Jaffe Juice

The final days of the Upfront

It's the time of the year again, but seriously....who cares? Not even Jimmy Kimmel.

"...then you might be a parasite or tech tapeworm in the intestines of the Internets"

WSJ Editor, Robert Thomson to Jeff Foxworthy: "You're welcome" in response to all the new material he just got based on the dumb-ass comments about coming after all the denizens of the Internets for "stealing" their content.

Seriously dude, you're (on behalf of the AP) trying to be the RIAA to our Napster and you sir, are no RIAA. That's how bad it is.

Thomson was referencing an AP move to come after those who "misappropriate" their content under "misguided legal theories", but in doing so AP Chairman Dean Singleton comes over like a spoiled little baby squealing something to the effect of "my Dad will beat up your Dad" with your comments about "build(ing) search-engine-friendly subject pages filled with recent, "authoritative" links, hoping searchers will see those pages above blogs and aggregators."

Both Thomson and Singleton demonstrate an acute lack of understanding in terms of how social media, consumer generated content, citizen journalism, blogging and search works. I could go on.

By all means, the AP and their related sites should invest aggressively in smarter search and conversationally-enabled functional sites, but they equally need to invest in a crash course in terms of understanding how distributed content, social networking, linking and reach activators like Twitter works.

Whilst I agree with them that reprinting or syndicating entire articles verbatim and/or aggregating this on some scaled basis, esp. with a view towards monetizing this content, should be dealt with...it's also important to recognize that this isn't always done maliciously/intentionally and to that end, slapping Google Adsense on a page isn't exactly the work of an evil genius and megalomanic with delusions of grandeur.

On the flipside, people who extend, riff, offer commentary or build on top of ideas, points of view, news articles (like I'm doing right now) and offer a combination of both link-love and attribution, with a reasonable/measured/considered amount of italicized quotes to boot are not the enemy. They are you and they are me and they are NOT going away.

To end, a bit of advice for the AP and NAA: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em is a not a bad policy to follow, however you're not going to achieve your goals with blunt-force brawn and legal bullying. Stop crying over spilt milk in the form of the realization that bloggers like myself and favored by the likes of Google over your sites and instead focus on building better hubs that reward conversation, distribution, linking, commenting and social/peer-to-peer interaction.

One more thing, let's build up a repoitre for Jeff: "XXXXXXX, then you might be a parasite or tech tapeworm in the intestines of the Internets"

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.

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! :)

Missing Fedex Package (Tracking Number: 3,000,000)

So today, Fedex announced that - for the first time in 12 years - there will be no cavemen or Burt Reynolds (not necessary the same person) in next year's Stupid Bowl. Steve Pacheco (he's a Jaffe Juice reader) made the announcement on the Fedex company blog. 

The statement cites "unprecedented economic waters" as the primary reason for this decision (not being able to "justify the ad spend")

In the ultimate medium when where the message is king, being in the game simply sends the wrong message both to employees and other FedEx constituents. A Super Bowl ad buy is not where we should put dollars at this time although, in the past, the value of doing so for FedEx has been indisputable.

Steve & Co. - I appreciate your POV on how advertising in the Super Bowl helped strategically establish the brand. In addition, I also completely acknowledge that times have changed - for example: Fedex no longer needs to establish itself as a player (nor explain what it does and how it does it - better and/or different)

However, I do take a point of difference in terms of a contradiction of sorts. IF the Super Bowl was truly everything that you say it is (the Super Bowl is the only single event where an advertiser can reach a global audience of this size . . . last year almost 98 million people watched the game), then surely it should not be (one of) the first line items to be cut, but indeed the last.

This same logic could be applied to the intangible reasons why companies advertise in the Super Bowl i.e. less concerned with end consumers and more focused on internal customers i.e. employees, as well as the trade (including plenty of tickets and bragging rights)

The fact remains: advertising on the Super Bowl arguably NEVER had the return on investment that has always been touted by the networks (that's a relative statement). It's always been a giant ego play and a perfect game of illusion, misdirection and hype.

Don't get me wrong...has the Super Bowl ever worked? Of course it has. Big time. Remember Apple's 1984 commercial. It's just that the list or ratio of "hits" to "misses" has shifted radically away from the success stories to the eulogies of dot bomb 1.0 and most recently, "everyone else".

And as every major indicator has shifted away from the 30-second spot (from declining audience numbers to more diverse i.e. more fragmented viewing audiences), the prices continued to rise. Kids - don't try that strategy at home.

And here we are....the fork in the road. Fedex (spare a thought for poor BBDO) smartly (although arguably a few years too late) takes a bow and leaves the final line of incumbents to stubbornly defend their position, status quo, and along with it, their pride.

Steve - again, I appreciate your company's position. It is financially sound and responsible, but it is also 100% a reflection of common sense. The bottom line is that the recent "unprecedented economic waters" have not only forced all companies to think and act in a more fiscally prudent way, but also to be more accountable in their efforts.

I would take this one step further: it has also created a more glaring transparency of wastage (current and years to date with line items such as the Super Bowl), unnecessary opulence and self-congratulatory debauchery (to be clear, I'm not saying Fedex suffered from any of the above, with the exception of not being able to justify their Super Bowl spend anymore based on its performance/efficacy)

Companies cannot afford to send out a message of careless or excess wastage anymore - especially when they're laying off employees left, right and center.

Net Net: $3,000,000 is better spent on retention, customer service, employee satisfaction and building long term relationships or commitments with customers.

Pluck off!

Couldn't resist this (sorry guys, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do):

Avenue A | Razorfish and Pluck announced that the two companies have signed an agreement to develop and market the industry's first offering to inject social media features like customer comments and user-generated content into mainstream digital advertisements.

So now consumers can tell us to get plucked to our faces.

Do we need the Mainstream Media?

For those of you who read this blog regularly (that is when I actually get to posting! HA!), you'd know my position on Second Life hypeing and dehyping by the Mainstream Media.

...but I got to thinking about the MSM with respect to "fringe" Twitter.

As 1938 Media's Loren Feldman so eloquently put it, Twitter is for "Geeks, Weirdos, Shills, Middle Aged Women looking to get laid" (I guess I would fit into the middle aged woman category then!)

And although the incredible guys over at Common Craft created "Twitter in Plain English", I'm not sure (despite the rave reviews) that this does anything to "rise the tide" and help newbies to take the plunge:

So I guess my question is whether we need to embrace the necessary evil that is mainstream media and accept the inevitable....new technology might tip within the innovator and early adopter through people like Robert Scoble, but in order to break out of the fishbowl, we need the help of the mainstream (media)

fyi, I'm jaffejuice on Twitter. Just over 2,000 followers, but won't rest until I get to 20,000 (surely there are more geeks, weirdos, shills and middle-aged women looking to get laid that read my blog and listen to my podcast???)

94% of my advertising is wasted, the only problem is that I keep on investing in it

So I'm sure you saw BIGResearch's 11th SIMM study, which reveal some interesting factoids, including the fact that just 5.5% of people fully pay attention to TV commercials when they come on.

"Whoa," as Keanu might say.

41.2% are channel surfing, 33.5% talking to others (in the room or on the phone) and 30.2% mentally tune out.

I wonder where IM'ing, checking e-mail and other web-related activities would fall (most likely the tuning out part), together with ad-zapping/skipping/TiVo/DVR-related activities (again, most likely channel surfing)

How accurate and/or representative is this finding? Deep down in your gut you just know it is closer to the real truth than not.

Adding to the cluttered environment aside, doesn't this just become a game of math at the end of the day i.e. assessing the calculated risks and rewards of weighing a success:failure exposure and reach rate of 5.5% against the propensity and probability of making one's quarterly numbers and keeping one's job?

There's got to be a better way that is both more efficient and effective, and commensurately less risky.

And of course, there is.

So why aren't more marketers taking this route? (cue: Super Bowl music NOW)

Stupid bowl reflections

Let me just say off the bat that I don't begrudge brands from participating in Advertising's Spectacular Spectacular. It's one of a handful (literally one hand = 5 fingers...count 'em) of mass reach opportunities left (even American Idol is starting to suffer cold-water shrinkage)

This year, it would appear that advertisers are working harder (as they should) to "amplify, extend and enhance" their efforts (read: do whatever the hell they can to justify their investment), including a robust mobile promotion from Anheuser-Busch and a cacophony of consumer-generated/participatory efforts.

That said, it still got me to thinking (thanks to an interview I conducted over the weekend) about the real high stakes environment of "The Big Game"

• For starters, the fact we rely on YouTube (which wasn't even around 2 years ago as a Super Bowl Hail Mary) as much as we do is in of itself an indicator that advertising in the game isn't enough (anymore)
• ...which validates the point that Super Bowl advertising is all about the P.R. (Today Show Donny Deutsch mentions etc).
• Which is all well and good, except for the fact that unless you're in the top 5, you've pretty much flushed your money down the toilet. That sounds like a twisted game of Russian Roulette to me. Remember CareerBuilder and Cramer-Krasselt?
• Bonus impressions aside, let's talk about actually breaking through the clutter through the message i.e. creativity. Why is that so many advertisers no doubt will run repurposed creative as opposed to putting their entire hearts and souls into something compelling?
• ...and speaking of breaking through the clutter, there's the medium part. With half the audience divided between males and females, there's almost always 50% wastage built into the value proposition (there's your answer Mr Wanamaker).
• ...but it gets worse. Have you ever watched a Super Bowl yourselves? Of course you have and most likely you're at a party, where the noise of the crowd, coupled with the sound turned down essentially means that audio is not a factor in the package...
• ...and clearly neither is having one's full faculty in tact. It's called ALCOHOL people and most of us are inebriated enough not to remember where to purchase widget x the next day (save the efforts of 10+ commercials from Budweiser reminding us to keep on drinking throughout the game of course)

I can't help but wonder where the research is that proves the Super Bowl actually drives product i.e. sales. I don't have the time to do the analysis (if you'd like to do it, just post your findings in the comment section or e-mail me and I'll repost), but one type of litmus test is to look at the advertisers that are returning versus the newbies as an indicator of efficacy.

The last case study that existed was the dot com example, where companies ploughed up to 50% of their budgets into 1 or 2 Super Bowl commercials and to thank them for their efforts, they went out of business.

Anyway, just thought I'd provide some sobering thoughts to balance out all the pre-game viral buzz.

Again, I don't begrudge any brand from giving it a shot. It's a great platform and opportunity to hit it out the park, with emphasis on "hitting it out the park" as a necessary prerequisite.

Go Giants!