Back from a week long (delayed...long story) vacation in the Bahamas and catching up on how the world turned (any stories I missed? put them in the comment thread and I'll upgrade 'em):
Chris Wilson over at Fresh Peel has a great series on the Future of Work, in which I was included. I recorded my responses via audio and you can check them out (plus the others of course) here
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal Lotame. OK, so that should have read lobotamy and has nothing to do with the fine folks at Lotame who put together a pharma conference in NYC. Also check out this comparison of Second Life and the DTC/Pharma industry. From the sublime to the ridiculous...
Speaking of which, apparently Second Life is making a comeback. Hey, if it worked for Mickey Rourke, it can work for pink dragons as well. I'd better dust of the cobwebs in the crayonville Diner.
What do you think of the term, "mommyblogger?" I'll tell you but only if you promise to withhold unleashing the chaos of a Mommy scorned on me in the process...
I'm still not entirely sure about this (resume? brown-nose? true love?) but it's a gem nonetheless. The subject in question is Adweek creative editor, Eleftheria Parpis. Sigh, if only someone would put out a "I heart Jaffe" video (Verdino doesn't count)
My latest Adweek column is up. I wanted to write about this year's Super Bowl crop (or should I say crap) of commercials from both a digital and conversational (community, dialogue, partnership) standpoint. Here's the full text:
The last thing you probably need right now is more Super Bowl redux, but bear with me as I outline a few things related to this year's Big Game that hopefully offer a unique perspective. And hopefully doing so now will save you from making the same mistakes next year.
While I might be the person who authored Life After the 30-Second Spot I've often said my ideal assignment would be to work on a Super Bowl commercial. Why? Simply put, everything's a conversation starter. Given a platform of 90 million viewers, why wouldn't you want to seize the moment to begin and/or extend a dialogue with your consumers?
And yet we seem to be regressing in our understanding of how to do this. Is it indulgence? Denial? Laziness? Desperation? All of the above? I'm stumped at this industry's inability to take advantage of a golden opportunity like this one.
Here are a few pieces of advice which you can choose to follow -- or not -- next year. But seriously ... I don't care how unsexy this might sound, it's absolutely necessary if you want to be responsible and accountable to your shareholders.
You need a URL. This is not an optional extra, and any agency that thinks it is should pretty much be fired on the spot.
You need a reason to visit the URL. Not just a call to action but a tangible benefit of visiting. Take a few precious seconds to drive this home.
I'd go so far as to display this URL the entire time.
This advice is even more important for the handful of advertisers this year that chose to use SMS/text messaging (although you would have been forgiven for thinking this was a subliminal attempt due to the unbelievably short time this information was displayed).
Remember that people are often watching the Super Bowl with the sound turned down and/or with a noise level above that of the TV volume. If you think people are hushing each other and turning up the volume when commercials come on, you are delusional. Consider text overlays/supers that drive home key messaging.
The buzz you hear is the sound of crickets
Almost as bad as the lack of Web integration this year was the abysmal influencer outreach and blogger activation this year. How hard is it to realize you're going to need to rely on these gown-wearing, disheveled, basement-dwelling loudmouths living at their mom and pop's homes?
And yet, this year there was virtually zero pre- or post-game hype or buzz when it came to the blogosphere. I even blogged myself that with less than a week to go I had barely been contacted by a single company to peddle their wares.
Anheuser-Busch was one company that did reach out within a few days of the Super Bowl. I respected the fact that they gave me a password-protected URL in advance and that they trusted me enough not to share this publicly. I still didn't check them out. Why would I? If I had, I would have found out that they were just teasers...so much for trust and the number one spot on USA Today's Ad meter.
I was also impressed that the folks over at Hulu sent me an e-mail, seconds after their commercial aired containing embeddable HTML code, downloads, widgets and other "shareable" assets.
But what I'm talking about is a lot more strategic and profound than a tactical Hail Mary. Next year, think about reaching out to influencers or content creators months in advance in order to put into place innovative partnership initiatives that involve them in the entire process from start to finish.
Context is king
We always hear about the two "M's," medium and message. But here's a third "M": mind-set. Put them all together and doesn't it become just a little pathetic to have CareerBuilder and Monster advertising during this painful recession with preposterous messages including gems like, "Do you cry just a little at your job?"
"No, dumbass, I cry because I lost my job and can't figure out how to pay the damn mortgage."
It's astounding to me how few advertisers this year had the decency to acknowledge the fact that both the economy and the environment are in turmoil. And with the exceptions of Hyundai (with its "lose your job, return the car" promise) and FedEx (by virtue of pulling out), we were left to the devices of Coca-Cola pouring its syrup all over the countryside.
In recent times it would appear that the winner of the Super Bowl is the ad that either sucks the least or, by default, the one that is so outrageously bad that it stands out a mile from the crowd.
This year it was Cash4Gold that slobbered its direct response message on unsuspecting viewers across America, desperately looking at their jewelry as makeshift payroll.
A yardstick or benchmark for the future
This year's Super Bowl lived up to its expectation of being another nail the coffin of the beleaguered 30-second spot, but rather than belabor its demise, let me repeat the central messages from this piece.
Make the most of your $3 million plus production investment. For goodness sake, don't waste the opportunity any more than you already have.
Don't think about your spot as an end unto itself, but a means to an end: a conversation starter.
Leverage the new influencers and content creators to amplify, extend and enhance the word-of-mouth associated with your efforts.
There's always a story behind the story. The making of. The extended or deleted scenes. The director's commentary. If you're going to break the production bank, make it count.
In addition -- and in the spirit of the late Chuck Fruit -- I'd like to introduce a benchmark or yardstick against which to evaluate your Super Bowl spend in years to come. I'd like to propose that for every dollar you invest in both Super Bowl media and production, you counterbalance that with an equal commitment to innovation and/or experimentation.
It's the perfect yin-yang, if you think about it: for every cent spent on perpetuating the status quo, there is a proportionate investment in the future.
If you have enough money to blow on a 30-second needle in a haystack, you should have the same amount of discretionary budget to hedge your bet-and in doing so, you're going to go to market with the best of both worlds. Who knows, you might even figure out how to bring these two worlds together.
So, get cracking people. There are only 359 days to go before Super Bowl XLIV kicks off.
According to a new ANA study, the current recession is hitting marketing much harder than was anticipated 6 months prior (when the study was first conducted in August of 2008). Here are the low lights:
93% of companies are identifying cost savings and reductions (compared to 87% 6 mo. ago)
37% of respondents are looking to cut budgets by more than 20% (compared to 21% 6 mo. ago)
Some of the top areas where marketers plan to reduce costs or expenditures in marketing and advertising efforts are:
Dept T&E restrictions (87% vs 63% in the last survey)
Reducing advertising campaign media budgets (77% vs 69% previously)
Reducing advertising campaign production budgets (72% vs 63% 6 mo. ago)
Challenging agencies to reduce internal expenses and/or identify cost reductions AKA layoffs (68% vs 63%)
Eliminating or delaying new projects (58% vs 61%)
The findings are good for Cisco Telepresence, ooVoo and consumer generated content, but pretty much horrible for everyone else...with agencies at the top of the list, as well as talent, the airlines, Cannes and Cape Town. Experimentation is also at risk.
6 months ago, when advertisers were asked what they thought would happen to their budgets, 53% of marketers felt their budgets would be reduced. In fact, 71% experienced cuts. Implications? Marketers were a combination of delusional, optimistic, guarded and/or taken by surprise.
If there's a silver lining, perhaps it's that their answers in this round would be tempered by a counter measure of conservatism/prudence to even out the bravado from 6 months ago.
Perhaps not (49% feel their budgets will be cut 6 months from now vs 43% who preduct no movement and only 8% predicting increases)
"Learning to speak human" = a complete rip-off of my pithy, "do you speak conversation?" call-to-action in Chapter 20 of Join the Conversation.
Social Media Metrix Superlist. At least we're not over promising
Super Bowl commercial: $3,000,000. Two million Grand Slam giveaways: $2,000,000. 2,000,000 coronaries: S.Q. Breaking through the clutter: priceless. There are somethings money can't buy...like attention, engagement, a damn etc.; for everyone else there's the 30-second spot.
Check out Splitweet. Great for people with multiple Twitter accounts; even great for schizophrenics.
CMO's not thrilled with their agencies. In other news: man invents the wheel.
Not just a pretty face (for radio), The Shop Keeper even has a content manifesto. Too bad, he has no Jaffe Juice pearls of wisdom like "Typepad...typepad...typepad..." (Kiss my ass, Steve Ballmer)
Via FutureLab, two papers on the brand-agency disconnect (See: CMO's not thrilled with agencies)
Caribou invokes the "1S2S" rule (once is witty; twice is shitty) by trying to piggy-back of its nemesis, Starbucks. Try something original lads...
According to Wikipedia, "L'enfant terrible (Terrible child) (also spelled enfant terrible) is a French term for a child who is terrifyingly candid by saying embarrassing things to adults, especially parents. The Webster's Dictionary also defines an enfant terrible as an unusually successful person who is strikingly unorthodox, innovative, and/or avant-garde."
Marcus Brown is bonkers. He has way too much time on his hands and apparently he has a problem with incontinence. He's also wicked funny.
Observe his considered and sublime discourse as he meticulously deconstructs the inner workings, insights and pithy nuggets of one Joseph Jaffe's tweets. And don't forget his ruthless dismantling of the golden child known as Armano.
Hyundai recently announced a new Assurance program where people who lose their job can return their car. They used their Super Bowl slot to repeat the message. Jonah gives them kudos. As do I.
Just to be clear, the fact they used the Super Bowl is less significant than a really smart (opportunistic?) move to stand for something real/valuable, especially during these challenging times.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think this is the single most significant and potentially differentiating move this commoditized brand has done in its entire marketing lifespan operating in the US.
I must admit I'm a little surprised this didn't raise more discourse/debate (and even outcry) in the industry - and by "this", I refer to Virgin America's misdirected tantrum against popular advertising blog, Adrants.
Here's the blow-by-blow breakdown of this particular kerfuffle:
US Air plane miraculously lands in the Hudson river (sidenote: crew of flight 1549 deservedly honored at last night's Super Bowl game)
Adrants is sent this (see image) alleged spoof/spec print ad which shows Flight 1549 in the Hudson, framed by Virgin America branding.
Adrants posts the ad, with a fairly ambiguous description
âWeâve seen Virgin turn ugly situations to its advantage before, making
it very much in keeping with the Virgin brand persona. The only thing
saving the tribute from being in terrifically bad taste is the fact
that no one lost his or her life in the crash. So woot! - slather your
big reds all over those news shots, V.â
Virgin America sends publisher of Adrants, Steve Hall, legal papers which are not only a Cease 'n Desist (or what I call a Sue 'n Rue), but in fact claims for damages to boot
Steve pulls down the post, but not before evil Google's cache immortalizes it for the Long Tail of Speculation to do its thang (it appears that this cache is now mash....try here for more luck)
Cityfile captures the whole kerfuffle here and speculates as to why this is frowned upon and yet Virgin Mobile's Spitzer themed ad is not (answer: different division, if not different company entirely...but in the minds of consumers, Virgin = Virgin)
On the other side of the pond and completely unrelated and yet relevant, Richard Branson himself calls up a disgruntled customer offering them the opportunity to become an official food taster
There are a number of forces/questions in play here - and, in no particular order, here they are:
Did Virgin America have anything to do with this mysterious spec ad and even if this is fairly obvious to you or I, was Steve wrong to raise the question?
Is the brand truly schizophrenic or just disconnected, on two levels: 1) mixed messaging from Virgin America (case in point, sexual inneudo used in messaging) and 2) from various Virgin sub-brands
Why sue a blogger who clearly did not create/originate this message? Where's the freedom of expression or should I say freedom of speculation?
Did Virgin America truly want to ruin a blogger? Did they really think they had a shot at winning?
Or were they just doing the same thing they were rallying against i.e. being controversial/sensationalist?
Will this move help/hurt the brand? Would you want to fly Virgin America after this tantrum?
Will Steve be the same Steve in the future or is now "once bitten, twice shy"?
I was once taught these words of wisdom, "you can't be half pregnant" and along these same lines, I wonder how much of this is directly applicable to Virgin America in particular reference to this case.
On the one hand, you have a brand that is positioned/perceived as being edgy/risque/irreverent/liberal/progressive. On the other hand, you have a traditional/bullying/close-minded/conservative approach which screams, "disconnect".
Don't get me wrong, I too find the ad in poor taste and I'm not sure there's too much mitigating circumstances (i.e. no one died) to justify its creation. That said, when does the fine line between good judgment and hypocrisy begin and end? When is pushing the boundaries good and when is it bad...and who gets to decide? you? me? laywers? ugggh.
From a "commitment to conversation" perspective, there's so much Virgin
America could have done to clearly and decisively separate themselves
from this "ad" without having had to resort to legal action. On the flipside, I guess it is reasonable to make an
argument that the *possibility* of the average Joe the Plumber
mistakenly aligning VA with this, hence the extreme action.
As you'll see from Adrants' update/apology, other than accurate and on the money comments about air safety and not messing with this sensitive priority, it would appear that in the case between Virgin America vs Adrants, the final score was (-1) - (0) in favor of no-one.
I only wish I'd gotten to see Steve on the Today Show. Or the mp3 of Richard Branson calling Steve personally to request him removing the offending print.
A man can dream.
Disclaimer: Neither myself, nor people bearing the likeness of myself (such as Brad Pitt who is eerily almost a Jaffe-doppelganger) had anything to do with the creation of said controversial ad, which quite clearly was never an official Virgin America ad as depicted by the clumsy logo kerning, typeface and layout. In addition, neither myself, Brad nor any of the Jaffe Juice readers wish any ill will to come to the employees, partners, unions, passangers or replacement parts associated with any Virgin - animal, vegetable or mineral - and/or any of its subsidiary parts (private, public or otherwise) Finally, both physical and virtual Jaffe wishes both Virgin America and Adrants happy and safe trails and hopes Steve gets at least 1 free ticket on either Virgin America or US Air for the white hairs this caused. Peace.
to the reincarnated and reinvigorated Jaffe Juice.
What was once a weekly op-ed column is now an unshackled, uncensored and uninhibited dialogue
on the subjects of new marketing, advertising and creativity.
Recent Comments