Jaffe Juice

The extinction of brands?

Shann Biglione, Chief Strategy Officer, Publicis Media Greater China, wrote a terrific article on LinkedIn (hat tip: Eaon Pritchard) titled, “People who predict the death of brands don’t understand why they exist.”

In it, he outlined how harbingers of doom (or marketer serial killers – love it!) who have been harping (or is it harbinging?) on the death of TV, advertising and now ultimately brands, point to 4 contributing factors for this proclamation:

 

1. e-commerce
2. Consumer reviews
3. Decline of mass advertising
4. Artificial Intelligence

He ends the article wonderfully, “Predicting the death of brands fails to understand their Darwinian nature: they do not exist because they were imposed unto us, they exist because of us.”

So I thought I would provide a counterpoint that is less a rebuttle and more a triangulated perspective.

To begin, I think the assertions of “death of” TV, advertising and brands are absolutely connected and evolutionary in nature. TV is a subset (and the biggest component) of advertising; and advertising has been the predominant input or contributing ingredient of the brand recipe. Classic marketing theory has been built upon the 4 P’s (Product, Price, Place, Promotion) and it is the P of Promotion that similarly has enjoyed the lion’s share of attention and investment in the Brand Mix.

I wrote, “Life after the 30-second spot” some 13 years ago and in it, I asserted that the 4 P’s have become commoditized. All washing detergents work; all toothpaste cleans; all candy tastes good but is bad for you. Pricing is essentially transparent. Location is ubiquitous. And don’t get me started on the backlash against advertising.

If you think about it, Shann’s 4 variables fit quite nicely into the 4 P’s paradigm:

• consumer reviews would translate into the P of Product AKA you can’t put lipstick on a pig
• e-commerce is probably best aligned with the P of Place
• decline of mass advertising – obviously the P of Promotion
• AI is probably the least obvious, but I guess we can attribute to the P of Price, especially when comparison shopping, recommendations and automated purchasing and renewals make this a much more programmatic decision thread

To be clear, I’m not sure I would necessary “harb” on the same 4 points (I was just reconciling them).

My concern is with the final statement: brands exist because of us and the key word here is “us.” So who is us? It’s not the consumer. It’s Don Draper. It’s the marketing profession and advertising industry who have perpetuated this Wizard of Oz façade for so long, where packaged goods, tires or food are brought to life with animated mascots like Jolly Green Giants or Marshmallow Men or weird Peanut Englishmen trapped in time; where brands make promises but never keep them; where brands are supposed to capture the values, touchpoints, ideals and beliefs of the companies that keep them and yet those same companies are being taken over by private equity cutthroats, cost-cutting and jettisoning brands at alarming regularity; where new “brands” like AirBnB, Uber, Snapchat or Instagram burst onto the scene attracting massive market valuations (or did I mention used zero paid media to build their….brands)

WE created brands. WE kept them alive (and some on life support) by romancing and doubling down on the formulaic narrative. And now WE will need to figure out how to save them.

The fact remains, if brands are to survive, they’re going to need to remain relevant and provide real value to their entire ecosystem and their stakeholders. They’re going to need to evolve. And by definition, evolve implies the openness and ability to adapt to change. And that change will absolutely pivot around distribution, promotion, loyalty and advocacy, R&D, innovation, customer service and more.

Right now, I fear that many of these items are being ignored or neglected at worst, and paid lip service to at best. And if that continues, those same harbingers will be moving on from the death of brands to an even more ominous prediction, the death of corporations.

Oh wait, that’s already happening…

You CAN have it all!

My co-founder and COO of Evol8tion, Gina Waldhorn, just had a baby.

How selfish of her, right?

How on earth could she neglect her startup duties of growing this business in favor of starting a family?

Even worse is that she intends to take off until the end of the year? The Donald is rolling in his grave...and HE'S STILL ALIVE!

My message to her was simple: take the time you need...come back on your terms...you CAN have it all.

When it comes to diversity in the workplace and specifically the conversation about women in the workplace, anyone who tells you this isn't a problem (anymore) is deluded and/or detached. And if they are in a position of authority/power, this kind of attitude is a one-way ticket out of the organization (the larger the organization, the quicker the exit). Just ask Kevin Roberts.

Worse still, you'll get Cindy Gallop on your tail and you do NOT want to make her mad. You wouldn't like her when she's mad.

Don't get me wrong, I miss Gina (already) terribly and it hasn't been a full week. I'll get over it. I have to.

She doesn't need to be physically in this office to lead and maximize her contribution to the company. Not any more. Not in today's times with software solutions like Join.Me, Slack, Dropbox, Google Drive, Skype etc.

If you are a woman, you CAN be a full time mom AND a full time executive without sacrificing one for the other and without spending more time in the process. They are not (or should not be) mutually exclusive; nor are they zero-sum. Work-life balance is inextricably intertwined and interconnected.

Ultimately, quality time should trump quantity time 10 times out of 10, especially with the collateral damage is the opportunity cost of a shorter commute and/or less endless meetings, where the only outcome is to set up another meeting.

Of course, I hope Gina will get bored sooner rather than later. After all, she is a serial entrepreneur and this is her company. Of course, I hope she will ease her way back and pick and choose moments to keep her professionally engaged and stimulated. At the same time, I also need to walk my talk and put my own vision and passion into practice and as that relates to the new way to work...you CAN have it all and she CAN (and WILL) have it all.

Corporations will just need to accept (it's easier and less painful if this is done willingly) that the only way to attract and retain Millennials (I'm not giving away Gina's age) will be to feed their life force (emphasize the word, LIFE) and not micromanage, control and/or smother the ability to dream big, reach higher and maximize potential.

So take your time, Gina...but not too much time, ok?

The 100 Day Challenge: Are you Marketer enough?

How was your year?

Be honest.

Awesome?

You shattered your KPI records? You delivered more from less and more with less? You found inefficiencies and eliminated points of friction across your marketing communications and consumer journey? Your agency brought you bold, fresh, new and innovation ideas? Your procurement department saved you some money without hampering or hindering your creative process? You successfully experimented with several emerging platforms and exciting early stage startups? You attracted and retained talented young Millennials to move your brand forward?

You did? TERRIFIC! You rock! You don't need to continue reading, but I would love it if you would comment below and share your success stories, best practices or next practices and some key learnings with the rest of us constituents.

We need more people like you to step up and share. We need leaders who are gracious enough to help raise the collective bar or rising tide in order to evolve our industry.

For everyone else (and I have a sneaky feeling it's the overwhelming majority), I have some bad news and good news. They're actually both the same: everyone else is in the same boat. So you're not behind but you're not ahead either. That's either exceptionally frightening or empowering depending on how you look it. If the former, you run all the risk in the world to be disintermediated by a direct competitor or even a startup. If the latter, you have everything to gain by making the first move (first mover advantage is not a myth; it's very real)

The choice is ultimately yours.

And the real good news is that there is still time! Not much, but enough to make a difference.

So here's my challenge to you: you have roughly 100 days left in the calendar year. Do something. Do something you've never done before. Not because you can, but because you have to. Actually you can and you should. Maybe you have some of those yummy use-it-or-lose-it funds left over in your budgetary coffers. Maybe you don't, but let's be honest, you can find it if you really want to.

This isn't about money. And besides, it's not yours anyway; it belongs to your shareholders, so why not repay their loyalty with a proof of concept that demonstrates you are genuinely committed to changing with the times.

I can't believe I'm actually quoting #DJT, but "what the hell do you have to lose?" Seriously, what do you have to lose? At worst, you might make a few embedded stalwarts a little uncomfortable.

So take the 100 day challenge, commit to a "Test 'n Learn Combo" (it's #4 on the McDonalds value menu); invest in a pilot or "experiment"; make a commitment to doing something you've never done before (here's the kicker) in a category you unequivocally know (beyond a reasonable doubt) is already - or will soon become - a mission critical sector for your business.

By all means, go it alone should you so desire. Or task it to one of your roster incumbent agencies if you are convinced they'll execute it "better, cheaper, faster." Or why not give a shot to one of the subject matter expert boutiques out there? (Evol8tion is one of them, but I would be just as happy to refer you to another company if you want a shortlist to choose from)

We can always come up with 100 reasons to say no, but why not force yourself to come up with one real reason to say yes. How about ushering in the new year with a win; a data point in a set that will help you triangulate and get to the future...fast...and even first.

How can you say no to that? It's rhetorical.

Will Apple pay the price for innovating too slow?

September 7th is the BIG day!

For what you may ask?

The announcement of the new iPhone 7, dummy!

Oh, yawn!

I guess the real question is whether we care anymore. Or maybe we care too much and just have lost faith with Apple to wow us with the kind of form and function that changed our lives and even the world with the initial launch of the iPod and ultimately iPhone.

As I write this, it's just over 24 hours to go before the "big reveal" (air quotes = sarcasm) and current rumors are slightly better camera, bigger screen coverage to the entire surface, wireless charging, some degree of water resistance and no headphone jack at all (WTF?)

So apparently, the force touch of the 6s didn't exactly set the world on fire. Shocker! What about the other features? I guess the bigger screen coverage is pretty cool although I do like the tactile feel of being able to press a button and have it perform the functions of a button. I'm not sure about the disappearing headphone jack...I absolutely welcome a world of no wires (I probably spend 2-3 hours a day untangling my current headphones); I'm just unclear about the practicality of sticking a bud in my ear and what happens if it falls out...the white wires serve that "safety net" function in a very low-tech way.

I actually think our friends at Samsung have done an exponentially (arguably explosive) better job at out-innovating Apple when it comes to mobile phones. From screen coverage to screen curvature; from retina scans to the stylus option; from wireless charging to wider lenses for selfies.

...but perhaps the one feature that to me becomes the killer app is a phone that doesn't break when you drop it and doesn't fritz when you spill water on it. For me, my nails on a chalkboard moment is seeing self-respecting professionals walking around with a screen so cracked it looks like someone hurled a rock at a mirror (and is subsequently enjoying bad luck as a result).

That accolade belongs to the Droid and Android OS.

Also, before we give too much credit to Samsung, they just recalled 2.5 million (yes, 2.5 MILLION) Galaxy Note 7's, so one step forward, one step back.

I guess the lessons for innovation are as follows:

1. If necessity is the mother of invention, why isn't practicality the father of innovation? Instead of innovating around the wrong features, why not fix the most basic pain points like screens that constantly break
2. When you look at the entire competitive set, I don't think there's any doubt Samsung has innovating the MOST....but is most necessarily best? First mover advantage is not the same as fast mover advantage (and visa versa)
3. Perhaps the real innovation is the new business model and revenue stream associated with pricing leasing models. It's allowed the likes of AT&T to deal direct with its customers and bundle in added value services like insurance (no more Applecare)
4. To that end, small businesses (startups if you like) have mushroomed around the service and repair friction associated with smartphones. Replacing your cracked screen or impotent battery is now truly "better, cheaper, faster."
5. Back to Apple. I don't think Cook v Jobs is necessarily the key barometer when it comes to actual innovation; I DO think it is the ultimate litmus test when it comes to PERCEIVED innovation and our tolerance for mistakes, marginal improvements, deception (delaying the release of key functionality) and getting excited about "meh" features like the launch of Siri. That's what Jobs did so well. In Steve, we trusted. I guess the learning is that you need a strong leader to steady a ship, even if it's bearing for turbulent waters...
6. The iPod saved Apple in my opinion. And the iPhone built on this success. Apple opened the walled garden associated with the iPod OS to welcome in the Microsoft Windows nerds and benefited greatly from the halo. They essentially swapped the walled garden of a device for an entire ecosystem. Right now, features like Airplay make interoperability a dream, but what happens when someone emulates, imitates or makes it likewise just as easy or even easier. Can we see a day where Apple everywhere is replaced with Amazon everywhere? We would be foolish to say no.
7. Back to Jobs. His arrogance was endearing. In his void, any remnant of arrogance is just annoying. Isn't it time for Apple to start listening to its fanboys and girls? Ask us what we want.
8. Or maybe it's OK if Apple looks to the competitive crowd and honors the adage, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Not to belabor the point, but PA-LEASE can we make screens unbreakable...or at the very minimum, less fragile!
9. To be clear, the takeaway for Apple is clear. Pick up the pace, lads. The "S" in your 6-monthly mega-announcements stands for "Shit" (sorry, no less eloquent way to put it.) If you can't innovate quick enough, then change and ultimately manage our expectations. Stop with the whole Orwellian Production under more secrecy than a plot twist on The Walking Dead. Let go of the black turtleneck sweater and tortoise shell glasses and just issue a press release. Or don't and renew your wows (get it?)
10. Maybe we've just come to the end of the line when it comes to innovation around a smartphone. I mean how much bigger can it get? How much better should the camera be? I don't believe that and I don't think you do either. I was watching 60-minutes recently and saw a scientist talking about CERN, The Large Hadron Collider, the Higgs boson or so-called G-d particle and when asked about what might be possible in the future which could include travel to other dimensions, teleportation or other episodes of Star Trek, his response was terrific: You know, if you had asked somebody in 1900, “Do you think we could take a device out of our pocket and push a button or two and talk to your spouse halfway across the world?”

So no to point 10, but maybe or yes to the title of the article.

Related articles

Samsung is delaying shipments of the Galaxy Note 7 following reports of exploding batteries

Galaxy Note 7 recall costs Samsung "heartbreaking amount"

Making Mistakes...On Purpose

Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flatulentry (Instagram copies Snapchat)

As the saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. In the innovation space, that's not always the case...unless of course you're operating in China, where there is no such thing as a barrier to entry

As an entrepreneur, it's a tough game to be able to differentiate and ultimately own a piece of IP, process, algorithm or approach. For starters, it costs a lot of money and deep pockets in terms of resources. Keeping one's hand close to one's chest doesn't work either, where VC's just won't sign NDA's to the extent you would like them to. Founders are often between a rock and a hard place when it comes to putting their ideas "out there" and hoping (even praying) no one steals them.

Then there is Instagram (owned by Facebook) that recently blatantly copied Snapchat with the introduction of Instagram Stories.

I guess I should be grateful, because for the life of me, I just don't get Snapchat or Snapchat Stories. So this gave me an opportunity to get on the Story bandwagon.

It has taken me a while to "find my authentic voice" and I'm still not sure I'm there yet. I'm using it to say "Good morning!" which often entails a snap of the Metro North. Or clips from a training run as part of my journey to run the New York Marathon for a second time. This past weekend, I had a few clips from my day @ Yankee Stadium watching NYCFC beat LA Galaxy 1-0.

I'm enjoying doodling on my photos and videos too.

In general, I'm getting about 100-120 "views" of my story every 24 hours before it disappears into the ether.

I see the usual early adopters and influencers getting on the bandwagon too (David Armano, CC Chapman, iJustine)

When I see kids (as opposed to overgrown children) on it, they're generally just telling people to add them on Snapchat, which seems like a giant "Up Yours!"

So that's what I'm seeing. Here's what I'm NOT seeing: as many actual Instagram updates as before...

In other words, I'm wondering whether this is actually having an adverse effect on Instagram's core product and equity; cannibalizing the very value proposition that catapulted Instagram into our lives, namely giving amateur humans with average cameras on their smartphone the ability to create extraordinary photos with filters and apps.

Look, if there's one thing I've learned in this space is that you don't write off the 800-pound gorillas. Well, that and the fact Woolly Mammoths no longer exist AKA the bigger they come, the harder they fall (see: Twitter) Our default emotion is normally set to "rage" when it comes to backlash against any decision taken by the main tech players when they DARE to change even the most teeniest tiniest detail of their FREE UI, dashboard, design, button and/or functionality...and this rage typically subsides after a while.

So in other words, while it's probably foolish to short your Facebook stock on the singular condition of Instagram copying Snapchat, I also would pause for a moment to consider why Instagram felt it necessary to have to dilute, devalue and possibly downgrade their core offering and cash cow in the process.

Perhaps the big winner is Snapchat as they are further validated as the authentic and de facto platform of the younger Millennial/Gen Z'er, who would much rather post disposable snaps of themselves puking out rainbows than worry about tilt shift, early bird or sharpen.

PS I am enjoying Instagram founder, @kevin's story of his bike ride through France though :)

Why I Am (Probably) Coming Back to SXSW Interactive Next Year

Jason Schlossberg wrote an opinion piece in Ad Age last week, titled, "Why I am (Probably) Not Coming Back to SxSW Interactive Next Year." 

The sub-head was "Four Reasons Why Discovering Something New is Getting Harder at Event." and they were:

1. The biggest technological innovations right now are invisible.
2. It doesn't seem like anyone waits to launch things at SXSW anymore.
3. This year it is all about ed and med (and robots).
4. "Innovation" is everyone's business today -- or is it?

He ends with the following paragraph:

So is it still worth attending SXSW Interactive? If you've never been, then I say yes. But if you already have then I say, maybe. It's simply no longer the requirement that it once was. I'm not sure that I am leaving any more informed or inspired than I would be reading about it from afar. Having said all of that, I still had a great time. I met and reconnected with many good friends and colleagues -- most of whom, ironically, live in New York City like I do. And Austin is itself an extremely inspiring place to visit. But I (probably) won't be back next year.

So kudos to him for a) getting my attention, b) being smart about covering his a$$ with the word (probably) #fomo and c) getting his piece published in Ad Age.

Personally I disagree with him. Respectfully of course.

To address his points:

1. Not always. I met the founder of Kapture who gave me his wearable device that allows me to go back in time 60 seconds at a time. I'm not joking.
2. Tell that to Mr Robot who launched last year and followed it up with an even bigger activation this year. Mr Robot has had an incredible award-winning and ratings-winning year
3. ...and VR (and robots or Mr Robot)
4. It should be, but the reality is that it's the first budget to get cut and the level of innovation at companies is still abysmal

...and to his concluding paragraph, I actually think it's a lot harder for virgins than grizzled old timers. First timers tend to get overwhelmed with the tyranny of too much choice. They cram too much into a day, spend too much money with third party vendors that "program" their itineraries to a fault where serendipity and chance are pretty much eradicated, are disappointed when they are turned away from sessions that are too full, spend too much time waiting in lines and haven't discovered "The Onion" yet.

I went solo this year and never found myself wanting for a second to find stimulating conversation from random people I bumped into, mutual admirers I finally met like Mark Schaefer or old friends I reconnected with like C.C. Chapman.

I went determined to be positive at all times and my litmus test was to have 1 quality conversation with 1 quality person at every venue. Like George Costanza (in the Seinfeld episode where he cracks a joke in the meeting and when everyone roars with laughter he ups and leaves on a high), when that happened I would leave and go to the next soiree (even if I had been there for less than 30 minutes).

Jason is right...you do tend to connect with people who are a stone's throw away in the very city you live or work, but sometimes it takes getting out of the madness and chaos to find the time to have genuine conversations, like my breakfast with R/GA on Sunday morning for example.

So what was "the next big thing" at SxSW this year? From what I heard, it was Snapchat as a messaging platform. I missed that memo. Perhaps it was the fact my cellphone worked so well (and the connection problems from previous years was just a thing of the past). I also discovered "Low Power Mode" on my iPhone which is my new favorite function...that and "Night Shift" (but you can't use them together).

Actually, my big takeaway this year was one word: TALENT. I was blown away by how many BIG companies (from blue chip brands to agencies or management consultancies) set up their lavish activations with a primary goal of using it as a recruitment tool (and I suppose retention as well). Makes total sense when you think of the tech savvy, influencers and Millennial talent "on show".

On the flipside, I continue to be appalled by the LACK of vision from the same Fortune 500 brands and service companies who DO NOT invest in sending their people to SxSW. You would be shocked at how many people were NOT there because their companies wouldn't pay for it, or worse still...they were there ON THEIR OWN DIME.

I don't believe SxSW has jumped the shark...well, not any more or less than in every previous year that I've been going down to Austin. SxSW is what you make of it and what you put in is almost always what you get out. 

I had moments of serendipity like sitting next to Bryan Bundesen, the founder of legendary Grumpy Cat, two years running on the plane coming into Austin and he kindly gave me ride into town or seeing an ignorant bouncer refuse VIP entry to Steve Case at a startup event (oops). Or blowing off MDC and IAB's brunches in favor of watching Spurs beat Aston Villa at NBC Sports Experience at the Four Seasons. Come on you Spurs!

I'm probably with Jason that I didn't necessarily learn anything new this year, but then again I never do. Rather, I get inspired by networking with amazing, diverse, talented and visionary people. Some of it sticks. Some of it disappears into the Red Bull and Vodka void of too many late night cocktails...but I always emerge just a little excited about the possibilities that lie ahead.

And for that, I (probably) will be back next year.

P.S. Jason, we should connect as we're both in NYC. Or better yet, let's meet in Austin next year :)

Donald J. Trump is the Ultimate Z.E.R.O. Marketing Case Study

In Flip the Funnel, I outlined Obama '08 as one of the best in class case studies exemplifying what it is to deploy a "retention as the new acquisition" inside-out approach to marketing. Little did I know, I would be turning to politics once again to demonstrate and validate my* 4th book, "Z.E.R.O."

Donald J. Trump - hate him or love him - and I will keep my personal opinion separate to this piece (you just need to visit my Facebook page to see what I really think) has shown without much wiggle room or doubt the power of "Z.E.R.O. Paid Media as the New Marketing Model".

Before I continue, let me just state a point which I think is clear and obvious: Have any doubt in the assertion that Paid Media is on the precipitous decline - or just plain doesn't work - why not look towards the political process itself? Think about a race where both candidates are spending obscene amount on paid media. One is going to to win and one is going to lose. And so if you're going to point to the efficacy of paid media in helping one candidate declare victory, then surely you need to declare paid media as being completely ineffective and wasteful in the loser's failed quest...

Oh I know where you're about to head...you're going to blame the "message" vs the "medium" Stupid creative! Be more persuasive next time (to the tune of Homer Simpson)!

Still fighting me? Of course you are...you're going to blame the "product" versus the advertising and possibly cite that ridiculous and pathetic excuse, "there's no better way to kill a bad product than with great advertising."

Hey, I'm just demonstrating that paid media is not the panacea it once was. Don't shoot the messenger (regardless of your position on the second amendment) 

Hang on, you're still protesting that the political bubble is unique and is not representative of the real world. You're right...it's much simpler than the cluttered, noising SKU-infested REAL world of toothpaste, detergent, cellular providers, cars and home mortgages where the tyranny of choice makes life damn near impossible for you.

...and now we return you to our regularly schedule program, the reality show that is Donald J Drumpf.

The Donald might as well be called "The Dude" when it comes to playing the system; the media; and well, playing you as well with a simple spin on "Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words will never harm me." 

As a conspiracy theory aside, I've wondered whether he was always trying to pull of a Verbal on us by pulling off the greatest MEDIA con in the history of the business...using the MEDIA as the perfect conduit and weapon of mass distraction. I always felt there was going to be an A-HA reveal; a gotcha....but it never came. The Jimmy Kimmel skit with Producers' Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick was not far off. 

Perhaps Trump was looking to further his brand, which he currently values at $3bn! 

...and then, when the media, together with the gullible, desperate and/or dumb populous lapped up the rhetoric and did not immediately reject and regurgitate it in disgust, something weird happened: he either started to believe his own lies (a common side effect of narcissism) or unequivocably did not and instead doubled-, tripled- and quadrupled-down on nonsense in an attempt to shock the body to reject its host.

Think about it: xenophobia, bigotry, veiled threats of murder, racism and EVEN TAKING ON THE POPE!!!! Nothing seems to work (and here I type this on Super Tuesday...gee, I wonder how today is going to go No surprise, he did pretty well.)

Personally, I think - I KNOW - that should he be offered "The final rose", he will break our hearts by telling us he is not in love with us...but in fact with someone else (HIMSELF) and reject our proposal. 

So what does this have to do with Zero Paid Media as the New Marketing Model? Besides, everything???

• Z.E.R.O. states that in a perfect world, the optimal paid media budget would be zero.
• Why would you need to pay for attention if you're paying attention?
• Why be a tenant (renting media) when you can be a landlord (owning and monetizing assets)?

...oh and Trump knows a thing or two about being a landlord for what it's worth.

Z.E.R.O. is also an acronym for Zealots, Entrepreneurship, Retention and Owned Assets and Trump comes up "trumps" in the Zealots (can you say Trumpets?), Entrepreneurship (the American dream is not to make it...not make it great...again) and Owned Assets categories.

The earned media he's received is beyond compare. It's priceless. This is content strategy at its best. Or worst. Or best.

Whilst I still don't think he is going to become President, it doesn't really matter at this stage. He has proven that "telling it like it is" is less about telling the truth and more about being a mirror or lens reflecting what - some - people are really thinking. And isn't that what a brand is at the end of the day? Nothing more than a mirror or reflection of a company's values, beliefs, and principles and a projection or connection to the people it hopes to serve, service or sell to?

This might be a good time to purchase a copy of Z.E.R.O. - it's purchase price is less than the average contribution to Bernie Sanders and 100% of the proceeds is going to go towards burying the asbestos-laded "Make America Great Again" caps (well then ones that don't go to the Smithsonian)

...but in all seriousness, Donald J Trump has shown - beyond the shadow of a doubt - that power of Advocacy multiplied to the power of the ultimate asset, one's mouth.

He's right you know: we wouldn't be talking about this stuff without him. You know, like racism. Real racism...not like #oscarssowhite. And I'm as guilty as the next. I still have 9 unplayed episodes of Homeland to watch...can't get to them as I'm watching the new reality show hit; the new must-see TV, CNN.

I leave you with the words of CBS head honcho, Les Moonves: It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS. 

Yes, the media could just stop reporting on this. Yes we could just stop watching, but we can't. Forget "Yes, we can"; the new normal, is "No, we can't!" (stop watching)

We're all disciplies of the Church of Z.E.R.O.

Amen. Hallelujah!

P.S.. Thank you Drumpf for curing my writer's block!

Photo credit: Designcrowd.com

* actually our as in co-authored by my ex-client and current-friend, Maarten Albarda

Jaffe Juice #181 - Up Periscope with Jaffe and Joel

My brother-from-another-mother, Mitch Joel (a 2-time best-selling author with 6 Pixels of Separation and Ctrl-Alt-Delete, as well as a successful entrepreneur, having recently sold his agency, Twist Image to WPP) get together once a month to do a healthy debate about the state of the agency business, creativity, innovation or whatever is on our mind. We put this out on our respective podcasts (Jaffe Juice and 6 Pixels of Separation.)

In this episode we discuss live and streaming (they are not the same thing), the rise of Periscope (and fall of Meerkat) and a few zings on pundits and punditry to boot.

Give it a listen by downloading or listening here. Or you can subscribe to the show here.

The Agency is Dead. Long live the Agency!

My brother-from-another-mother, Mitch Joel (a 2-time best-selling author with 6 Pixels of Separation and Ctrl-Alt-Delete, as well as a successful entrepreneur, having recently sold his agency, Twist Image to WPP) get together once a month to do a healthy debate about the state of the agency business, creativity, innovation or whatever is on our mind. We put this out on our respective podcasts (Jaffe Juice and 6 Pixels of Separation.)

We are now bringing this to life...by pitching a live panel at next year's SxSW Interactive Festival in Austin, Texas...and we need to rock the vote! 

Here's Mitch's blog post, which is so perfect I have essentially cut and pasted the whole damn thing :)

How will agencies attract and retain talent, when so many young marketing professionals are working for major brands, startups or companies like Snapchat?

It's time to debate, resolve and figure out the future of the agency model. Are you with me? Are you ready for a heated conversation? The venue has already been determined, but an event of this magnitude will not happen without your vote! We are hoping to make this happen at South by Southwest 2016... but it can't happen WITHOUT YOUR VOTE! 

Here's the set-up/context:  

Do you believe that if David Ogilvy or Bill Bernbach were alive today that they would be quaking in their boots? Right now, they're probably rolling around in their graves at the current reality. Is it possible that their beloved agencies could very well be a thing of the past? The world has changed so much. Today, Cannes Lions is run - not by creatives - but by the Facebooks, Twitters and Googles of the world. Can agencies survive this perfect storm? Will they prove to be the consummate cockroaches, and adapt... or will they die a slow and painful death (and will anyone notice or care)? Jaffe and I will argue the pros and the cons, and make the case as to the rise, fall and possibly even the resurrection of the endangered species known as "The Agency." We may even add some very special guests to this lively conversation.

Will you help us out and vote for this event to take place?

Joel and I will also answer the following questions:

1. How will agencies win the talent wars, when so many young stars are joining startups, tech companies, publishers or going to work directly for brands? 
2. What will agencies need to do to survive, as it relates to investing in technology, doing startup collaborations and/or seeking out new revenue streams? 
3. What's the best way to connect and build relationships with agencies (as a startup, vendor, tech provider), or is it better to go direct to the client?
4. What are the forces at play that are working against the agency model?
5. Which agencies have done the hard work of future-proofing their business models?
6. How will the major advertising and communications networks adapt?

Now, it's your turn.

Will you please support this panel by heading over to the SXW panel picker and voting for it (you will need to register regardless if you are planning on attending the event or not)?

I will also ask that you share this out with your network as well. There are also direct Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn buttons on the panel page.

Mitch and I know that this will be an exciting event, so we are very hopeful that you will play a small role in making it happen, by voting for us and sharing it with your community.

• We will be looking to add in a few surprises / easter eggs into the panel i.e. surprise guests.
• In addition we are thinking about a meet-up/event later that night so we can continue the conversation post-panel.
• Even if you can't make, we'll make sure there is a streaming solution so you can "beam in"

Let's make this happen!

2 episodes of Jaffe Juice - The New Marketing Podcast on Tech, Talent and Creativity

Hello strangers...

How about 2 episodes of Jaffe Juice - The New Marketing Podcast for the price of Z.E.R.O.? No actually, zero.

Plus you get Mirum's Mitch Joel as value add.

The first episode is #179 where we discuss the Wall Street Journal article, Tech Firms Pull Talent Away From Ad Agencies. 

You can listen live by left clicking or download by right clicking here

The second episode is #180 where we do an armchair quarterback deconstruction, unpacking, post-mortem of Cannes 2016. And yes, there is some bitterness, jealousy, cynicism and good old fashioned ranting as well. 

You can listen live by left clicking or download by right clicking here

Image credit