Jaffe Juice

Kudo's to Boone Oakley

Finally, an agency gets it right.

Now whilst I'm still not a fan of any company (Skittles, Modernista) completely ceding their digital presence to a surrogate/substitute e.g. YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia or Twitter, I think Boone Oakley did a terrific job with this expression of their passion for producing 30-second spots :)

I say that tongue-in-cheek of course, because they've chosen video (much like I've done with JJTV) to demonstrate that they understand how to best use new media to tell an old story so to speak.

Specifically, they're showing their understanding of non-linear storytelling brought to life through YouTube annotations and hyperlinks. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, give Boone Oakley a call...they deserve the shot to teach an old dog (you), new tricks.

It remains to be seen whether this agency actually is a cut above its competitors, BUT they've certainly been able to get their proverbial feet in the door, make their pitch (independence over conglomerendence) and I'll bet that you spent more than 30-seconds being entertained by (gasp) a sales pitch.

Quite lovely. Well done, lads and ladesses.

JJTV #14 - The King acts like a Clown

I'm no prude, but I don't like it when the dude is rude.

Link to the commercial is here

Spread the word:

• Tell Oprah, Alex, Russ, your friends, co-workers, clients and colleagues
• Tweet or RT: I'm no prude, but I don't like it when the dude is rude - JJTV #14 - Squarebutts & Burger King http://bit.ly/g0lPT
• Subscribe to the show via iTunes or YouTube
• Post a video response

JJTV #13 - The TwitteRFP and how Current fixed the RFP process

The RFP process is broken. Jordan Kretchmer and Current_ fixed it. Hooray!

Spread the word:

• Tell your friends, co-workers, clients and colleagues
• Tweet or RT: JaffeJuiceTV on how Current_ and @jkretch fixed the RFP process with their TwitteRFP - http://bit.ly/UGOH5 #twitteRFP #crayon #JJTV
• Subscribe to the show via iTunes or YouTube
• Post a video response

Is Advertising to blame for the current recession?

According to a new study from Harris Interactive, 66% of consumers believe advertising agencies bear at least some responsibility for the recession because they “caused people to buy things they couldn’t afford.”

Segue to AAAA's chieftain, Nancy Hill, who had this to say in our AAAA's leadership conference address in response to the above findings:

"Now imagine that: Advertising agencies causing the crippling of the economy because we stimulate consumer desire and consumer demand. Who says advertising doesn't work?"

She then grins and chuckles (perhaps a little nervously)

Now whilst I appreciate the tongue-in-check humor, mixed in with a little bit of sarcasm and dry wit, I was deeply troubled by her comments for 2 reasons:

1. We're not talking about Charmin toilet paper here. We're talking about trusting REEE-AL-TORS, Stockard Channing on behalf of A.I.G.'s promises about confidence, assurance and our future's security and the likes of Citi with their "Live Richly" poppycock.

2. We need to concede - or at least allow for the concession - that heavy T.V. viewers or at least T.V. viewers that rely on the medium as their primary media consumption channel are ARGUABLY a little more gullible, malleable and vulnerable than those that - for example - have full and high-speed access to the Web on an ongoing basis. Yes, perhaps this is about a digital or information divide between the socioeconomic haves and have-nots. Or perhaps it's just about trusting the wrong people.

I don't know about you, but if I was Nancy Hill, I'd focus on figuring out how to stop the rot and stem the one-way tidal wave of negative sentiment towards the ad industry, as opposed to slagging "adverbloggers" who are negative because they're given apt cause to be. Present company excluded. I love everyone - especially @oprah.

Why charging a digital or PR agency with social media is a flawed strategy

My latest Adweek column is up and it's already getting its fair share of comments - with some particularly negative ones leveled at me.

The piece is about where I think "social" media really fits and why - based on this assessment - I think it's a flawed strategy to charge a digital or PR agency with the AOR responsibilities associated with this imperative.

PS If you're going to be a hater, please indicate if you work for a digital or PR agency :)

Full text here:

Who Owns Social Media?

A clue: don't look to digital agencies or PR shops

March 15, 2009

-By Joseph Jaffe

There are three worlds. Or perhaps I should say three environments. And whether you know it or not, you're living in all three right now.

Let's start off with the physical world, also known as the real world (and I'm not talking about an MTV program). The physical world, from a media standpoint, is the one governed by television, radio and print. It's also the world in which most word-of-mouth conversations happen. Face to face.

Then there's the digital world. Web 1.0. The world of Web sites. Of big, Flash-based, SEO-unfriendly "skip intro" edifices built to glorify brands. This is the world of e-mails, banners and buttons. It's a world of advergames and gargantuan portals. And it's become synonymous with "traditional interactive" -- a sterile wasteland devoid of life, creativity and innovation.

Finally, there's the virtual world. Yes, it includes the obvious virtual reality, the maligned Second Life, MMORPG experiences like World of Warcraft and more kid-friendly environments like Club Penguin or Webkinz. But, I would argue, it also includes blogs, podcasts, presence applications like Twitter and social networks. My definition of a virtual world is any environment that utilizes avatar and/or profile-based participation, with the option of anonymity. In short, it's a place or space where people can interact with other people in ways they could never do in the "real" or digital worlds.

So where does social media fall? The obvious answer is right in the middle of these three worlds, which is exactly why neither a digital agency nor the PR industry is equipped to deliver against the three-pronged imperative of community, dialogue and partnership.

Digital agencies today are stuck somewhere between scalability hell (tasked with automating and compartmentalizing the lowly impression) and storytelling schlock (replicating obtuse and detached hyperbole in an advertising-unfriendly environment). It's a world governed by performance-based pricing and ad networks on the one side and pre-roll advertising and clunky Web builds on the other.

Exactly where and when did the digital space earn the stripes and credentials to tackle the high roads of authenticity, transparency or peer-to-peer collaboration (just to name a few of conversational marketing's core tenets)?

The PR business is really no better and no worse than the digital one when it comes to social credentials. With its claim of being champions of "earned media," it tacked the word "relations" onto blogger, lumped it together with "media relations" and "journalist relations," and somehow went unchallenged.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying PR shouldn't be at the table. I'm just questioning how "relations" between corporations and journalists equate with real people hanging out with other real people.

Whereas the digital space has very little claim to the "physical" world and hasn't proven itself in the virtual space, the PR industry resides more comfortably in the physical world, with a superficial grasp of the digital space and an anemic understanding of the virtual one.

In both cases, the ability to connect the dots among the three environments, find the commonalities and establish obvious synergies is barely practiced.

I've seen client after client duped into charging a digital or PR agency with-arguably-the most transformational opportunity we've been given in our professional lifetimes and the result is almost always a shambolic disappointment. From Sony or Wal-Mart's fake blogs to the recent Skittles.com mess, the culprits are almost always digital or PR agencies.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying every digital and/or every PR agency is ill-equipped to deliver against "social." What I am suggesting, however, is there's an acute and fundamental flaw in equating "social" with "digital" or "social" with "earned media."

So what's the solution?

Perhaps the solution is to return to the clichéd "integration" drawing board and figure out how to ensure that all three sides of the equation are equally represented around the table. In this scenario, there's a definite and defined role for an "integrator" -- an independent third party (internal or external) that is the generalist to the physical, digital and virtual specialist verticals, with less interest in ensuring success in any one world than in simply ensuring your success, period.

Having said this, it may also turn out that there is no such thing as a social AOR.

But don't take my word for it. Continue to vest your future in companies that build elaborate destination Web sites, construct parties that nobody shows up to and deliver ostensibly social solutions that reek of control, manipulation and fakery.

Hey, at least people will talk about you, right?

The greatest piece of research....ever!

...but seriously, quite possibly the dumbest piece of research.....EVER!!!

According to a Gallup & Robinson study of 12 years' worth of surveys about recall and likeability of advertising that appears in the annual pigskin classic, there is a direct relationship between the confidence people have in the economy and the attention they pay to Super Bowl commercials.

I can't even begin to go into how completely useless this information is.

Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic....attention in Super Bowl commercials is going down:
a) because people are drunk out of their minds
b) because people hate advertising
c) because people have the volume turned down and are having a party at the same time
d) because watching the commercials on YouTube and/or listening to Donny Deutsch on the Today Show was witty once....but now is shitty
e) because the creative product sucks
f) because of too much clutter
g) because they're not in the least bit in "buying mode"
g) because they're worried about paying the mortage
h) all of the above...except for g)

The beginning of the end...

My latest Adweek column is up. In it, I basically ask whether the recent spate of layoffs in the agency world will be the tangible "tipping point" that forever changes/transforms the business.

In marketing they called it the just noticeable difference, the combination or culmination of a series of smaller events that, over time, presents a watershed moment. For fatties, it's the day your pants split or the chair breaks. For network television, it could have been the writers' strike. For advertising, it's arguably the embarrassment of layoffs.

Ultimately the advertising game will always come back to one word...and one word only: talent. And yet, it also sucks the most at managing it - attracting it; nurturing it; retaining it.

And then there's the exodus hangover. Do you really think all this talent will giddily flock back to cubicle city with open arms and an all-is-forgiven attitude? Where do you think the explosion of millennials is going to hang its hats (if it even wears hats anymore) and call home-an ad or media agency, or a new breed or brand of service provider?

Perhaps it is somewhat alarmist, but I honestly wonder whether the ad biz will be able to recover from this lethal shock to the system. On the flipside, it is possible that this could be a cathartic kick in the touches and this serves as a call-to-action to radically transform the industry.

Thoughts and arguments welcome...as are Retweets and podcast audio comments to +1 206 203-3255.

Newsflash: When it comes to Social Media, Agencies don't it

It's almost too easy.

Where's the catch?

Strike 1: A new study from TNS Media Intelligence and Cymfony (n=60 marketers in North America, France and the U.K) reveals that when it comes to social media, traditional agencies view "social channels like blogs as traditional media".

Strike 2: ...their (agencies) ideas are not backed up by practical skills in the area.

Strike 3: ...agencies have little of their own experience using social networks or video-sharing sites for themselves.

This, compounded by the rising importance of social media, makes for somewhat of a perfect storm:

• Nearly 50% of marketers said social-media efforts needed to be handled at an executive level with "significant" resources.
• Another 30% agreed social media is a "revolutionary opportunity."

The data/findings are consistent with the research piloted in association with SNCR and TWI Surveys for my book, "Join the Conversation."

Sidebar: I look forward to sharing some of this research when I keynote at the SNCR Forum on April 22nd.

To be sure, it is (as I opened up in this post) almost too easy to lay into the agencies. They pretty much deserve it, don't they? Still, it takes two to tango and I think this quote from Super Bowl loving FedEx

"I think traditional ad agencies have very little contribution to make," Bryan Simkins, a marketing specialist at FedEx, told TNS. "They are mostly driven by their compensation models which are made for closed media. Those models don't apply in open media."

This, coming from the company that put Jose Avila and his furniture on the map.

Marketers, if you want your agencies to survive and thrive, you too will need to adjust the way you source, compensate, reward and respect your agency partners.

...but yes, the agency model has to adapt, adjust and evolve and agencies are going to need to restructure the way they do business in major way if they are to survive.

To help you in your quest, here are 3 pieces of advice:

1. Stop being so damn arrogant and deluded to think you can do this yourselves. You can't. This is all about humility.
   
2. Stop trying to automate the whole process and solving your problems by a quick technology acquisition fix. You're drowning in your own data and laziness. This is labor intensive.
3. Stop trying to scale the whole process and replicate your old bad habits. This is about planting seeds and sticking around long enough to reap the rewards of care, consideration and hard work.

Questions?

The Brain Drain

It's no secret that "Talent" is - if not THE - one of THE most critical focus areas for companies in the marketing communications space right now - specifically the agencies. You're not going to attend a single conference without an entire panel being dedicated to talent or a high ranking executive talking about talent is one of the primary challenges, concerns or focus areas on his or her agenda.

ATTRACTING digital talent has become increasingly difficult for the agencies. This is a global phenomenon and is applicably pretty much across the board. In recent time, this had been worse in the mid-level range, due to a void vacated by the exodus caused by the dot com bust. Nowadays however, it's pretty pervasive in all areas of the business.

Of course this is now compounded by the fact that digital talent is not enough to cover the expanding consideration set of "colors" in the box of crayons, including - but not limited to - social media, word-of-mouth, co-creation, consumer generated content and social networking (to name a few)

And as if this wasn't enough of a conundrum, it's become glaringly apparent in the past few weeks that the agency world cannot hold on to its existing talent either - particularly in the leadership category.

This list includes my friends (know 'em and love 'em all) Denuo's Nick Pahade, OMD's Sean Finnegan, Tribal's Paran Johar, Mediavest's Adam Gerber (his new venture just raised some fresh new money) and Ogilvy's Eric Wheeler and underscores the push-pull reality of the business at the moment.

PULL: The easier of the two forces. Digital industry "vets" or old-timers want new challenges. They also want to cash-in or cash-out and who can blame 'em. They've worked too hard, been paid too little only to see 25-year old millionaires created at times overnight. The lure of start-ups in the technology and social media/networking space is just too great at the moment. They are well-funded and can offer the one thing that agencies cannot - EQUITY (substantial). They desperately need to figure out how to court, woo and win over both Madison Avenue and the brand marketers. First of course, they need to figure out their business models...and who better than to work with those who acted as purse string arbiters.

PUSH: As per the earlier point, agencies are infamous for overworking and underpaying. That however, is probably a bit outdated in terms of current applicability. Agencies have lost the spark that once had employees willingly staying until witching hour. Today people work late under duress...if at all. And it really doesn't matter how much money is being thrown at execs....because the VC world can come up with more.

Perhaps the more important PUSH point is the ephemeral one that is associated with being respected, trusted and empowered to effect change and innovation. Commitment to digital is either still superficial and/or not bought into across the board. Perhaps Carat's experiment will buck this trend i.e. promoting digital stars to the ultimate leadership position and helping infuse digital commitment across the cultural board. Carat does need to score a big win to prove this new working model (they recently lost a large auto client) and I'm crossing fingers for Scott Sorokin and Sarah Fay (and indirectly David Verklin) who are both great, talented stars.

It's a 1-2 punch of ATTRACTING and RETAINING talent that could conceivably become a knock-out punch that causes the kind of tipping point that will revolutionize and restructure the agency world and its importance and role with brand marketers.

Until then, I would caution brand marketers at the moment to really do their due diligence when it comes to partnering with an agency that needs to demonstrate acute digital and social media strategic leadership. The market is filling up with too many Houses of Cards.

Carat makes a bold and timely move...

I predicted a long time ago (I'm talking 5 years) that one day, the new wave of leadership in the marketing/media space would come from within the digital space.

There is absolutely no conceivable way that the leaders of tomorrow can possibly come from anywhere else than the digital realm. That doesn't mean they necessarily have to *be* in digital at the time, BUT they're going to have to be deeply and intimately versed in the interactive space in order to stand an iota's shot in hell of being considered.

I might take this one step further and add in a layer of new marketing knowledge that extends beyond the media (online advertising, video, search) business, but for now...it's all digital.

To that end, I want to congratulate two friends/colleagues, Sarah Fay and Scott Sorokin, who have been tapped by that man Verklin to LEAD the newly formed, integrated or is it compressed "Carat". Out goes the old guard and in comes the new generation. It's ballsy. It's obvious. It's a bold experiment.

On one hand, you could say what's old is new again (much like agencies that unbundled and are now reconsidering rebundling), what has emerged is a whole, as opposed to a part of sums. However in this case, the fact that the leadership (and bias?) is coming from the interactive arena sends out a loud and clear signal where Carat's focus will be aimed in the future to come.

David Verklin is a pretty astute marketer. Make no mistake. He is opportunistic and very eagle-eyed when it comes to being where everyone else has yet to consider.

I'm very impressed with this move and I wish Sarah and Scott only the best in this new challenge.