Jaffe Juice

As Yogi would say, "it's deja vu all over again"

Fresh on my post about how disappointed I was to see Jib Jab brown-nosing up to A-B and using their real estate to hawk Bud's corporate wares, is this consumer generated content special which raps J-squared on the knuckles.

Now - and here's the catch - if this is in fact an underground attempt by JibJab to poke fun at themselves, then I would call this act of irreverence ingenious as far as JibJab is concerned, but a little troubling with respect to any associations with the Budweiser brand.

Note to marketers: play with fire, and you will get burned! (a Yogism if I've ever heard one)

It's amazing to peruse through the various dailies and trades on any given day - such as today. On one hand, there's the rah-rah-rah for ABC in particular and news of its Upfront near sell-out status (expected given it's dramatic 1-year turnaround on the successes of Lost, Desperate Housewives and most recently Grey's Anatomy)

On the other hand however, there's news of a DVR Tipping Point, expected for 2007:

Forrester Research is predicting an ad-spending downturn to hit in 2007, when more than 50 million U.S. households will be using either digital video recorders or video-on-demand services.

or a little closer to home plate:

The number of households subscribing to personal video recording services has grown to 9.2 million, up about 155 percent from a year ago, according to a new study from In-Stat.

It's almost like witnessing an election debate or sitting on the jury of a courtcase where two sides blatently contradict each other.

Who will you vote for? Which side is lying? Will the Jury unanimously convict and hang, or will they be torn and hung?

I was away at a conference with the whole hullabaloo with Paris Hilton and Carl's Jr broke - the commercial - which crashed Carl's Jr's server - featuring Paris Hilton doing Paris Hilton (washing a Bentley, lotsa water, suds, pouts, and gratuitous shots of her digging into a chicken burger)

I've taken a bit of time to visit the site, "spicyparis", viewed the commercials etc and here is my "critique" if you will have it.

I was interviewed for this week's Business 2.0 Marketing Focus, titled Beer Buzz, on the subject of Budweiser hiring Jib Jab.

While I thought the idea to hire this edgy production company for a large brand was a great idea, I was a little surprised in its execution.

For starters, I never expected to see it front and center on jibjab's homepage (SELL OUT), nor did I expect the hokey "JibJab and Bud" marriage to be so overtly and uncomfortably prostrated in front of our faces.

The creative itself is also a little sub par - I couldn't work out if this was meant to be an ad or not? What was the point other than "to inform" (very old marketing) us all that more commercialized messages was to come? Whoopdi-friggen-doo!

I recognize and respect the need to make money, hence the partnership, but I feel the intelligence in the alliance should have been in its subtlety, not its brash in your face approach. That being said, the latter does come off much like behavior of a typical beer drinker (or at least one that has had one too many to drink), so what the hell do I know...

Penn & Teller have made Vegas their home. It's a place where it's ok to construct false realities, fool people with illusions and trickery and ultimately con people out of their money using "legit" (read: casinos) and illegit techniques.

Unfortunately FCC commish, Jonathan Adelstein doesn't quite buy into Madison + Strip(tm) yet and for this reason, Burnett and his Madison Avenue Cronies might find that their celebrations could be a little premature.

Bottom line, Adelstein is putting his foot down at the "commercialization of media" and the use of "covert commercial pitches" with respect to product placement et al. Can you imagine how laughable it would be to have little "advertorial" type stickers on all paid placements on TV? Might as well put a big "L" sign on all participating brands or a "kick me" label, alongside the "PG" rating on all content.

Church and State are no more. Editorial and Sales are truly one and the same, are they not? Television calls it product placement or branded entertainment and the Print version is a Willy Wonka children's panacea where only nice things are said to nice people; a place filled with warm and fuzzies, love and kisses, candy lollipops and butterflies.

Segue to BP's announcement (hot on the heels of Morgan Stanley) of a "zero tolerance policy towards negative editorial coverage" to quote a memo which was sent around by BP's media agency, Mindshare. By my count, this is the third company to do something along these lines..the first being GM and their little spat with the LA Times.

According to the article in Ad Age, a source indicates that magazines are not in a financial position to buck this demand from advertisers and therefore, this trend will continue.

This is downright shameful. It's disgraceful. Mindshare should be embarrassed that they are playing the role of client lackey (the memo to print pubs was on a Mindshare letterhead) and forgive me if I shoot the messenger, but bang bang bang.

Some believe that "no news is good news", whilst others content that "it's better to be talked about than not at all" - whichever position you hold, it's irrelevant. Integrity of editorial product is paramount and the protection of content is sacrosant.

Ultimately, this will accelerate the downward spiral of the print business and it bodes pretty well for the blogging community, don't it? (for all those drilling the bursting of the blog bubble and other stupid alliterative words beginning with "b")

BP/MS/GM - you guys have to grow up, I'm afraid. You gotta roll with the punches and take the good with the bad. If you don't, you may be looking at a rather anemic looking media landscape.

Note to jaffe Juice readers: Upon reading this rant, I was informed by Mindshare on behalf of their client, BP, that BP would no longer be advertising on the blog.

I'm weeping.

So I'm kind of watching Fear Factor last night and here's the sequence of ads in one of the pods: (I'm not kidding)

1. Taco Bell

2. Some tampon product (forgive me, I wasn't paying attention)

3. Dove soap type product

4. Toyota Tundra

(Don't remember the others)

T - demand a makegood

ESPN released a study at the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau's local sales management conference which essentially stated that DVR's might not exactly herald the end for the status quo stalwarts. In their "study", 57% of so-called "late adopter" households that participated in a DVR study returned them because "they did not want them"

90 of the 157 households returned their DVRs for reasons including:

• Complaints about the installation process
• The cost of DVRs
• The digital set-top devices clashed with or didn't fit into their home furnishings.

Furthermore, of the 67 who kept the magic boxes, there was an "indication that they continued to view TV commercials, even during fast-forward mode."

I'm not going to go into the usual rant about the self-evident self-serving aspects of the study, which just seem too convenient. What I will say however is that the operative and integral phrase is "late adopter." This study was out of context - DVR's and their value proposition are no where near the late adopter stage of the diffusion/adoption curve, so asking 34% of consumers what they think about a ship that has not yet docked at their port is just downright irrelevant and inaccurate.

If anything, the fact that 43% of late adopters elected to keep their DVR's should unequivocally make Madison Avenue more anxious and paranoid.

Thoughts?

Good morning from the 7^th floor of my hotel room at the Amelia Island Plantation Resort about to begin day 1 of the iMedia Summit. As I start out the beautiful calm ocean and watch the sun rise, I am heartened that a new day has dawned – quite literally and certainly figuratively – on marketing; a new reality; a new marketing reality.

Today’s cover story on the Business Section of the New York Times is written by Stuart Elliot and is titled, “Advertisers want something Different”

You should read it. So should every agency person in the business.

Note to SE: Nice cover image. Not sure you’ll be invited to Advertising Week this year, though.

This week's Newsweek has a whole section on a fairly hot topic, the evolution and future of both TV and the advertising that powers it:

• TV reloaded
• The Future of Television (as reflected by Conan O'Brien - yes, one and the same)
• New Ways to Drive Home the Message

There are also 2 audio clips (available for immediate viewing or podcast):

TV's Future 1: The New Ad Game

TV's Future 2: Married to the Internet

It's one story that won't be retracted any time soon...

Tough to breath...can't get in oxygen...hold around my neck is too tight...force is not with me today.

So the King of Darkness didn't get the fact I was thinking of a Blackberry, even with the King of Lightness' help. It's not you Lord Vader, it's me. Perhaps I wasn't entirely forthcoming with you.

But that's ok...another gem from BK and CP+B which - like the print ad I blogged - shows how a brand can truly maximize a movie tie-in, unless most of the gratuitous, lazy 30-second spot drivel we tend to see from everyone else.

The entrance of the BKing btw is sublime. Smartly and creatively integrated into the story in a way that even enhances the experience.

Bravo!

These are the voyages of the Starship Desperation. Her 5 year mission (more about that soon): to explore strange new mediums. To seek out new life beyond the 30-second spot. To boldly attempt to break through the clutter...

...you get the point, but in all seriousness (pinch me, I'm dreaming...either that or it's April 1 and we're all fools) things are getting pretty dire when the FAA is ruling against "obtrusive" advertising in space.

Look, I know OOH (out of home) is enjoying a bit of a new lease on life in this digital age, but when did OOH become OOTW (Out of this world)?

Isn't this just another example of a straw which has long broken the poor Camel's back (puff puff)? Can you imagine this scenario, "Look in the sky. It's a bird. It's a plane. No it's a giant condom advertising Durex!"

I could go on all day...

Check out this really interesting piece from the LA Times today, titled "Web Pulls Ad Buyers from TV" which I think very deftly shows the 3 sides to the story of the rise of the Web and the demise of the 30-second spot...no not your side, my side and the truth, but rather the denial, disgust and disarray of those who scorn the old world order/upfront, those who cry for change and evolution and those torn in the middle.

Case in point, "I think at the end of the day the marketers will open up their pocketbooks and write big fat checks, but they do so with decreasing glee and with follow-up memos to their staff saying, 'Find us a better way next year, explains Rex Briggs. Here's a thought...if you feel so strongly against it, why continue to perpetuate the dysfunctional approach?

Anyhoo, the article gives some really compelling data/proof points, but for now I'd like to pose this question: is the challenge at hand really a zero-sum game? What we lose on the swings, we make up on the roundabouts? Why do we assume that one side is Robin Hood whilst the other is the Sheriff of Nottingham?

Ultimately, we need to take a good, honest look inwards and ask ourselves this question: "Is advertising even the answer?" or at least "traditional advertising" as intimated in the following statement: "The Internet is clearly becoming a more traditional medium to advertise in," so says TNS Pres. Steven Fredericks.

Proof that propoganda is not just limited to cable news, is the 25 page mega farce in Tuesday's New York Times and I'm sure other major dailies, titled "an upfront like no other" (they're right about that) - "this year's TV selling season opens in an uncertain advertising environment (no shit, Sherlock), yet all three sectors in the industry - broadcast, cable and syndication - look surprising strong." (huh? whatever ganja the editors of this "special advertising supplement" are smoking, I'd like a whiff ASAP!

I honestly couldn't continue reading past page 2 or 3...and I can only hope marketers and their agency partners had the sense to bale out of this classic desperation marketing attempt.

As a tribute to an upfront like no other, I'd like to put forward a slightly different perspective.Encounter 14: The upfront - an event that makes no sense and yet each year pulls off one of the greatest illusions in town.

Click, view, share & enjoy! P.S. If it takes too long to download, mosey on down to www.vidlit.com/upfront.

Uberbuzzguru, Pete Blackshaw wrote a pretty good piece in ClickZ on Activist Marketing, where he outlined the 5 P's of what he calls Activist Marketing (I would file under Communal Marketing), incorporating and encompassing Consumer Generated Media (splitting hairs, but I refer to as Consumer Generated Content - Media is such an ugly word)

After polling numeous input and opinion from the industry, he synthesized the responses into a very convenient 5 P framework:

As revealed in Adfreak, Colle + McVoy - a Minneapolis based agency - was responsible for the off-brand so-called viral website, www.howdiditgoin.com and thankfully not Wieden + Kennedy.

I'll reserve judgement on whether Nike had a hand in this or not...based on an official word from the folks in Beaverton. I'm certainly not going to believe C+M who were just allegedly experimenting with viral to get some experience in it (at Nike's expense?), and would take any cease and desists very seriously (yawn)

So, the once-mighty New York Times announced that they are going to charge for "some content" - specifically, about 15 odd op-ed columnists like Thomas Friedman.

Look, $49.95 a year is not a fortune - at least to this audience. That being said, there are several strikes against this move:

1) This is clearly a hold-out move. NYT resisted this for the longest time and this move seems weak and reactive on one end of the spectrum, and downright greedy on the other (who can resist the potential of additional revenue streams)

OK, so I'm reading my wife's People in the bath (you may now excuse yourself to either laugh or puke yourself to death...file it under the TMI folder: too much information) and I stumble upon this print ad which is simply awesome.

I'd like to laud this for the following reasons:

1) It works spectacularly as a print ad and if a picture could speak 1,000 words, this speaks 1,000,000. A 30-second spot would just dilute it.

2) The King versus Vader face-off is classic. I've already cut it out and stuck it on my Blackberry (not literally) I may even use it as my lwallpaper - gosh darn, did I just embrace an ad???????

3) it's also a pretty neat demonstration of how a promotional piece can be done in an on-brand and creative way

4) PLUS it's on strategy - "choose your own destiny," the call to action on the scratch card sounds a lot like "have it your way"

THE FORCE IS STRONG WITH YOU! My money's on the King.

To the 127 people who responded to the survey, thanks for voicing your opinion. Here are the official unofficial results:

Question 1) 69% preferred my ad to the 18% who preferred Nike's :)

Question 2) The industry appears to be fairly equally divided on whether to take an active or passive stance with respect to acknowledging consumer expression

31.5% thought Nike should do nothing

26.8% thought Nike should act as my silent viral benefactor i.e. host serving charges and pay me off with golf balls

25.2% thought Nike should put my ad on air

12.6% thought Nike should hire me (but in fairness it was my Mom voting multiple times)

Question 3) 71% thought Nike moved too slow on this

Question 4) 65% believe consumer generated content is the future and we should embrace it versus 33% who are still on the fence or rather choose to take a more cautious wait and see stance

Question 5) The verbatims and details results can be found by clicking on this link

Shit happens. People live. They Die. Some of them even pay taxes. They also complain and more often than not, when they have something nice to say they keep it to themselves, but when they have something they want to get off their chests, they look for the highest steeple and shout their friggen lungs off.

Then along came e-mail, and most recently blogs. And consumers are responding accordingly.

This one hits the New Marketing Richter scale on a number of levels. I've been a long time fan of Reebok's New Marketing - from Terry Tate to Whodunnit to the new VOD tie-in to their global "I am what I am" campaign.

On a personal note, I wrote about the practice of what Fire-man spearheaded for Rbk with respect to creating long form and on-demand content around their celebrity-rich advertising. It's really encouraging to see the future being practised in the present. As interviewed in iMedia, Reebok has piloted a program with Comcast in Philly which includes outtakes, behind-the-scenes bonus footage etc.

Here's the kicker my pretties...Reebok content has been selected over 400% more than any other content on the Comcast in Philly - program or advertorial.

Content is King and when advertising is perceived and consumed as content, everybody wins.

Welcome to jaffe Juice.

If this is your first time here, I invite you to immerse yourself in New Marketing, as well as my homage to Nike and Consumer Generated Content.

Please don’t forget to subscribe to the daily digest (the box is in the column on your right)

Today, I give you two exhibits: (click on each one to view) 

Exhibit A:  My creation (unofficial; “aired” on jaffe Juice a couple of hours after Tiger sunk his improbable chip)    

Exhibit B: Nike’s creation (official; aired almost 3 weeks after the fact on cable)

So which do you prefer and what are your thoughts on the subject?

Click here to take the survey and voice your opinion. I will publish the results a week from today.

Also, if you’d like to see the original post on my blog and the 100+ heated responses, click here

Bored at work? Or perhaps just looking for an IP fix? Try your hand at Googlewhacking (which according to popular belief is not bashing the folks over at Google for being arrogant, snooty or bathing in piles of money)

Googlewhacking or “Googlewhack” is the search for “the one” – started in 2002, it is – in short – the ability to find search terms of a few words that yield only 1 response.

What I wouldn't do my readers! I had to purchase this and sample the wares of a sublime experential play.

I have no clue as to the history or future of the extended range of Wonka candy that you'll find at your local deli...but as a marketing play to promote the upcoming Depp-starring remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, what better way to bring this classic to life than through the candy. Yummy!

At the AAAA’s Management Conference in Bermuda, Andy Berlin (and I paraphrase) challenged the advertising community to figure out a way to adopt "price flexibility" so that "good advertising would cost less and bad advertising would cost more."

Michael Buffer I ain’t, but then again Lloyd Braun is not either.

Yahoo and Burnett have teamed up to webcast a series of live boxing matches, in which also-rans from The Contender (as voted by Joe and Jane Public) will face off against one another.

James Dyson a.k.a. Vacuum Man tells agencies they suck (as blogged in Adrants) and he quotes:

"The agency business just isn't working for me. I don't want to talk to account planners, and account managers and these other assorted suits. I need to talk to the 'creatives' directly, and explain to them what I am trying to achieve. But they won't come to meetings because they are 'creative.'

"And the fact is that they are not creative at all. They are doing the very worst thing you can do, which is to sit staring at a drawing board trying to come up with an idea out of nowhere. You need dialogue to create. Of all the creative jobs I have encountered it is advertising people who make the most song and dance about creativity. And, you know, they are not creative at all. When I think of the real creation that my designers are involved in, and compare it with these 'creatives' who are earning so much more to just sit around the Groucho Club and be generally useless, it makes me vomit. I can't go on supporting an industry like that, I'm afraid."

Come on James...tell us what you REALLY think! My 2c is pretty simple - the root definition of creativity focuses on doing things differently. It is the unique and differentiated approach which is deemed to be creative insofar that it gets and keeps attention and in so doing, engages and captivates.

Case in point...yesterday I visited a most huge and intimidating law firm in the island of Manhattan. With all my preconceptions in tact, I entered their reception area and immediately noticed a sign above the receptionist's name, "Director of First Impressions." In a second, the ice melted and I felt at ease. An instant comfort level was established due to the most unexpected touch. 

In the same spirit, I'd like to see an agency exec come out with a scathing indictment of clients/marketers on the subject of them not putting agencies in a position to BE creative. It takes two to tango and if agencies suck then marketers blow!

Kicking off what promises to be a bold new alternative to book promotion (NOT!), I offer up as evidence, Exhibit A: my socks. Snapped by Mike May at the recent MediaPost Outfront event, it gave me an idea.

Snap my socks...send it to me. I'll post it to the blog and send you a signed copy of the book. I'll also start to change my socks a lot more often...

From: Ford Division Marketing Communications
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 12:15 PM
To: All U.S. Employees
Subject: Watch for Upcoming Ford Vehicle Integrations in Your FavoriteTV Shows!

With thanks to AdJab and Stay Free, today's branded entertainment comes from within the Ford coupe. It's that familiar memo which typically comes from the agency and spreads to the client and then disseminates to the client's various stakeholders.

It's the chest beating look-at-our-ads memo which reminds all employees that the most important thing is to feel good about your ads even if no-one else is watching them, you are and that's all that counts.

It's all about Dr Phil baby! Spread the word - tell your friends and family. We're famous!!! We're on TV which means everyone can see us and that means we're doing something right...right?...right...RIGHT!!!!

Over the course of the next few weeks, you're going to see me ramping up quite signficiantly on the subject of my book, "Life after the 30-second spot."

If you think it's self-promotional, get over yourselves. It's my blog and both the blog and my book focus on new marketing to a new consumer in the wake of a staid and failing traditional or mainstream model.

I make $2 a book, so if you feel that strongly, buy the book, read it and if you don't like what you read, I'll gladly refund you $2.

Now with that said, here are some recent hits on the subject which coincidentally feature me (the full articles are in the extended blurb) I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject of life after the 30-second spot. Do you think news of the 30-second's demise has been greatly exaggerated? If so, why do you think MSM (mainstream media) still has a strong foothold in the heart's and mind's of consumers?

Let's get the discussion going and in the interim, here's an interview with me which appeared last week in Investor's Business Daily. Adjab has already commented.

Also, here's a post from Joyce Schwarz from her blog, Hollywood2020.

...but words will never harm me (unless they're in the form of text messages)

Apparently, Craig Bellamy a Newcastle United Football Club outcast (currently on loan at Celtic) has been told he has no future at the club because of insulting text messages he sent to star striker Alan Shearer. The "insulting text messages" were along the lines that Shearer was old and over the hill.

Does this sound juvenile to you? But how laughable that this kind of banter is taking place in the form of SMS messaging.

Can't wait for the Smoking Gun to release the text messages between Kobe and Shaq!

With apologies to the non-American Idol fans out there, I promise there is a point.

So my main man Scott Savol sings an emotional Luther Vandross Song (Dance with my Father) and Simon Cowell tells him to "pack his bags."

What happens? Scott is voted into the top 3 ahead of Vonzell, teeny-bopper loved and Heather Locklear endorsed Anthony Federov and the shock castaway, Constanine Maroulis.

Whay happened? Here's my read: Simon Cowell represents the establishment (old marketing if you will); consumers at home represent new establishment (new marketing if you will). Old marketing tries to influence new marketing, but new marketing sees through the B-S and what they see is an emotional, authentic song, sung by "the average Joe" by his and our admissions. Scott represents everyone who has struggled and been nothing more than a face in the crowd. We identify with him.

The result was that even this big lug got off his arse and voted. Actually I didn't, I just reached over for my Blackberry and SMS'ed 5 times for SS. Coincidentally, the difference between 3rd and 6th place was 4.75 votes.

The point is that consumers today see through the agenda's of marketers and in a tiny microcosmic instant, we saw that manifest itself during our weekly dose of Pop Culture: AI.