Jaffe Juice

The Launch of the Living in High Definition Podcast

This is a little backwards, because I still want to spend some time over the next couple of weeks outlining the single most signficant project we've worked on at crayon, namely Panasonic's "Living in High Definition" community and commitment.

We've had the pleasure and privilege to work with Panasonic North America on a truly landmark effort - actively demonstrating that Living in High Definition changes everything.

And what better way to bring this to life than through a High Definition video show, presented by one of the real stars of the program, Laura Pollack, a mom and a community member.

The LiHD Podcast is a bi-monthly snapshot of the best of what the community has to offer. It's a showcase which operates on three levels:

• Internal i.e. within the community - motivation for members; a showcase of recognition
• External i.e. outside the community - a portal or window into the community; a source of promotion and membership acqusition
• Both - a source or resource filled with tips, tools, tricks, how-to's and inspiration

Making this podcast happen are the fine folks over at For Your Imagination (FYI)

So take a look, subscribe to the show and while you're at it, join the LiHD Community.

Living in HD Podcast, Episode 1 from Living In HD on Vimeo.

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?

To pay or not to pay, is THAT the question?

Forrester just released a report titled "Add Sponsored Conversations To Your Toolbox," authored by Sean Corcoran.

Kmart gave some bloggers a free shopping spree in exchange for a blog post about the experience — a practice we call sponsored conversation. With appropriate protections for disclosure and authenticity, this practice will take its place alongside public relations and advertising activities in the blogosphere. Marketers should take advantage of sponsored conversation as an entrée into the online conversation. To succeed, you should get to know the bloggers you plan to work with and set expectations across your organization.

What's interesting is how Forrester is pretty deliberately putting this approach into a category of its own, alongside it's predecessors or cohorts (depending on your position), advertising and P.R. and in doing so, plays a part in terms of legitimizing or formalizing an emerging practice.

His colleague Jeremiah Owyang covers it here and Brian Morrissey at Adweek covers it here. Marshall Kirkpatrick from ReadWriteWeb takes a strong counterposition here.

I was interviewed for this piece by Sean, as was Chris Brogan, who participated in the aforementioned Kmart program, sits on the board of IZEA - the company behind the program (and the one formally known as PayPerPost). Chris responds specifically to Marshall with this post.

Here's the thing. In my time in this space thus far in a formal capacity (i.e. crayon), I've worked on two pretty public and well received programs: My ooVoo Day and the Panasonic CES program. In the former example, both Marshall and Chris were participants; in the latter one, Chris was one of the bloggers. I'm not sure I would call either of these programs "sponsored conversations". In fact, crayon calls them "tactical hooks" - a mash-up of the best (practices) of the advertising and social media worlds. Put differently, we believe that influencer outreach should be treated with the same consideration, commitment and investment as a traditional communications program from both a planning and production standpoint.

It's imperative to give influencers both a reason to believe and a reason to behave. Too often, we are lazy, greedy and gratuitous in terms of what we expect from bloggers and the like and essentially what we expect back from them, relative to what we put in, in the first place.

In a personal capacity, I've participated in both the Nikon D80 giveaway and the Sears program (part 2 of IZEA's Kmart 1-2 punch). In both cases, I wouldn't say this remotely smacked of PayPerPost; nor would I say my conversation was sponsored. In some respects,this is no different than a "celebrity" (TRUST me, I'm using that loosely) sponsorship - from loaning a star diamonds on Oscar night to adorning Tiger Woods with a cacophany of swooshes in exchange for mega moolah.

I guess the point is where on the continuum does blogger or influencer outreach fall. Personally, I believe we should be calling this "blogger/influencer outreach" and not "sponsored conversation". Let me also be very clear (and you can see from the definition), that I don't think Sean meant this to be taken in a negative light. I spoke with him and we had a great conversation. I think the real ambiguity and problem lies with us (i.e. the readers of the report; the commentators and so called social media experts etc).

Part of the problem lies with the fact "sponsored conversation" sounds a bit like "paid search" does it not? Putting two terms which seemingly mean exact opposites together and in doing so, creates a rather jarring disconnect.

Part of the problem as well lies in the endless, boring and inaccurate comparison between the new class of content creators (bloggers if you wish) and journalists. They're not...at least for the most part.

And so we come back to the two core issues:

1. Should bloggers be compensated in any way, shape or form for their time, effort, energy, passion and contribution. The answer can only be a resounding YES, with standard terms and conditions (disclosure, transparency etc) which make both common sense and business sense.
2. Is expecting bloggers (in return for aforementioned compensation) to write, talk, post, create etc about their experiences, reflections, ideas, participation crossing a line? The answer here is a resounding NO, provided there is adequate disclosure and transparency.

Come on people. Grow up and wisen up. This is a nascent industry and space which is learning and maturing all the time. What we have here is in many respects no different to how the world was, but in many respects is also incredibly and completely different. It's time to get off our high horses and open our minds, instead of stubbornly holding on to and exhibiting self-righteous, hypocritical and close-minded positions.

Whatever you call them, "sponsored conversations" are here to stay. And just like the vast differences between crap and mediocre creative (lumped together) and inspiring/breakthrough creative, so too will there be a marked difference between influencer programs that stand out from the crowd or get trampled by it.

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)

Are Facebook Apps the New Viral Video?

Friendship is strong, but the Whopper is stronger.

I'm not sure if this was an advertising tagline, created by Crispin, Porter & Bogusky for Burger King (let's call it "integrated" for now) or specifically designed for a Facebook app. Either way, it became the basis for a much discussed Facebook App where Facebook users got to "sacrifice" their friends (sort the wheat from the chaff) in exchange for a Whopper...

Said "friends" would then be notified that they had been sacrificed.

And here's where it goes pear shaped: Facebook objects to this as it violates a term/condition of their user agreement i.e. explicitly informing people that they have been removed as a friend (think creepy middle-aged guy in relation to young, smoking-hot female employee)

Facebook removes the alert notification and BK promptly "sacrifices" (nice spin) their Application...and in doing so, remains "true to themselves".

There are probably 4 angles to this story:

1. Where did it go wrong? (or did it go wrong at all)
2. How could it have gone "more right"?
3. Did it work?
4. What does this teach us?

I guess the real stories here are about collaboration and the more category-specific one: debating the role for social networking as a utility platform (amongst other roles) versus advertising vehicle.

Had CP+B/BK worked with Facebook at all (let alone more closely), perhaps the outcome would have been very different. Or not. Had Facebook "sacrificed" its subscriber terms (philosophy), arguably the loss might have been far greater than just a few friends.

Put differently, this story is somewhat of a fork in the road if you think about it: a seminal moment which paves the way for Facebook and Madison Avenue to determine:
a) whether Facebook remains a free resource for brands to loot and pillage at will
b) whether Facebook is an ad vehicle/media platform....or not

It should be acknowledged that the overall reaction to this program has been fairly positive (am I wrong?) In addition, with 82,000 participants and over 230,000 friends "removed" - not to mention plenty of buzz - it's hard to knock the fact this program struck a chord.

Of course, that chord could have been a giant flat note (to keep the metaphor going) This whole initiative just doesn't sit right in my stomach (kind of like a Whopper) From a strategic standpoint, anything overt that decreases Facebook's membership (audience) base is clearly not good for business. It also flies in the face of WHY people are using Facebook in the first place.

I'm not sure if this is too extreme a point, but one might make the argument that this is even more consumer UNCENTRIC than 30-second spots...

Perhaps had there been a way to reward the culled friends i.e. the ability (like in a reality show) to get back in the game...call it the Benie Madoff move (a revenge-based Ponzi Jedi mindtrick), it might have been a little more playful (if that's even possible).

Bottom line: This "app" broke through the clutter, but at what price? Speaking of price, for the next Hacker movie, would Facebook simulate a giant hack and fake a bunch of membership accounts being taken over? No doubt, your immediate reaction would "NO WAY, JOSE," but could this be possible? What if Facebook creates two tiers of pricing for users? Free = implicit permission for marketing shenanegans Fee = Leave us the hell alone.

What are your thoughts on what this means for future (customized) brand efforts on Facebook and similar SocNet platforms?

And then there's the subject of this post: Are Facebook Apps becoming the New Viral Video? Does resorting to stunts, extreme surprises and guerrilla or unexpected tactics become an input or output (or both) in terms of ante up?

I surely hope they'll resemble less of these kinds of efforts and more like what Kraft is doing with respect to deploying a cause marketing angle.

You should know: crayon consults with both Kraft and Facebook, but not yet Burger King or CP+B...call me! :)

Barefoot, Pregnant and in the Kitchen

That's how Moms used to be described. Today, everything has changed, with one small caveat: when they are in the kitchen, they're usually on the laptop - creating, communicating, connecting and collaborating with other Moms, friends, family members, business associates etc.

The incredible kerfuffle of late with Motrin highlights the chasm or disconnect between marketers (and their henchmen, Madison Avenue) and consumers. It's been widening for years now and I expect more of these "come to Jesus" moments to present themselves, at an increasing pace/rate, provided brands continue to whack their customers over the head with the blunt instrument called "advertising".

The story in 30-seconds :) is as follows:

• Motrin creates this ad

• Moms don't like it
• Twittering Moms in particular
• Mainstream media goes ga-ga
• Motrin caves, issues an apology (above) and pulls the ads (where it can)

A lot has been said about this experience already:

• Did Moms overreact? At the end of the day, it's not worth dignifying the drivel forced down our throats in the form of 30-second spots and the like, but it is everyone's right to react and have an opinion. Perhaps that's one of the important new lessons marketers need to learn....whether you like it or not, you'll hear from us. This is the new transparency.
• ...and in the process, do themselves a disservice by raising their collective ire and exposing themselves as a bunch of Prima donnas? Possibly, but not likely. I am always concerned that the entire blogosphere shoots itself in the foot when it critiques a lame blogger outreach program, a Second Life misadventure or a failed Facebook attempt. My fear is that we chase away curious and tentative marketers, looking to do more but afraid of the consequences of trying something new. That said, I always come back to this: the reason why these efforts fail is because they generally suck. Bringing this back to Motrin Moms, if this exercise has done anything, it's to drive home the fact Digital Moms are a powerhouse and need to be taken seriously - explicitly AND implicitly.
• Did Motrin overreact by pulling down their campaign? I'd say yes on many levels. There's a reason why the US of A does not negotiate with terrorists in the slightest. Of course, I'm not comparing "twittering Moms" to Osama Bin Twitter, BUT I think Motrin/J&J exposed itself as being anything on the continuum of spineless to wishy-washy (or is it flip-floppy) in the process. Motrin Moms (on Twitter that is) represent a tiny minority but Twitter is what I call a reach-activator (evidenced by all the mainstream media coverage, which arguably was the machine that created the critical hype in the first place). More importantly, perhaps they did Motrin a HUGE favor in the form of an advance warning. In any event, the spot is out there and will enjoy a tremendous Second Life of infamy, ironically boosted by the efforts of pulling down the spot. Whilst Ad Age argues that the total web (1.0 and 2.0) views is only a fraction of the actual media buy, I think this will change over time (esp. as the Long Tail begins to wag like mad). Also we're talking about potential versus actual views and I would suspect that when the reconciliation is ultimately done, pulling the spot will not have extinguished the headache...

Now some Jaffe commentary:

1. Motrin has a tiny ad budget and now, for the first time, people are talking about them. Genius? Fluke? Lemonade from Lemons? Something to think about.
2. Motrin's apology and subsequent updates have been plastered on their archaic (as in from the time of the Ark) website. On the one hand, it's admirable to devote prime homepage real estate to this admission of error, but come on sister....start a friggen blog already!!! It's staring at you in the face. Either way, her last update was 5 days ago, which in Internet time is like 5 years.
3. I guess my main point regarding this "migraine campaign" was the fact that the real offender(s) was not Twittering Moms and it was not Kathy Widmer. It was the status quo; it was the process itself which FAILED Motrin and surely will fail it's parent, Johnson & Johnson increasingly so if they continue to follow an outdated and flawed code of conduct. As long as advertising continues to generalize, stereotype, hype, exaggerate and oversimplify, it will not only continue to fail...but also backfire in the process.

Here are specific ways the process let them down:

• Strategic Planning/Insights - so Moms wear their babies; some say it's a fashion statement; some say it's a burden; some say it legitimizes them. Big deal. That's enough to create a bonding experience and connection with Moms? Give me a break
• Focus Groups - building on from the previous point, perhaps the problem (I wrote about this in Join the Conversation) is the difference between Late Majority/"average" Moms and Innovate consumers/Moms i.e. who are you talking to in these focus groups and how are you talking to them? The blogosphere is a real, live focus group and yet we continue to talk to real people through one way mirrors! Just because one Mom says it makes them feel official doesn't mean this should be regurgitated to the masses. I would say we've forgotten to listen, but truthfully I don't think we (as industry) ever listened to our consumers
• Creative - following on from the original point, simply restating verbatims does not a campaign make. In addition, the so-called irreverent tone and treatment in the spot came across as insulting, superficial and arrogant.
• Media - once dem spots are purchased, there's no going back. It might be possibly to splash an apology letter on a website, but everything else has a losing lead time associated.
• Account Management - could this not have been anticipated? Where was the contingency planning? What actually did Motrin do besides apologizing and taking the ad off the air? What about involving the SAME outspoken Motrin moms in the R&D/evaluation process the next time round?
• No conversational/communal activation - where was the seeding to high level influencers which arguably could have set off the fire alarms well in advance...

I'm going to try and reach out to Kathy and invite her on Jaffe Juice to talk about this. Of course Kathy, if you're reading this post itself, you're already moving in the right direction. Let's have a conversation, shall we?

Some links of note:

• Crashing Motrin-Gate: A Social Media Case Study
• Motrin Moms Twitterrage
• Motrin.com
• One of the primary catalysts, Jessica Gottlieb refuses to jump on the mob-wagon
• Queen of Spain blog (99 comments to date!) chastises Motrin Moms ("mobs") for tarnishing the image (and e-commerce implications) of this growing community/demographic

Monetizing Marketing

CNN's recent merchandising experiment, mashing up headlines and T-shirts reopens a very interesting conversation about whether or not (and if so, how) marketing efforts can be monetized.

It's not the first time this has been done. Think Staple's Easy Button or Burger King's Xbox games.

On the surface it seems like a no-brainer, but I think the deeper you dig, the slippier the slope becomes. Remember when ESPN tried to "monetize" their Sportscenter commercials?

Whichever way you slice it, it certainly gives the phrase "earned media" an entirely new meaning.

PS Get your CNN shirt here

Slip-sliding away

From Jack Myers, a report which states that advertising's share of marketing budget has declined 12% within the past decade.

In 1998, advertising represented 34.9% of marketing budgets, direct marketing 10.1% and sales promotion (including events and PR....why I don't know) at 55%. This, compared to 2008's data of 30.6%, 22.8% and 46.6% respectively.

What's interesting is that during this time, total marketing budgets have increased by 94% (advertising for example has increased in absolute terms from $136.8bn to $232.50)

2 insights/takeaways worth noting:

1. As media continues to become more digital, transparent and accountable, advertising will likely see a fairly noticeable "correction" in terms of its total spend within the next 10 years.
2. Currently, advertising represents just 30% of the total pie. And shrinking. No doubt we'll see exponential spend on emerging media and conversational marketing to take on increasingly significant proportions.

Jaffe on Seinfeld on Gates on Microsoft on CP+B

The blogosphere has been lit up over the past week or two regarding the new campaign from American Express Microsoft, featuring Jerry Seinfeld and Steve Ballmer Bill Gates. The reaction, with few exceptions, has been decidedly negative - scathingly so.

And now, we find out that the campaign is done:

That campaign either ran its course (if you believe Microsoft) or flopped (if you believe the critics) and is being replaced with an ad that will try to subvert Apple's famous "I'm a Mac," "I'm a PC" series.

(Seinfeld was reportedly paid $10million for 3 spots....2 have aired and 1 is in the "can" waiting for better days)

...or is it? Mashable via Gizmodo says otherwise. Of course, the source in question is a trusted CP+B person, who clearly has no agenda whatsoever.

I should point out that according to this LA Times Blog post, the needle of perception did move a tad, but how statistically accurate and representative this is, I'm not sure: That piece (New York Times) quotes a brand perception expert saying that Microsoft's image started out 25% positive and 13% negative, but by Tuesday was 28% positive and 8% negative. You have to walk before you can run, I guess.

I thought I'd use this platform to offer some new commentary and constructive criticism to all parties concerned.

 

1. The Seinfeld-Gates spots were not great at all. Here's why: Jerry Seinfeld was a bad, bad casting call. He's associated with American Express (so is Superman). He represents borrowed interest and sends out a signal that the brand cannot sell itself without a celebrity crutch. He's also somewhat old; yesterday's news
2. The choice of Bill Gates was a bad, bad casting call. Gates doesn't work at Microsoft anymore. He's moving on. The company is in great hands in the form of Joanne Bradford Steve Ballmer, remember? Gates is off to focus on humanitarian efforts that save the world, not the Smiths in Peoria.
3. The spots were trying to be too clever for their own good. They were disconnected (I'll come back to this) and confusing. It is a flawed strategy to believe that people care enough about advertising to wait with baited breath for the next episode in the installment of brand propaganda.
4. As a standalone (and ads should be judged independently, when one considers the massive investment in their per airing production and media costs), they failed to deliver a single reason to believe; a single proof point, brand attribute, call to action or nugget of value.
5. From a blogosphere standpoint, most people got to see the two spots (in their entirety) on the Web....which is a good thing as viewers at least got to bust beyond the standardized television constraints. That said, I was horrified when I actually saw one of the spots (I believe I was watching Fringe at the time), paired down to fit the advertising pod, end with the words, "to be connected." Huh? I got the swarmy association between "to be continued" and "to be connected", as well as Microsoft's equity associated with connectivity/networking etc., but as point 4) alludes to, why are we assuming people care enough to wait for the next installment in a series of ADVERTISEMENTS? Episodic advertising is just not viable in my opinion anymore. In any event, there should have at least been a URL to go and view all these ads. And there wasn't.
6. Also, before I move on....where were the outtakes? casting calls? deleted scenes? etc? This is such a 101 from about 10 years ago.
7. Back to the blogosphere, all the feedback almost without exception was negative. Have CP+B not learnt their lessons from Deadenbacher? Can Microsoft afford to be in the center of negativity? When will agencies learn that "buzz" is not good when it's all bad?
8. The new slogan, "Life without Walls" replaces - I guess - the "your life, our passion" (or something like that) one. Swings and roundabouts. I still think most people refer to Microsoft's "Where do you want to go today?" slogan and positioning, which was all about empowering people in the NOW. In any event, Microsoft set themselves up for further ridicule as you don't have to leap very far to discover the disconnect: A life without walls has no place for Windows. D'oh
9. There's no question here that CP+B are an inextricable part of this firestorm (see point 7). On one hand, when you're on top, everybody wants a piece of you, but on the other hand I feel the agency has to work that much harder to avoid being stereotyped themselves as arrogant, self-serving and possibly even negligent ($10 million for Seinfeld). I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I do think they need to work harder - and that includes engaging the blogosphere in a smarter way - to ensure that they don't distract people from their main agenda: serving the brand.
10. The new new campaign, which replaces the old new campaign of Seinfeld and Gates, features a John Hodgman lookalike (the PC guy in Apple's Mac v PC ads), complaining about being stereotyped. Off the bat, this is a little disingenous, given the stereotyping of the Seinfeld-Gates spots, which patronizingly focus on trying to "blend in with normal people like us." That said, I actually very much like these spots. Finally. I think it's spot on for Microsoft to stand up to Apple and demonstrate it's 97% to 3% (or whatever the ratio is) dominance over Apple by letting its customers do the talking - from famous to infamous; from old to young: from inspirational to aspirational etc.

Here's the spot.

Anyway, the point is that I actually think Microsoft ended up in a good place. Humility goes a long way. Moist and chewy swarminess does not.

PS I'm a PC too and I'm a stud!

Conversation Killers: Why most viral marketing amounts to lazy, clueless chatter

My latest Adweek article is up. It's called "Conversation Killers: Why most viral marketing amounts to lazy, clueless chatter"

Here's the text:

The movie Rounders contains a life lesson: "When sitting down at the poker table, look around for the sucker. If you don't recognize the sucker, get up and leave, because the sucker is you." Along the same lines, the next time you sit down at a planning table to discuss something viral, look for the moron leading the project and if you don't see him, excuse yourself from the meeting because that moron, my friend, is you.

As an industry, we're awfully good (and by good I mean bad) at bastardizing or perverting pretty much any natural and pure expression of engagement, influence, authenticity or passion. Take word of mouth for example: It's the oldest and most credible form of influence and "persuasion" (insert your choice of chart proving that word of mouth obliterates any other form of marketing, advertising or media), and so what do we do? We add the word "marketing" to form a new compound phrase synonymous with lame and ineffective.

It's the same concern I have with the phrase "conversational marketing," which I either created myself or just took credit for. It would appear that the second we find something that actually works, we do our best to exploit it to the point where it becomes unrecognizable and downright repugnant.

It's the same for the term "viral marketing," which has seemingly sprouted an entire industry dealing with shocking or extreme video designed to ring up "hits" on YouTube.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the masters of pass along. I don't profess to be expert in how viruses are spread; what makes them infectious and what defines, differentiates or classifies one virus from another. It's terrific when the "world" in "world wide Web" embraces a piece of video (did you see the one where the elephant paints a self-portrait?), site (www.manbabies.com) or idea (moveon.org).

That said, I'm not terribly sure that it's predictable or reliable to plan for this kind of spreading of the word and, even more troubling, I'm not convinced that it actually works.

Here's the thing: In this day and age, all content has the ability to be wildly viral, that is, embraced, internalized, evangelized and disseminated. Rather than plan with the end in mind, might I suggest instead that we focus on the idea itself and the means to achieve that end. In other words, getting back to basics to generate compelling, relevant and engaging content and then liberating it to be embedded, hacked, mashed and showcased accordingly.

Then there's the efficacy element of the viral industry. In many respects the viral video is separated at birth from (in the greatest irony of all) the 30-second spot: Although they live at opposite ends of the spectrum, each is equally ineffective at selling stuff. The latter sells too hard, whereas the former doesn't sell hard enough. Indeed, the viral video seems to be almost apologetic at putting a brand face on an allegedly infectious value proposition.

But what if the goal of the viral is not to sell stuff at all? Heresy, I know, but not unlike 99.72 percent of all unmeasurable paid media that would make John Wanamaker vomit just a little in his mouth. What if the goal is to ring up those "hits," those faceless impressions that are reconciled with a paid media cost of zilch and multiplied by an earned media commensurate value? It's hard to argue with a free lunch, but at the same time, surely our efforts are better served by an agenda that balances quality with quantity views.

Perhaps it is unfair to hold the viral ad to a higher standard than the rest of the peanut gallery. After all, we're still talking about OfficeMax elves, CareerBuilder monkeys, a subservient chicken, Ray-Ban performing dudes and Waspy New England Smirnoff Tea Partayers aren't we? Compare this to the Stupid Bowl CareerBuilder debacle -- or as Wendell, the Miller Lite delivery guy, would say, a most effective anti-drug commercial -- and it surely seems like a steal (versus the real thieves behind the 30-second fireworks display).

True enough. But by the same token, we're also still talking about Apple's "1984," Miley Cyrus' Vanity Fair "exposé" and that incredible Kruger National Park scene with the buffalos, lions and alligator. Great content is great content, whichever way you slice it, dice it, prepare it or serve it, whether as a conversation starter, accelerant or superficial water-cooler fodder.

So let's do our best to keep our eyes on the prize: creating unique and compelling content that is sharable and infused with sociability (conversation). We'll rack up those views sure enough and not have to concern ourselves with cutting corners, reducing costs and duping our consumers into doing our jobs for us.