Jaffe Juice

Fedex - you blew it

I just got off the phone with the "Fedex Furniture Guy, Jose Avila: a pink-haired, unassuming software engineer who could quite possibly be the marketer of the year (or at least the hour)

Perhaps it was the Wired article which caused this particular effort to tip, or perhaps Jose's creativity and genuine authentic approach. Personally, I think it's Fedex's moronic and myopic response and behavior that has struck such a chord with the blogosphere and beyond.

If you've been hiding under a rock, here's the story in point form summary:

Register my fist

Tom Hespos discusses the consumer backlash against registration based sites (including the petition to register fake information as a token of spite) and offers up 2 possible reasons:

1) Interruption (consumers don't like having to work for their free content)

2) Privacy concerns (big brother, where art thou?)

He offers up a great point re:2) about being more explicit and prescriptive about the registration process and its resultant benefits which one can only hope is a win-win.

The Death (and rebirth?) of Print Media

Article in Ad Age this morning about additional circulation scandals engulfing the magazine industry with titles including Martha Stewart Living (perhaps if we put an ankle bellyband bracelet around it, it would behave itself), Family Circle and House Beautiful. According to the piece, it is being described by one publisher as an apocalypse.

I don't think this should be a surprise to anyone...bottom line: the magazine industry has been slowly sinking in the quicksand of change for a long time now. The sad thing is that most of the players have been in total denial. Instead of trying to fix the problem, they've sunk dollars into a laughable trade campaign.

Believe me, I'm not trying to kick this beast when it's down, but I do feel it's necessary to issue a pretty stern wake-up call to the print industry AND provide some kind of hope in the process.

Instead of the one page dedicated to "what's on dot com this week", you need to be going a lot further with respect to content integration and truly engaging your readers. Your integrated efforts (sales, content, innovation) are disgraceful; your websites are inexcusably oversimplified and shills to hawk subscriptions (which puts you right back behind the 8-ball) Your attitudes are obstinate and arrogant.

The so-called scandals with circulation are overdue red-flags that your business has changed and therefore, your business model needs to change as well. On the bright side, every other medium is facing similar challenges.

Instead of courting media buyers, court your consumers instead. Media buyers aren't going to help you solve your problems...you are. If you reinvent yourselves and create a more evolved environment through which to engage your readers, chances are the me-too media buyers will flock back like sheep.

The ad-edit relationship is contrived and backwards. Content is key...not getting an additional page from P&G. The answers to your problems are all around you; you need to open your eyes.

Consider major investments in technologies which go much further than Zinio. Think about selective binding. Think about advancements in home/office printers and how your magazines might very well be delivered through printers soon enough.

Yes, even think about the 3 Amigos: RSS, Podcasting, Blogs. Print should be the starting point of the conversation....audio, video, interactive/experiential plays.

Bottom line: be a part of the solution...or there will be none. Take control of your fate, or it will take control of you.

Ironically, the MPA passed on having me speak at their conference. Perhaps they might want to reconsider. Perhaps not.

CBS, ABC, NBC,Fox...meet BBC

The BBC (our abbreviated friends on the other side of the pond) made an announcement which frankly should have made heads turn over here...but I don't believe I've seen any from the networks, pehaps because they're buried under the sand.

Anyhoo, BBC announced that they're going to start letting their viewers download entire shows (TV + radio) MyBBCPlayer :) will let viewers catch up the last 7 days of programming.

According to a Reuters piece, there were 60 million online requests for video footage following the London bombings, so the demand is certainly there.

Now in fairness, the article does focus on downloading and purchasing music downloads (yawn...isn't everyone doing that nowadays), however the hint into what I think is an obvious business model shift makes me salivate.

The Passionate Pursuit of Perfection Podcast

Hooray for Lexus as they've given me a reason to dust off the cobwebs from my "experiential marketing" category with their US Open themed Podcast series. There are also goodies in the form of redeeming photographs taken at the Open.

Lexus has really embraced podcasting and in this particular instance pays off the very important concept of Brands as enablers (call me with questions) through the creation of long form content in a branded experential red bow.

Brand Rush

In a conversation with Glen Sheehan, I came up with the concept of “Brand Rush” which I think works really well as an analogy or even conceptual reference point, against which to measure the relative health of a brand with its given audience.

The metaphor of love works really well in a branding dialogue. Think of the scenario in which a man (or woman) walks into a bar and proposes sordid sex with the first good looking woman he sets his sights on (target marketing) 99 times out of 100, he gets a good kick to the groin; the other 1 time he gets laid (that’s direct response for you) The other scenario involves getting to know the other person over a longer period of time, without the use of cheesy clichés pick-up lines etc. (that’s branding and more often than not, will lead to a commitment/long term relationship/even marriage, versus the “hey I lost my number, can I borrow yours” alternative)

So in the spirit of this context, I offer up to you the notion of “brand rush.” Think about the first time you gazed upon your now significant other or spouse; think about the time you touched for the first time; think about that first kiss; if you must, you can even recall the first time you made love if you like. The atmosphere was electric; the moment was unforgettable; the experience was both unique and completely distinct and original.

Now fast forward to present day…where the moment rests anywhere along the spectrum of “Married with Children” to “Fawlty Towers” In most cases, that unforgettable first contact is never achieved again and the reality is that it’s all downhill from there.

Sure there are exceptions and in these cases, the utopian moment of bliss is replicated and maintained through hard work, constant and consistent care, nurturing and to put it crudely, performance in the bedroom (or any other room, surface, object, animal, vegetable or mineral)

The parallel between “first contact” and branding is uncanny. It would seem that marketers exist as that guy walking into the bar; with their cheesy pick-up lines (in the form of the 30-second spot and it’s hyperbolic drivel); they play the numbers game, completely comfortable with an astronomical miss:hit ratio with their poorly targeting one-size-fits-all mass media approach…perhaps that’s why today, so many marketers are left with mass-turbation in a turbulent and unforgiving climate. I hate to take this further, but the kick in the balls doesn’t even seem to work (think Jeff Jarvis and Dell or the incredible story of the guy who decked out his apartment with FEDEX boxes and FEDEX’s resulting reaction [more to follow]) as most marketers today have none…they’re afraid to take risks; they’re unable to be truly creative i.e. original/different; they’re unwilling to change their ways and to embrace change.

Is it any wonder that consumers have become so fickle and loyalless? When a woman walks into a bank that she has been frequenting for seventy years to withdraw cash…and still has her signature checked for authenticity from a signature card from a teller that has been working there twenty years, what does that say about the sorry state of branding? The only rush that’s in play here is a rush to get the hell away from the brand in question.

Those are my first thoughts on brand rush. Is it real or not? What does it take to achieve, maintain and preserve rush? Is it ground for a sustainable competitive advantage? Why is brand rush so elusive and what should brands do to find their moments of truth and authenticity?

The rush begins…

Moment of brilliance or another Gap blunder?

Gap is making headlines right now with their daring and noteworthy 60-second spot in which employees and customers trash one of the stores: "Pardon our dust; the all-new Gap is coming."

I went to their website and saw "an under construction" message.

There are 3 scenarios in play here:

1) The site is under construction and has nothing to do with their TV campaign and/or store renovations

2) The online temporary closure is completely intentional and is designed to tie-in directly with the current campaign and in doing so, raise curiosity/intrigue about the changes (lord knows they need 'em)

As much as I wish the latter option were true, I know it's not for probably 3 reasons:

1) Practically....because of the e-commerce component (no one's going to close doors on sales, although if bricks 'n mortar stores are closing, why not the Web?)

2) The ad isn't national yet and even if it were...it would have to assume that people are watching TV ads (don't get me started on that) That being said, with a huge PR buzz, it could easily negate this particular challenge.

3) I just don't think the folks at Gap are remotely clued in with how their business is changing and it what it will take to reverse their steep declines of late (sorry)

Tony Soprano, the Ad Guy

So as it turns out, the Waste Management Business and Madison Avenue have a lot more in common than we previously thought. 100 years, a retailing pioneer by the name of John Wanamaker uttered those immortal words, “half my advertising is wasted; the only problem is I don’t know which half.” Enraptured by a hit to miss ratio of 1:1, the advertising industry took this saying to heart and seemed to get away with a 50% success rate…that is until Mediacheck in Omaha, Nebraska (the same place that brought you Omaha Steaks) revived the spirit of John in their aptly named Project Wanamaker. The findings, as echoed in a recent Business Week article are pretty stark:

• …at least seven new commercials reached 95 to 100% of the test's HH audience within the first week of airing.
• The company said many advertisers are better off having a commercial air for no longer than two-three weeks followed by a week off the air and then running a few days a week.

As echoed in MediaPost, the recommendation along the lines of cutting campaign duration in half are pretty damning both both the media and creative sides in the business. With the average production budgets of 30-seconds spots in the $400,000 range and frequency or camapaign runs extended way beyond the 2-3 weeks range, with limited creative, something’s gotta give…

Combine this with Project Wanamaker’s initial findings about completion rates i.e. of the ads that are viewed, what percentage (in time) of them are viewed to competion, and the results are even more alarming. In the test, featuring brands such as Colgate, DirecTV, Chevrolet, Pepsi and Burger King, Neutrogena did the best with 96% of consumers viewing the ad from start to finish. Other advertisers weren’t as lucky with only 11% of viewers coming along for the ride. The study also concluded that DVR homes are not necessarily skipping ads more than non-DVR homes. That shouldn’t necessarily surprise you. We’ve been skipping ads since the birth of the remote control. The only difference is that only now we can measure it. See you in Cape Town for that next shoot, Sarah Jessica Parker. NOT!

GM extends its employee discount again. No one car(e)s.

Yawn. Ain't addiction to devaluing the brand great?

50% of 0 = 0 A.K.A. throwing good money after bad

Adjab reported nicely on this MediaPost piece, which in turn cites a FIND/SVP (huh?) research report that attempts to debunk some mystery around branded entertainment/product placement.

It concludes that the lowly 30-second spot (52%) beats product placement (23%) by a margin of over 2:1 when it comes to influencing a potential product purchase. The study incorrectly concludes that this means the 30-second spot isn't going away anytime soon, whereas myself (see post title) would rather interpret this prescriptive advice as going from the frying pan into the fire.

The study continues to drive a few more nails into Madison + Vine by concluding that:

1) Consumers are more likely to accept product placement in scripted versus reality shows - sorry, that ship sailed a loooong time ago

2) With reference to Oprah's uber car giveaway, only 44% (of the 36% sample who remembered seeing the episode) recalled the car she gave away. Worse still, the recall rate was higher amongst men (51%) versus women (40%) - now there's a reason to give away a Grand Prix Media Lion if ever I saw one...