In this episode of our monthly debates, Mitch and I tackled the "Rise of Machines" i.e. automation of marketing & advertising versus "How do you Scale Humanity?" with respect to investing in talent and "humans" to serve "other humans." It's The Matrix meets Sixth Sense. Creepy! @mitchjoel and @jaffejuice
Listen live or download here.
Subscribe to the show via iTunes here
Photo credit: Bigstock Photo
It's hard to resist making this a looooooooooooong post, so instead I'll do my best to be as brief and succinct as possible, so here goes...
My good friend and ex-client, Maarten Albarda and I are co-authoring a book together. It's my 4th book (after Life after the 30-second spot, Join the Conversation and Flip the Funnel) and Maarten's first. Besides sharing the same vision and passion for the subject, we're bringing a 1-2 punch to the table in the form of advertising-agency perspective on the giant elephant in the room: media or rather paid media.
The book is called z.e.r.o. and the sub-title, "zero paid media as the new marketing model" kind of says it all (and in less than 140 characters).
The book posits that in a perfect world, your paid media budget would be z.e.r.o. - literally, but also figuratively in the form of an acronym which stands for Zealots (advocacy), Entrepreneurship (innovation), Retention (customer centricity) and Owned Assets (moving from tenant to landlord)
On one hand, it's me returning to my "Life after" roots, but on the other other (and more poignantly), it's our set up of our premonition of a perfect storm approaching in marketing; one in which the bottom could conceivably fall out of the media model. Fortunately, the world is not perfect and change takes longer than we expect, but then again...just look at how your world has changed in the past few years to validate the fact that sitting and doing nothing is not a viable solution.
For me, it's a bold move for two reasons:
Kickstarter component:
We just pre-launched the book and Kickstarter campaign at the Festival of Media in Montreux, but here's the crazy part...in just over 24 hours after I hit the publish button (in stealth mode), we've almost hit our initial funding goal of $10,000. With your help, we'll push this over the edge and see how far we can take it.
The wild thing is that the book will become it's own case study insofar that it will demonstrate how we were able to self-publish our book for "z.e.r.o." by tapping into our advocates and leveraging our owned assets. It's U.N.M.2.P.N.M. circa 2005 retooled for 2013.
So...if you're part of my community and/or appreciate my content, show your support on Kickstarter with the pledge amount (or more if your heart desires). I will post regular updates over the 6 week period to acknowledge my backers (which would be you)
And all things being equal, Z.E.R.O. will launch in September of 2013 and will contain the 10-point action plan towards implementing this bold vision towards helping marketing evolve, normalize and allocate scarce resources to a re-prioritized hierarchy of connection points.
Daily Double Dose of Jaffe Juice podcast (especially for those asking where they've been)
The first is one of the semi-regular podcast debates with Mitch Joel. This one is on "The New Creativity".
Click here to download/listen.
Join the Conversation dammit (it's not a cliche when I coined the term and wrote the book on it!) @jaffejuice on Twitter and @mitchjoel on Twitter.
The second is an interview with friend, podcasting veteran and now author, John Wall, where we discuss his new book, "B2B Marketing Confessions."
Click here to download/listen.
Follow John Wall on Twitter.
And be sure to forward this to any brand marketers you think would benefit from the discussion and ultimately give their perspective on the theme at hand.
Subscribe to the show via iTunes here
My first Online Spin article, where I revisit good old Second Life as an analogy to present day commitment to startups by brands. It's all about patience, commitment, perseverance and staying the course, but more importantly, it's about recognizing that brands (and not the media) have the power to make the difference in terms of an emerging platform.
I guess I was called a “Second Life booster” back in the day -- and guess what, I was OK with that. I still am. As an early adopter (professionally) in the virtual world of Second Life, I witnessed firsthand the highs and lows; how the press initially went gaga over it, and then turned their back, to the point of making it their personal vindictive mission to destroy evidence of any self-created hype.
Perhaps my former company’s island of crayonville was a utopian oasis that existed in the eye of the storm. Perhaps our “Virtual Thirst” foray for our client, Coca-Cola, was the exception to the norm, since the brand did not (like many others in the early days of Second Life) get pelted with flying penises for its troubles.
In many respects, we were witnessing a mini-bubble being artificially pumped up and then burst in spectacular fashion. And all the while, real people were making real money -- admittedly, doing unreal things.
Virtual worlds, gaming environments, augmented reality, avatars and 3D simulation should not be alien terms to you. It should not come as a surprise that these items once coexisted in perfect harmony with each other, along with red dragons and drag queens. What might surprise you is my assertion that brands were to blame for the demise of Second Life.
Can you imagine if Christopher Columbus had looked out his telescope at the “New World” only to see angry, strange-looking people with painted faces and ornate head dressings waving native weapons -- and subsequently turned around to head back to Europe?
Sound familiar? It should be, because it’s the same scenario that happened in Second Life. And I hope it doesn’t happen again with respect to collaborating with startups.
These days, brands have become enamored with the next bright and shiny object, namely conducting tests or experiments with startups. Only startups aren’t some passing fad, gimmick, flavor of the month or test tube guinea pig. Collectively, they represent value propositions or utilities that disrupt norms, challenge conventions and move markets. Only they won’t get to realize their vision -- their proof of concept -- if brands continue to hold them at arm’s length, dispatching their agency minions to negotiate the impossible “big ideas at scale.”
Innovative and unprecedented executions are absolutely doable. It falls apart when brands turn away because the reach isn’t there -- or, put differently, they can’t measure or compare these “startlings” to incumbent blunt instruments like TV, radio, print or even online.
My message to brands is very simple: don’t be turned off startups’ lack of reach. In fact, this should turn you on! You’re dealing with the most fertile real estate, untouched and unspoiled by the “masses” (even your competitors). You have the incredible opportunity to help them achieve their path to reach with your brand dollars, talent, resources and media.
You have the unique chance to join forces with them at the earliest possible stage to co-create and own that big idea.
And, irony of ironies, you have Second Life to thank.
“You’re welcome!” – Divo Dapto
I am so behind in terms of posting my Mediapost columns to Jaffe Juice and so here begins a systematic catch-up of two articles per week until I'm up to speed again. I've also since moved to a bi-monthly schedule where I'm writing for "The Online Spin" on MediaPost.
Here's my article titled, "Key Leg in Start-Up Equation: Marketing"
The start-up world is build on a two-legged platform of technology and finance. If you don’t believe me, just watch Bravo’s "Start-ups: Silicon Valley," which does its best to tell a story about VCs raising capital and bootstrapping a new venture, together with the freaky and geeky world of engineers, programmers and developers.
Only that story is incomplete. There’s actually a third leg, which you don’t get to hear about. Perhaps you’ll catch a fleeting glimpse of a throwaway “marketing” or “sales” reference, but for the most part, it’s conspicuously absent in this show, industry and market in general.
I would argue — and I am a Madison Avenue guy who eats, sleeps and breathes brands — that the marketing leg is the most important part of the entire equation. Yet, it’s the one that is the most undervalued, underinvested, underutilized and misunderstood.
Most start-ups have the same visions (or sometimes delusions) of grandeur: We’ll get big fast because everyone will just go crazy sharing us with their friends, fans and followers on Facebook, Twitter and whatever else is popular at the time. Then we’ll monetize by selling ads — or just sell to Facebook, Twitter or whatever else is popular at the time.
That statement is fraught with holes and gaping voids, and it begins with the disconnect between today’s empowered consumer and their absolute disgust for interruptive advertising, banal messaging and irrelevant spam.
Contrary to popular belief, brands aren’t lining up waiting to advertise on the 1000th photo app to call themselves the “Instagram of….” Or “Instagram meets….” Hell, they’re barely doing anything on Instagr.am itself.
Brands are trapped within their own identity crisis, trying to figure out whether their start-up infatuation is a one-night stand or something more profound; whether it’s a quantity (scale) or quality (engagement) play; whether their metrics of success are ROI-based (return on investment) or ROI-based (return on innovation).
Then there’s the scope and scale of a “test”, “experiment” or pilot program. Brands are typically noncommittal when it comes to investing anything beyond chump change into a start-up desperate to get some proof of concept and validation. On the flipside, there are way too many start-ups that see an abundance of $-signs when a brand and/or their agency pays them a visit.
The Wild West is back, and the biggest problem is a lack of rules (of engagement), process and set of best practices, upon which to build a solid and enduring bridge of collaboration and mutual benefit.
I believe the meeting of the minds happens in the win-win wheelhouse of marketing. Ultimately, this is where both sides see eye-to-eye. Digital or technology based start-ups are founded on the basis and belief of being able to solve a problem (sit or squat), correct a market inefficiency (uber) and/or change the game (square). Brands couldn’t agree more, especially when it comes to delivering against a consumer insight, human truth and customer benefit.
No one wants a three-legged stool with a wobbly, weakened and/or uneven leg. Isn’t it time we shored up the marketing component of this succinct and compelling equation in order to ensure that start-up monetization, acceleration and evolution is balanced and counterbalanced with brand innovation, differentiation and transformation?
That’s rhetorical. The answer is yes.
Catching up on Mediapost articles post-Thanksgiving. This one is all about the future of bricks 'n mortar stores. Hint: It's all digital. Sort of.
I just returned from London, where I gave a keynote presentation on Flip the Funnel and how customer service and customer experience will become the key strategic differentiator in an increasingly commoditized world.
The next day, I witnessed complete validation of this hypothesis.
As I was walking down Piccadilly, I passed an Audi showroom unlike any I had seen before. In fact, it’s the first concept store of its kind for the brand in the world. The showroom was exceptionally clean, with one or two models on the white floor. No desks. No papers. No chairs. Several color coordinated, well-dressed salespeople. Several interactive kiosks. And wall-to-wall giant synchronized TV screens.
I proceeded to customize my swanky new S5 convertible using the interactive kiosks and with an effortless swipe, I was able to project my configured car onto the big screen. I was also able to swivel the car using gestures on the kiosk, but I was just get started.
Using Microsoft’s Kinect technology, I was able to use my body as a joystick or mouse. I could take down the roof and watch it roll back in real time. I watched the car drive off and come back to rest with surround sound emulating the actual sounds of the car. I was truly surrounded by a realistic experience of what it might feel like to drive an Audi S5 Convertible.
There were other gadgets, bells and whistles, like the ability to save my session to a USB and whenever I returned, pick up where I left off.
The experience was terrific, but what really blew me away was the epiphany that bricks-and-mortar stores were not dead, but alive and kicking. They were about to go through an incredible revival or even renaissance.
There were those who once said (and I’m probably one of them) that bricks-and-mortar stores were endangered species, and that everyone would shift to online shopping, customization and commerce. There were also those who said (I was not one of them) that no one would ever move to digital channels to purchase things like clothing, homes or cars.
As it turns out, they were both wrong.
What I witnessed in this London showroom was the future of retail: a holistic, immersive physical digital experience. One in which human beings still played a key role. The best of all worlds.
In that moment, I realized that purchasing cars online is not the optimal experience. It just isn’t possible to get an accurate or lifelike feeling of what it must be like to drive an Audi S5. The most accurate experience would come from actually driving one — a test drive — but what I witnessed was pretty damn close.
I believe the future of bricks-and-mortar stores is a bright one if – and only if – it is anchored around a core digital experience and supported by humans.
Not only for traditional brands, but pure plays as well. For example, I expect to see an Amazon.com store in the near future; one without a single piece of merchandise in it. Why would you need a book, when everything can be swiped, synced and swooshed into your Kindle? I expect Barnes & Noble to be out of business if they cannot figure out a way — quickly — to emulate the Audi showroom and in the process, get rid of as many dust-gathering books (and space) as possible.
People might continue to window show online using their screens as nose warmers, but when they want to actually buy, there’s a lot to be said for getting off their rear ends and making the physical commitment to get into a store.
It’s back to the future, baby. With one hell of an ironic twist.
My weekly Mediapost article (I'm playing catch up due to travels, Hurrican Sandy and the Election) about the importance of timing, luck and context when it comes to innovation, investing in social or emerging media and experimentation in general.
Here's the full text:
Timing is everything. It really is.
The concept of being in the right place at the right time is probably a combination of inextricable luck (the odds) and substantial skills (preparation). That's why you may have heard the phrase “luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.”
What about bad luck then? Being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the exact same thing as before, but in reverse? Dumb luck, I suppose? Could it be equally valid to say that bad luck is the product of inexperience, bad planning or poor skills? Perhaps.
Timing is an integral part of every facet of our lives. From cooking to investing in the stock market; from swinging a bat to diagnosing an illness. So why is it we suck so royally at it when it comes to business?
On the customer service side, we do a lousy job of being able to spot potential P.R. minefields early and prevent them from escalating into full-blown crisis communication nightmares.
On the hiring side, our timing is all out of whack. We scramble to hire like rabid dogs during good times and then can’t issue pink slips fast enough when the tide turns.
On the planning side, we’ve set ourselves up to fail miserably as we adopt elongated processes designed to predict a stable future in a completely unpredictable, unstable present.
On the measurement side, we are slaves to exceptionally short-term metrics and benchmarks designed to deliver quick fixes and instant gratification.
Whatever happened to Vince Lombardi’s “in my entire life, I never lost a single game; I just ran out of time” when it comes to patience prevailing and staying the course?
Even business moguls like Rupert Murdoch are guilty of bad calls, with infamous quotes like, “I was just hoping that Internet thing would pass.”
I visit with some of the biggest companies and brands on this planet and almost without exception, I witness the same common threads across most (and sometimes all) corporations. The most troubling as it relates to timing is an acute lack of “endurance” — the will to persevere and prevail.
Actually, strike that. The most troubling is a blatant conflict of interest; executives are treading water in the hopes of making it through their tenure without having to commit to any form of change, innovation or calculated risk. After all, these days no one every got fired for putting Facebook on the plan. (They once said that about TV!)
My advice to executives struggling to cope with technology-based change and specifically how to plan, execute, measure and optimize from a timing standpoint is to keep the following two statements in mind, especially when requesting funding and managing expectations in terms of interim and final success:
Just because it worked yesterday, doesn’t mean it’ll work tomorrow.
Just because it didn’t work yesterday, doesn’t mean it won’t work tomorrow.
The first statement is straight forward enough and pays off both the reliance on the “tried and tested," as well as the volatility of how constant change can create continuous flux.
The second statement, however, is a little more tricky and esoteric. It challenges and encourages us to believe in ourselves; to honor the importance of Test. Learn. Evolve. To try and try again, if at first you don’t succeed, and to recognize that sometimes, we’re ahead of our time. Ultimately, we need to commit ourselves to innovation and stay the course.
As my countryman Gary Player once said, “The more I practice; the luckier I get." And that’s the kind of timing that is as much art (the swagger) as it is science (the swing).
Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/184842/the-thing-about-timing.html#ixzz2C1AnRJUJ
Photo credit
My latest Mediapost column (actually from last week) is all about our lack of understanding and misuse of how to leverage the power of social media, community and conversation - epitomized by the hashtag. In this article, I reference Jimmy Kimmel's "prank" on the Emmy Awards, attempting to hijack twitter flash mob style.
Here's the full text, but of course you can view it on Mediapost (and comment there or here if you like):
On Sunday night’s Emmy Awards, host Jimmy Kimmel, “pranked” the unsuspecting Twitterverse with the following ruse: he got Tracey Morgan to come up from the audience (all spontaneous of course) and essentially play dead by lying on the floor of the stage (oh, the dignity). Then he encouraged hundreds of millions of viewers to Facebook or Tweet something to the effect of “OMG Tracey Morgan just passed out on stage at the Emmys. Turn ABC on now.”
According to EOnline, “the prank blew up online,” with “OMG Tracey Morgan” becoming a hot topic online, registering 54,000 tweets. (I searched their source, Topsy Free Analytics and found around 15,000 tweet.) It also registered an increase of 127,300% of Tracey Morgan mentions on Facebook at the exact moment Kimmel uttered his innovative breath.
So what did we learn? Tracey Morgan has a baseline level of conversation on Facebook at around zero!
To me, the real experiment was to test to what degree people were watching live versus time-shifting. Only the live watchers would have been participated, with their networks jumping on the Retweet bandwagon. By inference, those time shifting would have been avoiding Twitter -- to avoid spoilers.
So would this “stunt” drive tune in, which really is about the only thing anyone in the broadcast business should be concerned about? All the rest is nothing but noise or “clutter.”
May I have the envelope please: This year’s Emmy Awards registered 13.3 million viewers, up 6% from last year, but down 10% among adults 18-49, which tied a record low from 2008, when the show registered a record-low audience of 12.3 million. Some 4.9 million of them were 18-49. That’s an abysmal 37% of total viewers falling into the coveted demographic.
Even if the goal of the experiment was to gauge engagement, we’re talking about 0.4% of total viewers -- taking the higher tweet estimate and running on the assumption that every tweet was unique, which we know it wasn’t.
So, no. Not exactly the smash hit capable of catapulting this year’s Emmy’s into the Hall of Fame. At best, it's the tweet that saved the Emmy’s from catastrophe. Kimmel, who is terrific, should stick to his “viral” successes, which are less about innovative approaches to digital or social and more about producing great content, which today -- more than ever before -- are capable of being embraced, shared and distributed to every corner of the world in nanoseconds.
The Kimmel-Morgan prank is sadly just another example of how we’re trying to force fit our tired old ways into new forms and formats; how we’re incrementally tweaking an approach instead of blowing the whole thing up and making an exponential leap of educated faith.
Case in point is the plague of hashtags used in broadcast from #telljimmy Iovene on "American Idol" -- why? -- to Nancy Grace’s #CrockPotWifeKiller. Seriously?
Hashtags are truly an evolution in syntax and vernacular. From a function(al) standpoint, it’s a smart and efficient categorization taxonomy of conversation, which is easily searchable and findable. From a form standpoint, it’s a creative and colloquial way of self-expression: #justsayin #toomuchinformation
Hashtags really will change the way we communicate with each other. They already have. That said, we are in danger of poisoning the drinking waters with our overwhelming obsession to control, force and contrive every last bit of humanity out of what is still in its absolute infancy.
When I watch TV, I want to lean back and submit to a great story. It’s no surprise that these days, the only way to find great script is to go beyond the broadcast networks, which seem to be trying to cover as much of the screen as possible with #hashtags.
And for what purpose? Driving tune-in? If so, where’s the call-to-action, incentive or even Tracey Morgan cadaver? I’d like to challenge anyone working for the networks to share their vision, objective, method to the madness and/or metrics associated with their social media integration and use of hashtags.
While we’re waiting for their response, Tracey you can get up now and dust off your tux.
Dry cleaning is on ABC.
Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/184042/the-hashtag-for-this-article-will-be-hashtag.html?edition=51887#ixzz28zhN32Hj
I began my thought leadership/writing career with a column on Mediapost and so it is fitting to return to the scene of the crime so to speak for a new weekly column on all things Innovation.
My primary focus will be on technology-led innovation, which is about as wide and deep as the blue ocean (digital, social, mobile, emerging, startups etc), but I hope to also dial into true originality, disruptive thinking and creative flair as it relates to the ability to tell stories, surprise and delight (some might call it classic advertising...or at least my good friend Don would)
Mediapost were very kind to write up this piece, which outlines my return to weekly thought leadership columns and also gives a pretty good update on my update so to speak.
And so without further ado, my first piece which is a context setter/manifesto of sorts, outlining why now has never been as good a time to be focusing on the convergence between Madison Avenue and Mountain View...
Survival demands Innovation and Creativity
A war is being waged.
Its crusaders are the passionate pioneers that represent a new marketing reality never seen before in history. This is the story of the evolution of the Internet -- and its progression from a superficial flavor of the month to quite possibly, the most profound weapon ever presented to the treasure-chest of the marketing community.
The war in question is a war against ignorance and those who resist change. It is being fought on two playing fields, by two very different armies. Their insignias are the head and the heart. Progress has been varied.
The infantry of the head, earmarked by research, data, metrics and media has emerged victorious.
The warriors of the heart, however, have not fared as well. Along the way, there have been many casualties, but when the dust settled, the brave and the dedicated creative community stood firm, supremely focused on their prime directive: to win the battle for the heart.
I wrote that blurb in 2004 when I put together a roadshow called “The Battle for the HeArt”. You’ll notice that I capitalized the A in Heart, as this was about art; the right brain; creativity…or the lack thereof in the online space. My position was that online was dominated by science; the left brain; analytics; metrics.
And in the vacuum, was an infinite void of desolate inspiration.
Battle for the HeArt was a Creative Roadshow, designed to celebrate, uplift and showcase the best online creative you’d never seen or perhaps had, but you couldn’t quite articulate or put your finger on exactly what made it unique or special.
The show lasted two years and save for the fact I founded my first company, crayon, it would have continued. Interestingly enough, 2006’s Battle (the third year) would have been sub-branded as Madison + Mountain View (I even registered the URL www.madisonandmountainview.com, with a positioning that the future of advertising lay in technology.)
It’s kind of sad and even pathetic that we’re asking the same questions today. We're questioning the lack of creativity and innovation in the online space. It’s not too late for an intervention though, but I fear that soon enough, it will be unless we inject a good dose of truly game-changing digital whoopass into the mix.
My antidote is the intersection of technology and advertising; Mountain View meets Madison Avenue. I’ll use Albert Einstein's famous quote to illustrate my point: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
Dictionary.com defines creativity as “productive originality.”
Originality = Doing things Differently
Productive = Getting a Result
“Doing things differently to get a result” is, in fact, the exact opposite of doing the same thing over and over again to get a different result. So it hit me: Creativity is the solution to insanity; the remedy to mediocrity and status quo.
Similarly, the dictionary defines innovation as new approaches that achieve positive outcomes. Is it coincidence that this is a synonym for creativity? I think not.
I think this underscores that the future of marketing is a digital one, a tech-laden one. Brands have got to innovate in order to evolve and arguably, survive. I believe that the intersection between marketing and start-ups is one way to mix together creativity and innovation into a powerful cocktail.
The catch perhaps is that innovation is typically associated with product or packaging R&D, as opposed to marketing itself. It’s time to change that.
I always like to quote photographer Diane Arbus who said: “It's what I've never seen before that I recognize."
Our consumers are the same. They ignore what they’ve seen before time and time again. And they notice the unanticipated. They crave the unexpected, the unpredictable, the surprise and delight. They long for the intellectual sparring that comes with an idea that provokes, irks, challenges or dares them to think or act different.
And they’re not insane, although we might be if we don’t rethink the way we go to market, or the way we utilize the full potential of the Internet and its social portfolio of gizmos and gadgets. The way we partner with our consumers -- and the way we combine what we do best (creativity) in a form, function and utility-laded service that truly delivers transformational (innovation) value.
(quick link to voting here)
Yes, it's that time of the year again. Time to rock the vote as the SxSW panel picker moves into overdrive and the audience participation phase of the rigorous selection process begins.
For those of you who don't know what SxSW (South By Southwest) is, check out the Wikipedia Entry. Or if not, in short it's essentially the banner event in the entire interactive/new media/social media/emerging media (you get the picture) calendar. Think CES for consumer electronics. Cannes for Advertising. SxSW for Interactive. The festival is not only for the geeks. There's also a Film and Music festival and for those of you that can make all 3 (Interactive and Music run back to back, but Film bleeds into both), you'll benefit tremendously from the blurring and synergy that comes from naturally overlapping trades.
One of the great things about SxSW is that anyone (and I mean ANYONE) can share the stage via the Panel Picker process. Literally thousands of proposal are submitted and via a 3-pronged vetting system (staff picks, advisory board, public), the eventual shortlist is chosen.
In 2011, your votes helped secure a speaking slot where I spoke about "Flip the Funnel" and took questions from the audience. Within about 60 seconds after the event, every single copy of the book has been sold in the bookstore. I hope they'll bring more copies this time round.
In 2012, my panel didn't make it into the final shortlist, so I'm appealling to you this time to help me make this possible - if for no other reason then the fact, we've put together a really bumper topic with incredible panelists and a super relevant theme: Madison Avenue meets Mountain View - in other words, the convergence of technology and creativity in the form of startups and brands collaborating together across a variety of engagement paths and platforms.
Here's the official description of the panel:
Why is it that so many startups have brands built into their monetization strategy and yet they only involve brands at the 11th hour? Dominated by a technology and investment focused mentality, marketing is an afterthought. On the flipside, brands recognize the growing importance of innovation and yet continue to invest in established, paid media. And that includes Facebook. But what if the process started earlier, with brands and startups collaborating further upstream to co-develop revenue streams, consumer utility and ultimately technology solutions to business problems? With less than 3% of startups ending up being fully funded, how might brands come to the rescue as White Knights? What if Instagr.am had been created for Kodak? What if Conde Nast invested in Flipboard? This panel will bring together 2 senior marketers from Fortune 500 brands, and 2 startup founders to discuss the challenges, opportunities and partnership potential that arises when Madison Avenue meets Mountain View
Here are the main questions we'll look to address/answer:
The panel will include two senior executives from blue chip brands, namely Ed Kaczmarek from Kraft Foods and Winston Wang from Anheuser-Busch InBev, as well as at least one startup founder, namely Brett Welch from Switchcam. We will also have a minimum of one case study to highight and reference.
I will moderate the panel and introduce the topic with some high level thoughts on where we see this space going and "evolving"
What makes me really excited about this panel is that it takes a hot, emerging topic from the conceptual to the realm of tangible outcomes and possibilities. And so if you're going to be at SxSW, please vote for and attend the panel and even if you're not, please register and vote regardless. We will make sure we capture the essence of the panel to share with you after the fact.
You can also share the panel via Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter.
Thanks so much for your consideration!
Powered by: FeedBlitz
Subscribe to Jaffe Juice – The New Marketing Podcast via iTunes
Recent Comments