thinking. There are many brands, many products, many services and they are obviously NOT all the same. Likewise, their objectives, goals, problems, needs, etc. are NOT the same. One size does not fit all. So, social media eliminating advertising as a tool for marketers? Maybe for a few, but not for all.  In fact, not for all that many in the short run.

So, Where Do We Stand?
Don't get me wrong.  I am a BIG proponent of social tools and technologies, and see incredible opportunities for companies to utilize these tools in alignment with their overall business objectives and strategies.  But, I'm also clear on what role social plays in a marketing mix, alongside other tactical tools.  It's only a part of the mix.

What remains key is the marketing science and art.  Fundamentally, we need to intimately understand
- our business objectives for our organization
- our consumers, from who they are to brand perceptions to behaviors to media consumption patterns
- how our brands fit into our consumers' lives, fill their needs, solve their problems, enhance their lives, etc.
- what brand messages will impact our consumers' attitudes in a way that ultimately reinforces a desired behavior (whatever we decide we want that to be)
- what are the best ways to reach our consumers with our brand's message(s)

Then, we build a plan.  (I'll skip the other "P's" in the marketing model for now)  It may include social (I hope that it does), IF social tools and technologies help to further the organization's business objectives.  And, IF social tools will best accomplish that, then they will (and should) be a critical part of the plan.

I just have a hard time believing that all the eggs will, or should, be in one basket.  That's like saying let's put all our marketing dollars into the Super Bowl (wait...MasterLock did that for years...okay, maybe there are some exceptions that prove the rule). 

It's all part of the overhyping of the social world.  It's the Shiny New Object Syndrome.  To be sure, it IS a new world order, but that new world order is coming to us courtesy of evolution, not armegeddon.  In the plainest of terms, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Enough of my comments.  My minute is more than up.  What I'd like to know is...what do YOU think?

How to Succeed by NOT Succeeding at Viral Marketing - Apple's iPad

via adage.com

Some times you can be more successful by NOT being successful.  That's the case with Apple's iPad and their lack of viral marketing for their recently aired tv commercial.

In today's AdAge Digital, there's a column written about Apple's tv commercial for the iPad that ran during the Oscar's. The post calls out Apple for the company's apparent lack of willingness to actively participate in the social media explosion and try to secure huge viewership for its ad on the Web, i.e., "go viral."

It's a back-hand chastisement, a form of what they call "social aversion." The article even quotes an expert in the field as saying: "They [Apple] have willfully abstained at a time when everyone else is hopping on this bandwagon." The fact that "web viewing has stalled" is apparently cause for much handwringing among these circles.

Guilty as Charged
Oh, boo hoo hoo! If we'd all take just a marketing minute to think clearly about this, it would not be such a big fuss.

Since when did "hopping on a bandwagon" demonstrate business intelligence, creativity, leadership or insight into how to market a brand? Or, convey any success on a business?

I say Apple is guilty of whatever these folks are charging them of. And, I say: good for you, Apple! You are not falling prey to SNOS, Shiny New Object Syndrome (see my related post "Social Media - Beware of Shiny New Objects")! All Apple has done is think strategically (perish the thought!) about its marketing for the iPad.

Lack of "viral-ness"...so what?
The fact that there isn't a lot of "viralness" to the iPad Oscar commercial means little to their business. After all, since when did web views of a tv commercial become part of a business strategy?  Apple doesn't need that. The iPad is already all over the Internet. There has likely been few products that have been buzzed about, shared about, socialized about as much as the iPad (except maybe the iPhone...hmm...same company...how did that happen?).  It's time to reach for the broader, non-geeky public to create another "must have" product sensation.

Now, I do have to say that the commercial itself is not all that incredible. If you've seen the slew of iPod Touch or iPhone commercials, this looks pretty similar, only bigger (and with e-books). It's okay, but it's not something that I'd really go out of my way to talk about. But, Apple's fanatics will do that work for them eventually and pass it/share it/post it all around. Give it more than a day, people.

I'm thrilled to see that Apple is not putting tons of energy into trying to force the commercial to go viral (that usually backfires - see this post on "Viral is as Viral Does"). I'm thrilled when I see any company being STRATEGIC, and using their strategy to drive the tactics rather than vice verse. The author even acknowledges this in his article: "For Apple, it's all about driving the viewers to Apple.com, and a potential sale; dissemination of the video itself is secondary." Don't know about you, but I LIKE that line of thinking from Apple.

Apple is not guilty of the dreaded SNOS so many companies are falling prey to in our social media-mad world. No siree. Instead, Apple focuses on CREATING those Shiny New Objects so many people covet. In my opinion, THAT'S the approach worth sharing.

So, what do you think? Do you think Apple is taking the right approach in their marketing launch for the iPad?

Social Media - Beware of Shiny New Objects

Many of us like “shiny new objects.”  You know what I mean -- the latest cool gadget, thingie, possession or hooha to hit the market.  The iPod was such a thing (before it became ubiquitous), like the SONY Walkman before it.  HDTV’s, luxury SUV’s, designer jeans, cappuccino makers…all shiny new objects (some literally!). 

 The business world has “shiny new objects,” too.  Take social media for instance – it’s the business equivalent of the latest “hot, gotta-have” thing.  The problem is, that can be downright lethal in today’s business world.  If you’ll give me just a marketing minute, I’ll explain why.

SNOS - Shiny New Object Syndrome

There’s a disease that I call “SNOS,” short for Shiny New Object Syndrome.  In general, here’s how that disease works: There’s something new and cool and leading edge out there.  It’s so cool that we just HAVE to have it, and we need it now.  Do we need it? How will we use it? Is it right for us?  We don’t care…we don’t even ask the question.  We just want it.  And, we buy it.  If we’re lucky, it works out as a wonderful possession.  And, some times it ends up gathering dust in a drawer some where (it happens to all of us…c’mon, admit it!).

SNOS is particularly insidious in the business world.  It’s distracting.  It sneaks up on us when we are not paying attention.  It hypnotizes us.  And then, it strikes.  In comes the CEO who tells his team that they must “get our Facebook page up, pronto!” to remain competitive.  Or, a company establishes a Twitter account and inundates the twittersphere with discount offers. 

To be clear, in today’s world I see nothing wrong with experimentation or getting into an area to learn what works and what doesn’t.  In fact, I’d say that if you’re not willing to do that, you should get into another field. 

But, the above are real-life examples and emblematic of a critical mistake all too frequently made.  These examples represent tactics leading strategy.  They skip important questions: what do I need this for?  How can I use this new tool?  And, most importantly: What are my overall goals and objectives and what role can this new tool play in helping me accomplish those goals/objectives?  And, how will I evaluate if it’s helping me/us to accomplish our goals?

In this headlong rush of confusing a tactic with a strategy, organizations waste time, energy, resources chasing a “shiny new object.” By skipping these questions the organization can find itself distracted from its main goal and/or mission.

What’s the SMADer With You?
Is this the fault of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, FourSquare, etc., etc.?  Hardly – they are merely platforms and tools.  In fact, they are potentially powerful tools if handled properly.  Breakthrough tools.

 The sad part is that once a company or executive has fallen prey to SNOS you are at risk of a very serious side effect I call “SMAD” – Shot, Missed And Disappointed.  That happens when you try something new; it doesn’t perform miracles, meet expectations or achieve your objectives (often because objectives/goals have not been clearly articulated) and you feel like you’ve been burned by the results.  You’ve shot, you’ve missed and you are disappointed. 

So, you discard the shiny new object; those potentially powerful social tools are shoved in a marketing drawer, declared not worth the effort or money.  And, you miss the opportunity.

That happens all the time with marketing tools and it’s happening with social media.  Sorry to say, we are living in a world of instant gratification, quick returns, overblown expectations and a lack of forethought and patience.  If you don’t believe me, ask anyone who has taken in any VC money in the last 15 years.

A Cure for SNOS and SMAD

Fortunately, there’s a straight-forward and ready cure for SNOS and SMAD.  I call it BTB – Back To Basics.  (this is my week for acronyms…I hope to recover soon)

Objectives lead strategy, strategies lead tactics.  It’s fundamental.  And, all too often, forgotten when a shiny new object gets us all excited.  But, while undeniably exciting, folks, social is just a tactic, a tool.

Begin at the beginning, like we all are trained to do.  Business objectives/strategies and marketing objectives/strategies precede and direct whether, how, where, when, and IF social (or any tactic) plays a role in your efforts.  If you follow fundamental strategic practices in developing your business goals and marketing plans, social may very well be included.  But, it's not a driver, objective or strategy any more than a TV commercial, print ad, end-aisle display, market research study or price discount promotion.

If included in your marketing efforts, social should be a part of an overall integrated marketing plan, synergistic with other tactical efforts, not just putting up a FB fanbook page to say your brand has one.  In this regard, it serves much like a channel, albeit a channel with unique differences to all the other channels that have been employed by marketers for years. 

Put another way, social should be used as one way to help achieve the overall objectives of the organization, Brand, department, individual, etc.  It should be synergistic with other efforts and programs you may be deploying.  And, approached properly, social tools can/should be broader than just “marketing” efforts; it’s an enterprise-wide opportunity.

(For some good perspective on a strategic approach to social initiatives, I highly recommend checking out the work of Charlene Li and Jeremiah Owyang at The Altimeter Group.  They’ve got some excellent perspective and advice in this area, like this presentation.  Other good tools can be found on Jay Baer’s Convince&Convert blog.) 

If you take a strategic approach you may find that your organization’s business objectives don’t merit a major foray into the social world right now.  Not all tools are needed for all people, organizations or circumstances.  If that’s the case, then fine – don’t spend the time or energy right now.  At least you’ve asked the key questions and made decisions for reasons that make sense for your organization or company.

The good news?  I see signs that SNOS has been recognized by more and more organizations.  The excitement and rush to shiny new social objects “just because” is ebbing as people become smarter about how to properly employ these tools. 

This won’t happen overnight.  But, by thinking strategically, moving thoughtfully, implementing consistently, monitoring regularly and practicing patience with the view toward a long term goal you’ll be taking a healthy and smart approach.  Get back to basics…it’s the way to avoid that dreaded Shiny New Object Syndrome.   

In upcoming posts I’ll share more thoughts on how to strategically cure SNOS and SMAD.  In the meantime, ask yourself: “Am I or is anyone I know suffering from SNOS?”  Are you SMAD? Let me know your thoughts…the doctor is in.

Of Roses, Silk Purses and Sow's Ears - Comcast Rebrands to Xfinity

When does a rose by any other name smell like a sow's ear?  When it's Comcast rebranding its consumer offerings as Xfinity.  If this mix of Shakespeare and the vernacular strikes you as a bit odd, allow me just a marketing minute to explain myself.

Comcast, the largest cable operator in the U.S., is undertaking a rather large effort to recast its image among consumers by renaming all its cable services under the Xinfinity brand.  This follows their move late last year to rebrand their Fancast online video subscription service FancastXfinity.  As noted in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, this move is an effort to appear more modern and appealing, as "its image as a monopolistic cable giant with shoddy customer service, clunky technology platforms and rising prices is well ingrained in the public mind, drawing a sharp contrast with new media brands like Netflix Inc., YouTube and Apple Inc."

Interesting comparison.  Still, this is like the question upside down, backwards, or both.  It isn't a brand issue in my estimation.  I'll repeat: "monopolistic cable giant with shoddy customer service, clunky technology platforms and rising prices."  Get the picture?  I would imagine that if Netflix, YouTube or Apple had "shoddy customer service, clunky technology platforms and rising prices" they, too, would have negative customer perceptions. 

We all know: changing a name or rebranding your services does not address the core issues plaguing Comcast and its negative consumer perceptions.  Consumers are pretty smart and discerning.  They know a good product when they see it, experience it, use it.  And, they know a bad one (well, most of the time...how else has the National Enquirer survived for so many years?). 

And, it's also not just a matter of monopoly or pricing.  Apple has historically commanded a price premium for its products, yet consumers value the company's products, technology, user experience, value offerings, etc. and are willing to pay that premium.  That's called the value equation.

If Comcast service were terrific (or at least customer friendly on a consistent basis), their technology strong and innovative (and, in some ways they are), then I don't think we'd be seeing so many negative comments or customer created web sites with names like "ComcastMustDie.com." 

I am not on the inside privvy to all the information that has probably been collected, reviewed, analyzed, debated and regurgitated in the process leading up to this move.  So, I can't totally fault Comcast for trying to address a problem.  There are plenty of smart people involved, and I will accept that they believe that this is the best way to proceed.  As Tim Calkins, marketing professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, noted in the WSJ, "I suspect they're calculating that starting fresh by investing in a new name is a better option than trying to reposition the old one."

But, this is not simply a matter of repositioning.  The bigger question I have is: is this the best way to spend the money to address the problem?  The expense, in terms of out-of-pocket dollars and management/personnel time, to rebrand its service, conduct the launch marketing effort, as well as follow up efforts to further entrench the new brand will be a very big number (no one is saying how big, but let's face it...it will be huge).  I can't help but wonder if that same money were applied to directly addressing the core problems - "shoddy customer service, clunky technology platforms and rising prices" - might actually yield a better, more effective solution and longer lasting benefit for both customers, the company and its shareholders. 

Companies who undertake these types genuine of product/service quality improvement efforts gain credibility with their customers where it counts - in the perception of their products.  Two auto industry examples demonstrate this - Ford's "Quality is Job 1" efforts (which was a slogan built upon Ford's concerted efforts to improve their car quality) and more recently the turnaround in quality (and quality perceptions) of Hyundai.  Do you think it is a coincidence that Hyundai was the only auto manufacturer to realize growth in a disastrous 2009 auto year?

Brands are not just names. A Brand is a totality of a consumer's interaction with the product, functional and emotional, rational and irrational.  "Rebranding" (and I hate that term) does not change the underlying functional/rational qualities of a product or service, or the experience a customer has in using that product or service.  That comes by changing the service itself.  Merely changing the name doesn't address the core issue; it covers it up, but it doesn't make it better, more efficient, friendlier, more on time, less confusing, etc.  You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear without changing that smelly ear in a meaningful, recognizable way.

Which brings me back to my point: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...or as foul as a sow's ear.

So, what do you think?  Is this a good move by Comcast or a distracted effort?

P.S. Don't even get me started on the name "Xfinity" itself...

Super Bowl Ads Not All That Super

The game was exciting.  The ads were mostly...feh.  The Who, I'm sad to say...well, let's just say that we were NOT fooled again (I recommend blasting "Who's Next" on your stereo and remembering just how great they REALLY were).

Since all the world seems to be offering their perspective on the Big Game's ads, I thought I'd take just a marketing minute to offer my observations as well.  After all, that's one thing a blog is good for, right? For the record, I've taken the "everyman" approach - not fancy analytical models, just thinking and reacting like a "normal" person...the ones who these ads are supposed to influence. 

Old Dogs and New Tricks:  I liked VW's twist on the old vernacular, "punch buggy" to "punch dub."  Engaging and very much in keeping with the brand heritage. Good acting, including ending with Tracy Morgan and Stevie Wonder. And, it looks like VW is extending this into the social sphere.

Oops I Forgot My Pants
- CareerBuilder - For their "Casual Day" spot.  I almost couldn't believe I was watching that one (how far the network censors have moved since days gone by!).  I give them kudos for not making every actor a glamorous, sculpted Adonis or Venus.  Although, after about 10-seconds, it was TMI for me.
- Dockers - All I could say is: WTF was that!? I know there was a strategy or message in there somewhere, but I couldn't find it.
- The media executive who scheduled the above two commercials to run next to each other - Need I say more?

Strange Bedfellows: Late Night with Letterman - Who'd have thought we'd see Dave, Oprah and Jay on one couch (other than a therapist's couch).  Read that this was Letterman's idea - he wrote the spot and they filmed it in secret last week.  Well performed.  But...what was Jay Leno doing in an ad promoting Late Night with Letterman? 

Sad to See You've Lost Your Touch :-(
- Budweiser - I remember when I looked forward their ads; they were a highlight of the game.  Now...nothing memorable.  Mostly tired. Even the clydesdales spot looked like a retread.
- Coke - "Open happiness." Maybe a good line, but the commercials didn't really lead you there.  Maybe the Simpson's spot (although that suffered from 'borrowed interest').  That guy sleepwalking?  Wished that hippo had snapped him in two instead of the boat.
- Bud Light - A little humor here and there (e.g., parody on Lost), but nothing really stood out for me.  Hmm...maybe that InBev takeover has something to do with this?

Maybe You Never Had It To Begin With?
- Dr. Pepper - The band Kiss for a "kiss of cherry." Why spend $2.5MM for a limited appeal line extension, using a washed up glam-rock group and throwing in some insults to little people?   

Consumers Make Good Copywriters
- Doritos - Liked the dog getting even with that dude in the park
- CareerBuilder - Maybe it's the fact that there are so many people unemployed or underemployed, but these were pretty good spots in my estimation.  Each with its own twist on how a job you are in can be a "bad fit."

Consumers Make Bad Copywriters
- Doritos - A 'chip ninja samurai'? Dude in the casket was pretty dumb. And what's with that kid slapping his mom's date? Overall, the consumer did lots better for Doritos last year.
- CareerBuilder - "Worst Seat" spot. Potty humor never really works for me (although I like the punch line of the boss handing over his lighter to the gas-emitting, flaming dude). I get the point, but it's pretty low brow.

Our Tax Dollars at Work?  U.S. Census Bureau - Comedy ensemble was pretty funny (especially for fans of Seinfeld, The Office and shows of that ilk).  But I blanche at the thought of the U.S. government paying $2.5 million of taxpayer dollars to air that spot.  Let alone produce it.  And, the thought that this is the first in a campaign (as intimated by this "teaser") positively frightens and infuriates me.  Can somebody help me understand the objective or value of spending our tax dollars this way?  Maybe the payoff will be worth it...it sure as heck better be, since we're paying for it!

So Bad They're...Good?  I can't figure this one out.  Millions of consumers turned to social networks including Twitter to discuss their favorite ads. According to social media monitoring service Trendrr, the three top gaining Super Bowl ad brands on Twitter within the last 24 hours were Dockers (+307%), Boost Mobile (+161%) and Emerald Nuts (+150).  Those may have been three of the worst commercials on the Super Bowl (depending on your pov, but most polls and experts agree).  Maybe these three were so low in their twittersphere trending that it's just a big bump off a low base?  Sorry...I broke my "everyman" promise here.

I Want That and I Want It Now: I didn't feel that way about any products I saw advertised.  The greatest pull for me came from the world of entertainment.  I'm now primed to see The Wolfman, Alice in Wonderland, Shutter Island (seems like we've been waiting for that since last fall...oh wait, we have).  And, if that upcoming video game Dante's Inferno has the gameplay to match its trailer, look out!

The Year of the Emasculated Man
- Dove Men Care - I give Dove/Unilever props for trying to find growth opportunities for their brand.  And, I can see the "insight" of helping men feel "comfortable in your own skin."   Overall, didn't really appeal to me. Yeah, the execution was uneven -- some engaging moments, some cliche.  But the biggest problem: I'd never use Dove brand...I'm not handing in my man card for that brand.  Nice try, though.
- Dodge Charger - Similar "insight" as Dove, but a better execution in my estimation.  Maybe because they didn't try to foist the William Tell Overture on us guys.  Maybe a bit of hyperbole of what men will put up with and do in order to do the one thing they want for themselves...that muscle car!  Are these really big problems?  No.  Are they close enough to reality to catch attention and engage? In my opinion, yes.  But, I don't think I can go quite as far as "watching your vampire TV shows with you," even for that Charger.
- FloTV - The "Injury Report" spot with Jim Nantz (reporting on Jason Glaspy, "as you can see, his girlfriend has removed his spine.") hit most men, well, you know...where it hurts. A lot.  Great delivery of a good script by Nantz ("How 'bout not.") made this worth watching for me.

Funny and a Pretty Good Ad
- FloTV - "Injury Report." It's all about the script and Jim Nantz's performance.
- Hyundai/Favre - I laughed out loud at Brett Favre accepting the 2020 NFL MVP award (at age 50).  Kudos to Favre for being cool enough to poke fun at himself. Great spot for the Super Bowl (would have been even better if the Vikings had made the game, but so be it). And, I got the point about Hyundai quality lasting (their 10 yr/100K mile warranty is still a great deal).
- Late Night with Letterman - Given that Dave himself wrote the spot, it's a good thing this was funny!

Funny, But Not a Great Ad
- Motorola/MotoBlur - "Megan Fox" ad sure played up on her sex appeal and her effect on men (or, boys..."Timmy, what are you doing ?!").  Kind of funny.  Did it sell Motorola technology?  Not in my opinion.  I better review that commercial one more time just to be sure...
- TruTV - "Punxsutawney Polamalu" was a funny bit (Troy's sure getting a lot of mileage out of that hair - love that pose he strikes!).  But, what the heck is TruTV?
- Diamond Foods (Emerald Nuts/Pop Secret) - The first few times I saw the men and women coming out of the water like dolphins, I laughed (and wondered: 'how did they do that?').  By the end, I was bored.  A bit over-the-top...and good lord, "awesome + awesome = awesomer..." Huh?

OMG, This is Wearing Thin:  GoDaddy. These commercials used to at least have some shock value.  Now, they feel like tired retreads.  How many times can we watch women rip off their shirts? (That's a rhetorical question...no answers required!)

What Was All the Fuss About?  Focus on the Family - I thought this commercial featuring Tim Tebow and his mom was tame.  Not sure what all the controversy, hue and cry was about.  Maybe they re-edited to tone it down?  Clearly they were trying to drive people to the web site for more detail and probably more direct comments on their right-to-life cause.  But, the commercial itself...pretty unmemorable

I Still Don't Get This Product: KGB - Okay, here we had a twist on a competitive demo spot.  Point made: KGB texting service for getting answers is faster than doing an internet search.  But, does anyone REALLY need this product and is anyone paying for it?  I imagine somebody is, since they dropped a lot of coin to air this spot in the game.  Not sure I want to meet any of those users, though.  By the way, "KGB" stand for "Knowledge Generation Bureau" (and, as far as I know has nothing to do with the secret police from the dissolved USSR...but we never cant be sure, can we...).

I could go continue, but like the Super Bowl there is a time limit to this game  Like the Colts, it's time to move on.  But, before I do, I ask...what did you think of the commercials in the Super Bowl?

Best Super Bowl Tribute Ad Ever?

I came across one of the best tribute ads I've seen in ages.  And, in print, no less. 

Why is this ad so good?
- It was timely - came out before the Super Bowl
- It's relevant and sincere - McIlhenny Company, makers of Tabasco brand pepper sauce, is HQ'd right there in N'awlins.  Makes total sense for them to be congratulating their Saints and fans.
- It's brand focused - Great job of leveraging the highly recognized Tabasco brand label.
- It's very well executed - Great copy and simple layout draw you in.  Okay, maybe that little line at the bottom was dictated by somebody at the home office, but this is still a brilliant execution (largely due to its simplicity)

Kudos to the creators of this ad.  And, I might as well take just a marketing minute to extend my congrats to the Super Bowl Champion New Orleans Saints as well.  Who Dat?!

 What do you think of this...one of the best ever?

The Game Within the Game

With this being Super Bowl weekend (the unofficial holiday of all high cholesterol foods and snacks), we sports fan are starting to fill up with all sorts of news surrounding the game.  But, I've had my fill of news around the legal use of "Who dat?" on t-shirts, how much the city of New Orleans loves the Saints, will the injured Dwight Freeney (the Colts star defensive end) play in the game and is Peyton Manning really human or cyborg. 

So, I thought that I would take just a marketing minute to offer some comments on "the game within The Game" - the advertising and marketing efforts surrounding this colossal sporting event.

Full disclosure: I have no vested interest in any brands advertising or developing marketing programs around the Super Bowl.  With that disclosure out of the way, here's four things that pop into my head before kickoff.

1. Can We Just Sit Back and Enjoy the Game?

If you are a casual fan, sure.  If you're a coach, player, family of a player, no.  And, no...if you're a marketer leveraging the Super Bowl as a platform for your brand.  We all know the hype around the game is huge and too often the game doesn't match the build-up.  It's a high bar to clear.  So, too, with the Super Bowl marketing efforts.  It's high stakes poker.  Given the money that companies are spending on media time alone (Anheuser-Busch is spending more in a few hours than my past 3 years’ worth of marketing budget), then add in the creative development costs, management time and attention,..well, you get the idea. 

And, it's worse today than just 5-6 years ago.  Back then, it still may have been good enough to have a commercial people remembered favorably.  No more.  Better be prepared with a well integrated marketing program that doesn't just look pretty and get people talking, but achieves clear, measurable results...the kind that CFO's and shareholders will find valuable (you know, like retail traffic, sales volume, customers acquired).

2. Maybe I Can Make a Name for Myself...

We know at least one player will make big headlines the he can cash in on after the game.  But there's also hay to be made off the field in the marketing world in the whole cottage industry that has grown up around the advertising in the Super Bowl (it nearly rivals the ecosphere that is iPod-iTunes).  It’s not just about the commercial that gets the most buzz; it’s about the poll or the focus group or the online voting site that gets the most buzz about the commercials that generated the most buzz.  All this commotion gets my head…you guessed it…buzzing. Sorry...that pun was absolutely necessary.

3. The Biggest Marketer in the Super Bowl Is...

...not even there.  In my mind, the biggest marketing newsmaker in the Super Bowl XXLIV is the brand that is NOT advertising: Pepsi.  After 23 consecutive years of buying commercial time in the game, the soft drink brand is taking their $20 mill in spending and going social.  I, for one, think that's really a smart, bold and strategic move. 

I view this as a no risk proposition.  Let's face it: how many people out there (other than the commercial directors, commercial actors and ad agencies) will be negatively effected by Pepsi's absence from the airwaves during the game? Um, maybe zero.  Is the brand likely to be forgotten?  No.  So, Pepsi is really smart to take that money and set up an online social marketing campaign that will extend and seek to engage consumers for months (in what they're calling the Pepsi Refresh Project).  Put that on top of their other marketing efforts and Pepsi should generate significant data and learning about maximizing the emerging media and channels for the benefit of the brand.

Of course, I'll miss watching those great Pepsi commercials; that's the price we pay for progress, I guess.

4. Marketing Under the Microscope

What I am finding interesting is how companies are making concerted efforts to take a more scientific approach toward maximizing the value of this investment, not only during the game, but pre- and post-game.  That's really encouraging.  Of course, with all that money on the table, if you’re the CMO, you better have a hit or come Monday morning you’ll be feeling more bruised than the losing Super Bowl team.  

All this has really accelerated in the last few years, almost as fast as NFL teams started adopting their own versions of the shotgun and wildcat formations.  Companies like Cymfony have developed new products that track audience engagement levels and impact, as well as ROI of Super Bowl ads and associated marketing efforts.  One finding:stealth is a lousy strategy: The more marketers plug their ads in advance of the game, the better, in terms of generating pre- and post-game coverage. And that turns out to be true in both conventional media and on such social media sites as YouTube and Facebook.  So, marketers and brands have extended their Super Bowl moments well beyond the boundaries of the game in order to "build momentum" heading into the Sunday classic and "continue the momentum" following the last tick of the clock.

And, that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Now you know why CMO's are getting heartburn...it's not the salsa dip.

As a guy who has spent his career building brands and selling products via integrated marketing efforts and leading brands into innovative territory, this is a lot of fun to watch, much like the football game itself.  But, unlike the actual game, we won't know the final scores until some time down the road.  It's still fun to talk about and debate.  Looking forward to seeing how things play out.

How about you?  What thoughts come to mind as you think about the marketing goings-on surrounding the Super Bowl?  Feel free to chime in.  And, pass the chips and dip, please.

Some Fancy Foodwork

I had the opportunity to indulge the food marketer in me and explore the Fancy Food Show this week in San Francisco.  I’d like to take just a marketing minute to share with you some of my key takeaways (no, I didn’t get to take away much free food…unfortunately) from the event.  It's not my normal kind of post, but who says I have to be normal?

In homage to all the different kind of awards that we see at these types of events, I’ve developed my own “Best Product…” lists to share.  I don’t claim to be marvelously insightful, to have discovered anything new or even to have the best taste in town.  All I know is these products caught my attention as a marketer and consumer because they were either innovative, incredibly delicious or both.  That's not to say that they are all doing a great job positioning or marketing their products in all cases (some are, some aren't); my choices are based on what I see as products that are different or delicious enough to have a shot at making something of themselves.

Biggest Trend I Noticed

All you “trend watchers” out there need to be fed, so here’s the major “trend” that I saw: gluten free.  Judging from the number of products touting their gluten-free qualities, I’d say that the association responsible for promoting awareness of this allergy has done a good job.  It felt as if I couldn’t walk 15 feet without coming upon some gluten-free product or another.  Guess that would qualify as a “trend,” eh?   Even better than the news that companies are waking up to this medical reality is this – most of these products actually tasted good!  Better science through food, or something like that.

Were there other trends?  Probably, but I want to leave plenty for someone else to expound on.

Best Product Derived from a Country Where We Are Actively Engaged in War

Winner: Bolani Bread/East & West Gourmet Afghan Food 

Bolani is an Afghan flat bread stuffed with spinach (my favorite), pumpkin, lentils or potatoes.  These yummy munchables are great for snacking, appetizers, cold or hot.  Rich in nutrition and vegan to boot (lord help me…I liked a vegan product!), these delicious bolani concoctions are great solo or in combination with the company’s variety of sauces and spreads (garlic mint cheese, cilantro pesto, lentil curry and my favorite, sweet jalapeno – a pepper jelly you have to try to believe).  These unique spreads and dips are like an intense  flavor explosion in your mouth.  This is one product that deserves some refrigerated section shelf space!

Best Product that Doesn’t Seem Possible

Winner: Straus Family Creamery Frozen Yogurt

This northern Cal dairy producer has created a frozen yogurt that is – gasp! – actually made from yogurt!  REAL yogurt.  And, they found a way to tame the yogurt tartness to produce a dutch chocolate flavor that defies explanation (how do they keep the yogurt flavor from overwhelming the chocolate?  I don’t know…I don’t care.  It was delicious!  Oh, yeah, healthy, too.  They have a great companion product, Original Tart, that is extremely refreshing.  You won’t see these on the shelf any time soon, as the product is designed for dispensing in ice cream shops, restaurants, etc.  But, the creator told me that they are working on a retail version.  Trust me…it will be worth the wait.  Sorry there’s no picture – I was too busy eating and rolling my eyes in ecstasy to snap a photo.

Best Product from Good Ol’ Boys

Winner: Arizona Gunslinger

How could a product with a name like that not come from a good ol’ boy?  This line of hot sauces (steak, BBQ, pepper and salsa) was first cooked up and sold off the back Bill’s veranda in his home in Arizona over twenty years ago.  This good ol’ boy had a good ol’ idea!  This is not just another line of “hot sauce” products.  Was there heat?  Heck yeah…but there was also delicious FLAVOR not always found in these kinds of sauces.  Most of the products are 100% natural, rich in flavor that was both powerful and subtle at the same time.  The quality of sauces was also evidenced by their thickness – we stuck a toothpick in the jars and that toothpick stood at attention the entire time we were at the booth (try that with a steak sauce sitting in your cabinet).  Plus, these were two of the nicest guys we met at the show.

Best Product Squeezed from a Tree Product

Winner: The Smoked Olive 

  I’m no oil afficianado, but I do know when something is unique or good.  In this case, it’s both.  This company makes a naturally wood smoked virgin olive oil that had such a unique, delicious flavor profile that it had to make my list. It’s also a good example of how someone with enough ingenuity can take a product that would seemingly be hard to differentiate and do just that.  Even an untrained mouth like mine could taste the wonderful flavor difference of these three varieties of smoked olive oil on a little ol’ piece of bread.  I only wish I could have taken a bottle home to toss on the pasta I was making for dinner that night.

Best Product Made by Aging Rockers

Winner: Rock ‘N Roll Gourmet

This is a company down in the LA area founded by a husband-wife team.  As both are also rock ‘n roll musicians, the name is no surprise.  What was a surprise was their line of products, a variety of unique, all natural chips and snack products that defy any standard definition or description other than “dang good!”  With names inspired by their lifestyle (Hippie Chips – baked potato chips, almost like rice cakes; Little Wings – named for the Jimi Hendrix song, these multi grain chips taste like buffalo wings with a bleu cheese drizzle), I haven’t seen or tasted anything quite like this line.  I didn’t check the nutritionally information…that’s because they were so good I didn’t care!  But, I double checked their web site, and with no cholesterol and low fat, I’d opt for these over standard chips most any day.

Best Products from a Company Fighting to Keep It Real Despite Major Investments from a Huge Conglomerate

Winner: Honest Beverages

These guys have been around a while and make a great bottled tea (Honest Tea is one of my favorites).  They also took in a big chunk of investment from Coca Cola a few years back that outraged devotees to the brand – “Coke will ruin you.”  Well, apparently Coke only has rights to distribute one line of their products, and the company has two new line extensions for their “Honest” brand that strike me as winners.  First, Honest Kids, their line of high quality, organic, low sugar thirst quenchers.  Think Capri Sun only  without all the crappy ingredients (high fructose corn syrup) and half the sugar.  And, they taste good.  Cha-ching!  And, in a much more niche-y segment, there is Honest Kombucha.  I can’t tell you much about kombucha other than it contains active probiotics (supposed to be really good for your digestive tract and body) and normally I can’t even sniff the stuff (vile!).  Somehow, the Honest team made this stuff not only palatable, but pretty good.  Given the high price per unit in this segment, they won’t need to sell tons of this to feel good about the profit margins.

Best Product From Company Providing the White House with Chocolates

Winner: Fran’s Chocolates

  It’s true.  This small chocolate company from Kent, WA is a favorite of Michelle Obama and her husband, what’s-his-name.  I was told that the First Couple were given some of Fran’s grey and smoked sea salt caramels as a gift while campaigning in Washington state during the election, and now they regularly order these delicacies (I was told that Michelle likes the grey salt and her hubby likes the smoked salt…or maybe it was the other way around). I had never thought of sea salt, caramel and chocolate before (I admit, I’m not that devoted a foodie).  After tasting these products, which combine absolutely scrumptuously rich chocolate with creamy caramel and just the right amount of sea salt topping, I’m glad Fran thought of it!  

And because you can never have enough good chocolate…

Best Chocolate Product Not Currently Providing the White House with Their Product

Winner: Poco Dolce

Right across the aisle from Fran’s I found this San Francisco based company (yes, I did spend an inordinate amount of time bouncing back and forth between their booths).  Poco Dolce produces two broad lines of chocolates that emphasize the savory side of sweet –bittersweet tiles (more or less flat chocolate tiles with various flavorings) and chocolate covered toffee squares.  OMG!  I had never tasted combinations like this company was presenting.  Their Aztec Chile tiles mixed real chile pepper heat with dark chocolate to perfection.  And, they pulled off the chile feat on the toffee square side as well with their Super Chile square.  But, my favorite was their Popcorn toffee square.  Truly unique flavors combined with fantastic chocolate, all packaged in great looking tins.  Terrific as house warming gifts…but I don’t think such a gift would ever last the drive from my house to my destination without being scarfed down!

Best Products That I Couldn’t Find a Funny Title For

Winners: WOW Baking Company and Oliver Bentleys Barking Bakery/Ollie B. Biscuits

WOW stands for WithOut Wheat.  

That’s how this company makes its all natural, wheat free, gluten-free baked goods. And, they make them very, very well.  Frankly, they tasted so good I’d buy these instead of a lot of other great gourmet cookies out there whether they are gluten-free or not. I mean, we’re talking cookies here!  The fact that they are all natural (with no refined sugars or hydrogenated oils) is a great added benefit.  And, if you are gluten intolerant, well, here’s a product that you will LOVE.  They come ready to serve, and they also sell mixes and refrigerated dough so you can bake ‘em fresh yourself.  This is a very small company today.  I hope that one day that they are a very BIG company.

Oliver Bentleys - Ollie B. Biscuits

This product made my list mostly because I bumped into their founder, Eric Zimmerman and he struck me as the kind of guy you root for to be successful.  He had fled his financial job after 20 years to pursue his dream – premium, organic dog treats (don’t  laugh…what’s YOUR dream?).  Anyway, I actually liked the look and feel of his artisan, organic human-grade ingredient dog treats sold in these elegant tins.  No additives, preservatives or fillers.  No added salt or sugar.  No wheat, corn or soy.  Just REAL ingredients hand-baked in small batches (each biscuit has a little paw print on it, too).  I can’t vouch for the taste of his product (I’m not a dog!), but I can say that I loved the idea behind his Barking Bakery  (or “Barkery”) and his “Barketing Plan” (no kidding – that’s what he called it).  Here’s hoping his “gourmutt” biscuits become a big hit.

Okay, so that’s my fancy foodwork.  Keep an eye open for these products should they make it to a shelf near you (or, you can always go online and buy ‘em).  All comments are welcome.  AND, for anyone who happened to attend this show, I would love to know: what did YOU think were top new products from FFS?

When Sex DOESN'T Sell - Method Pulls Viral Video Over Sexism Complaints

via adage.com

Sex sells (or so they say).  Except when it blows up in your face.  Here's an example of how that can happen despite what might have been good intentions.

I'm a big fan of Method Products. Love their positioning, their product quality, their mission, their packaging. Buy a lot of their products. I also admire how they have built a company around a clear, timely mission (green clean) and outflanked many of the behemoths in the process. All good.  But, nobody's perfect.

Method's viral video "Shiny Suds" that was "applauded by marketers at the Association of National Advertisers annual conference last month" (according to Ad Age) was pulled down by the company and its agency, Droga5, after complaints of sexism (including a vocal minority who went so far as to even condone rape).

I look at all this and have to say...okay, people on both sides...just a marketing minute!

First, to all the applauders. I'm with you to a point -- I think it is strategically and tactically brilliant for Method to align itself this way with the Household Product Labeling Act (requiring ingredient disclosure of cleaning products). It's a good thing for consumers and totally in line with Method's position. And, who can argue with using a viral video tactic to get the word out?

But, while I can applaud the strategy, the execution misses the mark. There are a thousand ways to execute the strategic idea in a clever, pithy, memorable manner...and they chose a bunch of leering bubble scum oggling over a woman in her shower? Huh?! If the consumer insight is that people should be concerned and/or feel threatened by the chemical residue left by many household cleaners, okay...find a better way to portray that than a naked lady. Sex does not, and should not, always sell. It's the "easy way" out.

As for the vocal minority...ok, I can agree that this may not be a very good ad (that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it). But, c'mon folks...I hardly think the good folks at Method are condoning rape. Guilty of a poor choice of execution?...I'd agree. Questionable taste?...okay, I'll give you that. Condoning rape?...I'm sorry, that's a biiiig stretch (and please don't derive any sexual innuendos from my choice of words...none intended!).

This is a great case study for all of us. In today's world the ubiquity and availability of social media channels to communicate our messages and move people to act are limited only by our creativity. At the same time, that creativity still needs to mind some long-standing principals, such as "honor the consumer." Otherwise, you end up with a vocal minority crying foul...or worse, rape.

P.S. I hope that Method and others keep pursuing strategies like this one - they demonstrate how creative thinking CAN be applied in the marketplace and I salute them for their past and continuing efforts.