Jaffe Juice

Unpopular Brooklyn Half

First of all, let me thank New York Roadrunners for giving me this week's column. Yes, that was a bit snarky, but genuinely I appreciate the content inspiration.

Secondly, I expect (in fact I hope) some fans to defend @nyrr. They tried their best. Give them a pass. Cut them some slack. No doubt! This is the power of advocacy after all. 

On Wednesday, January 22nd at 12 noon, registration opened for the popular Brooklyn Half Marathon. 

A bit of context:

• The half marathon is sponsored by Popular Bank. I had never heard of the brand and I actually had to do some digging to find out who they are. So there's a positive outcome from this story off the bat.
• It's one of the most popular races in the country. Last year, there were 26,841 finishers. I was registered but sadly had to bow out with an injury.
• It starts at the Brooklyn Museum, travels through Prospect Park, and ends at the iconic Coney Island boardwalk.

This year, myself and two other runners were at our respective computer screens around 11.45am gearing up to snap up our registrations before the race filled up. This typically happens within 30 minutes. We noticed a new procedure with what appeared to be a "virtual line." On the surface, this makes sense and actually humanizes the idea of waiting in a non-physical line.

All looked good until the registration went live. At this point, there was a message that the line was paused and then around 12.15pm, I was informed I was 25 minutes away from registered. This went down to 10 minutes and then suddenly shot up to 48 minutes and soon over an hour.

I was bewildered and turned to Twitter and it was only through Twitter that I was able to ascertain an incredibly embarrassing and frustrating #EPICFAIL.

Around 12.22pm, @nyrr informed there was some kind of technical glitch and you'll see my response to @nyrr around 12.41pm

New York Road Runners did not post again until around 1.21pm when they informed the problem would be fixed within the hour and if it wasn't, they would consider rescheduling the registration.

Rescheduling was clearly the consensus based on Twitter responses: 

 So what happened? 

• The problem was NOT fixed within the hour 
• Registration went live again around 4pm 
• At no point did any e-mails go out to inform people of this  
• I assume this was listed on their website and then there was Twitter.  
• All in all, 11 tweets were issued from @nyrr's account. This included 2 tweets about the registration nearing capacity and 1 apology (see below)

Fortunately for me, my running partners texted me registration was open around 4.15pm. If they hadn't I wouldn't have known and probably wouldn't have been able to register. I got in.

OK, so what were the learnings? This post is not - only - about beating up on @nyrr. If indeed President Capiraso is serious and committed to be better in the future, then the bullets below should help him and @nyrr. You're welcome!

1. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Or, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Brooklyn Half registration worked fine in the past, so while the bright and shiny object of a virtual queue makes sense, doesn't mean it's a better option.
2. Personally, I like this idea, BUT I would manage expectations and in this case reassure someone who is waiting for 30 minutes for example that they WILL get in...but just need to be patient. Nothing worse than getting to the end of the line and being disappointed.
3. The most egregious mistake here is that this was not QA'd or stress tested. At least, I can't imagine it was. How could they not anticipate the demand and the rush? Or the partner they used? Did they try and do it themselves? Did they cut corners and costs in terms of implementation? This really is unacceptable. 
4. Every company. Every company must plan for every single campaign, launch or program prepared for both best and worst case scenarios. In some cases, it might be the same thing I.e. the website crashes. It's not ok to be surprised if you are a corporate.
5. When the problem happened, the clock was ticking for @nyrr to figure out a solution. And quickly. As per (4), they should have had a plan. Enter Twitter...THE greatest direct-to-customer-service channel ever known to business. And yet how few companies actually take advantage of this. 
6. @nyrr should have been communicating early and often versus what appeared to be 2 tweets within an hour.
7. @nyrr should have been responsive. As of today, they still haven't responded to extremely frustrated and despairing customers. Including me. Michael Capiraso - the gauntlet is thrown. Reach out to me. Acknowledge this post and my frustration. I don't expect you to be subscribed to this newsletter (although you should), but surely someone knows someone who knows someone who knows you...
8. @nyrr should have enlisted the help and support of their base. Help us spread the word!!!!
9. @nyrr should have been more decisive. They should have postponed registration and given advance notice for new registration, for example a day later at 12 noon EST.
10. The "additional entries" approach is interesting. Clearly there were going to be a lot of people who didn't end up getting in that should have based on clearing their calendar at 12 noon EST. I wonder what happened here. Surely this opened the door to every single person who didn't get in jumping on this bandwagon. 
11. As bad a situation as this was, there was so many ways @nyrr could have turned lemons into lemonade. Examples: complimentary AND guaranteed entry in next year's Brooklyn Half, guaranteed entry into the TCS NYC Marathon (very hard to get in)
12. At the end of the day, people are reasonable (at least most are.) Where @nyrr screwed up is that they didn't respect people's time; they didn't empathize. People took over an hour of their work week AND still might not have made it in to the race. Just the ability to express true remorse, humanity and empathy goes a long way. 
13. In a situation like this, complete transparency is the only way to go 
14. e-mail. e-mail. e-mail. @nyrr used e-mail to remind people the day before, so why not during? Why not after? As of today, I still haven't seen the apology letter in my in-box. Twitter and nyrr.org is fine, but that's not on your customer's terms. Your website is your home field. Twitter is a neutral venue. Your customer's in-box is their home. 
15. Maybe you think I was too harsh in my criticism, but as per tweet, if they were a business (and they kind of are), they would be OUT of business. As per my Instagram quotable from last week, "you don't get a second chance to make a good first impression" BUT "you DO get a second chance to make a good second impression." 

 It's not how you start...it's how you finish and that analogy is perfect for a half marathon!

The extinction of brands?

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh wait, that’s already happening…

The 100 Day Challenge: Are you Marketer enough?

How was your year?

Be honest.

Awesome?

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

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

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

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

The choice is ultimately yours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain, The Holodeck is ready for you (AKA Has Virtual Reality hit its Tipping Point?)

Warp speed and Teleportation  may not quite be ready for Prime Time (or the Prime Directive), but the Holodeck appears to be gearing up for launch.

Last week, Evol8tion took one of our clients on a curated 2-day tour in Los Angeles of the Virtual Reality (VR) space. During this window, we visited various studio, tech companies and startups that are currently innovating from the front-lines and "imagineering" the future of VR.

1. So does VR "change everything"?
2. Will the VR industry ever get ahead of the perceived number 1 challenge of having to put on a headset (see: 3DTV)?
3. How is this different to the failed attempts of the past (see: Second Life)?

Are any of these questions actually relevant?

My belief has always been: if you want to understand technology, you have to experience it yourself. You simply have to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty. You can't read about it in a book. You can't trust your agents or agency to deliver an informed "POV" (unless of course they are bona fide subject matter experts.)

So unless you've tested out the technology and applications yourself (and no, a quick demo at SxSW does not really count), you really need to park your opinion at the door of ignorance before opening your giant yap and passing any premature judgement.

When you look at progress and in particular with innovation itself, it's important to recognize the "failed attempts of the past" all played a part in paving the way for their successors. Timing and luck are both important contributors and factors in combining to deliver an idea that sticks or tips. In other words, Pokeman Go has Minecraft to thank, which in turn has Second Life to thank for doing the thankless job of pioneering.

(not your problem I know, but still...)

As for the headsets, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a time where they don't exist or if they do, they are no more intrusive (culturally, socially, behaviorally)  than reading or sunglasses. I'm actually not sure this is even a "thing" to be concerned about as a barrier to entry.

It might even be a necessary precursor to fool your brain into accepting you're somewhere else, which is a primary characteristic of the space.

In any event, Google Cardboard and the equivalent sells for around $10-15 on Amazon.com

For what it's worth, it's pretty insane to think of the sum total of the progress to date in a VERY well funded space as a hodgepodge of duct tape and chicken wire via cobbled together Samsung phones that snap into headsets or modified or hacked cameras that look like Battlebots and Go Pro had an unholy union...

We are literally at the infancy or dawn of a new era...

The transformative or perhaps a better word is transcendent experience that comes from stepping into a Futuristic kitchen (Job Simulator on HTC Vive), avoiding a Blue Whale under the sea, standing next to American Ninja Warrior's Vertical Wall or hanging out in a Tibetan hut is worth it.

These were some of my more memorable VR experiences. Oh, and also being teased by Nina Agdal as part of SI's Swimsuit VR Edition which was - ahem - fairly interesting (note to self: do not watch this EVER in front of other people, especially clients!)

I also enjoyed whizzing around a track with a fan blowing air into my face to simulate the whoosh of being in a racing car.

The list goes on. And that's the point.

Each time you experience a different interpretation or application of a narrative, evolved and adapted to an immersive and pervasive presence, it opens a multitude of possibilities for new use cases.

In some cases - such as travel & tourism - I would be as bold as to say that they should cut their entire advertising budget in favor of VR. I'm not exaggerating here. Hey, I did write "Life after the 30-second spot" and Z.E.R.O. Paid Media as the New Marketing Model after all.

In other cases, such as Consumer Packaged Goods, it's a little more challenging. I said, challenging; NOT Impossible.

And if all else fails, you can always resort to brilliant creative such as this one:

..or this one

I heard a great quote from the tour that sums up the world we came form versus the one we are heading towards: Create the Experience or Experience the Creative. It's not an either/or, but in fact an "AND" - so why wouldn't you proactively do both?

Perhaps this is why Robert Scoble jumped ship from reality to virtual reality.

Perhaps this is why Google has a Global Evangelist for VR

Perhaps this is why LA is a VR hotbed of growth and investment?

If you are wondering what all the fuss is about, perhaps you should take a tour (virtual or otherwise) to experience this phenomenon first hand and decide for yourselves if this is hype or hope? Perhaps you'll want to take a voyeuristic route and watch from the sidelines, which ironically is kind of the VR point, but not especially beneficial in terms of first mover or competitive advantage.

Every journey begins with a step and now you can take that giant leap for marketingkind. No really, you can actually step on the moon! Or climb Everest!

Whatever you do, I would caution against ignoring VR. You do so at your peril. I would recommend you frame your perspective against a blue ocean of possibilities versus searching for research or best practices. In a world of test 'n learns, it's time to focus on the learn part.

Sure you might have bigger fish to fry, so don't bet the farm unnecessarily on VR (especially if you're in the toilet paper business). For everyone else, there is a pretty robust and fertile sandbox to dream...or even daydream. 

VR is not the next big thing. It's an evolution of the last big thing. And that is in of itself, not a small thing.

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

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

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

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

He ends with the following paragraph:

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

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

Personally I disagree with him. Respectfully of course.

To address his points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jaffe Juice #181 - Up Periscope with Jaffe and Joel

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

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

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

The Agency is Dead. Long live the Agency!

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the set-up/context:  

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

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

Joel and I will also answer the following questions:

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

Now, it's your turn.

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

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

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

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

Let's make this happen!

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

Hello strangers...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image credit 

Jaffe Juice #175 - Jaffe, Joel and Miriam

I recently sat down with my brother from another mother, Mitch Joel, to discuss the Super Bowl, Life after the 30-second spot, the life, death, after life and rebirth of creativity. And Miriam. @mitchjoel and @jaffejuice

It's another well spent hour of my life and I suspect it will be of yours as well. So give it a listen by downloading or listening here. Or you can subscribe to the show here.

PS I apologize for Mitch's singing. Really I do. Profusely.

PPS Mirum is now the agency formally known as Twist Image and Six Pixels of Separation Podcast, but it's still the same Mitch we all know and love.