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
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.
Apparently the "Bull" in Red Bull stands for false or misleading advertising as a court recently ruled in favor of customers who did not sprout wings. Who knew?!
I'm continuing to experiment with video formats in an effort to produce more content more regularly. This is my man-on-the-street attempt and clearly I haven't yet mastered the selfie video technique, but I'm learning! Be patient, it'll get better (I hope)
In this episode, I comment on an unusual Delta Airlines partnership with Chelsea Football Club. It's a partnership which makes sense on a global scale for both parties...but its the execution that got my attention...
Lately Iâve been describing myself as the Robin Hood of marketing. If I look back at my four books -- âLife after the 30-second spot,â âJoin the Conversation,â Flip the Funnelâ and âZ.E.R.O.â -- they all have a common theme of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Or, in marketing speak: budget optimization (sounds less daring when you put it that way).
I challenge marketers to rethink the way they spend other peopleâs money in favor of a scenario which I believe more realistically reflects reality â or, at least a reality grounded in consumer insights and the actual behavior of the people they call consumers.
Inherent in the final optimization is the belief that we need to create innovation budgets. My co-author and fellow Online Spin writer, Maarten Albarda, dedicates an entire chapter in "Z.E.R.O." to the budget-setting component of the Z.E.R.O. action plan.
I only need to think back to my agency days recall the eye rolls when I pleaded for dollars that I believed were justified -- if not right then, certainly in the months to come.
I also remember being told that there are two types of people: pioneers and settlers. The pioneers get killed and the settlers take the land. âJoe, my boy: you are a pioneer!â Gee, thanks (I thinkâ¦).
It takes a bold individual to put that stake in the ground (versus having it thrust through their heart). Chuck Fruit did it at Anheuser-Busch and The Coca-Cola Company with regards to cable television (ESPN is still grateful), and most recently, Mondelezâ (a client) Bonin Bough did it with respect to mobile.
In the world of digital innovation, we constantly hear about the 60/30/10 -- or 70/20/10 as a slightly more conservative -- rule being applied, led by the uber innovator, Google and in the corporate world, Coca-Cola (again) respectively. Coke refers to it as Now, New and Next.
So with all that said, what percentage of your budget are you spending on innovation -- aka ânextâ? Do you even have a budget to begin with? And if so, do you have a dedicated champion internally, and partner externally, to help you execute against it?
It dawned on me last week as I was immersing myself in the startup world of Silicon Valley that this 10% dream is really just a pipe dream to marketers. They talk a big game, but walk an entirely different one. I realized that 10%, while realistic and practiced by a handful of progressive brands, is unattainable to many others.
So I thought I would take the hatchet and lop off an entire digit, leaving us with a solitary and pretty binary â1.â I challenge the marketers still standing to get to 1% for innovation. Could you do it? Could you do it this year? And no, the year is NOT almost over. What about next year? How embarrassed will you be when you get to the end of NEXT year with still nothing NEW to show for it? Shouldnât you take the first step NOW?
For your first step, why not move the decimal place one more time to the left: 0.1%. On a $50 million spend, weâre talking about $50,000. How about 0.1% of your spend on a test, experiment or pilot program. I donât care what you call it, as long as you call it. As long as it isnât others calling⦠time of death. Yours.
Last week I attended a fantastic event in Chicago called âThe League of Leaders,â an initiative run by the Path to Purchase Institute. Heard of them? Of course you havenât.
Thatâs because the subject matter focused on shopper marketing, the red-headed stepchild of the marketing ecosystem.
I delivered a keynote to this group of marketers representing pretty much the crème de la crème of the entire consumer packaged goods spectrum. In my opening remarks, I made a joke about the fact that the advertising industry was slumming it in Cannes, whereas Iâd hit the proverbial jackpot at the Westin OâHare Airport Hotel, instead of puking off the port side of a luxury yacht.
Unfair comparison, really. The reality is, the only place to be was in Chicago. That's where the REAL money is! Case in point: Total U.S. retail sales projected for 2014 is a whopping $4.7 trillion (according to eMarketer), with in-store representing $4.4 trillion of this amount.
So why then is the overwhelming majority of marketersâ budgets being spent on acquisition marketing, designed at worst to deliver reach, frequency, awareness and whiffs of consideration, or, at best, to get someone into a store or supermarket, as opposed to completing the process and closing the deal in-store?
Observation 1: There is a complete disconnect between what is spent on prospecting, persuading and reminding versus whatâs spent on sampling, converting and closing.
According to Veronis Suhler, $51.53 billion will be spent in 2014 on point-of-purchase, coupons, promotional licensing, premiums, loyalty programs, product sampling, and finally sponsored games, contests and sweeps. As a rough benchmark, eMarketer projects 2014 US media ad spending to be $177.8 billion (thatâs ad spending, not marketing).
If you are familiar with my Marketing Bowtie⢠framework that essentially unifies the traditional and flipped funnels (picture them side by side, where outside-in meets inside-out to deliver a bowtie), then we would be talking about what I call P.O.P. (place of purchase and/or point of purchase).
Observation 2: There is an acute lack of investment, intellect and/or innovation in the last three feet (in-store).
Speaking of P.O.P., thereâs also a third expression, namely âproof of purchase.â This gets into flip the funnel territory, or retention as the new acquisition wheelhouse. In an era of mobile wallets and Passbooks, there is an extremely limited showcase of viable technologies, platforms and/or apps designed to deliver âfrom the cart into the heartâ (stick a ⢠on that for me, please).
Observation 3: The marketing machine abandons ship at the sale, and does not continue the momentum and relationship building post-sale.
The fact is that shopper marketing (increasingly being referred to as customer marketing) is still thought of superficially and tactically instead of from a more holistic and integrated perspective. If only there was a way to connect the dotsâ¦
Which brings us to the final piece of the puzzle, the one device to rule them all, the true common thread throughout the entire contact management continuum.
Of course Iâm talking about mobile.
Observation 4: Mobile suffers from the same neglect in-store as it does everywhere else in the marketing world.
Arguably, mobile is even more important in-store.
As is innovation.
Fortunately, I did see a handful of incredible technologies and startups at this meeting that are looking to revolutionize the blue ocean of shopper marketing. These companies are also coupled with startups experimenting in areas like multiscreen integration, heat mapping, conductive ink, augmented reality, in-store mapping and big data.
And so, to those executives frequenting the aisles of their favorite supermarket for Pepto-Bismol to nurse those post-Cannes blues, I humbly suggest âcanningâ next yearâs festival for a much shorter, less costly trip.
You donât even need to leave the premises to have arrived.
My latest MediaPost column makes the case that startups are not a fad, fleeting tactic du jour or "The Next Big Thing."
Actually what I really hope is that less brands will be doing the WRONG things with startups and more brands will be doing the RIGHT kind of partnership and collaboration.
Read on and weigh in...
My friend David Berkowitz, CMO of MRY, just wrote an opinion piece titled âWhy Brands will Focus Less on Startups in 2014.â In the piece, he cites (1) clutter, (2) too much P.R, and (3) lack of results as the three reasons why âbrand and agency love for startups is going to fizzle.â
What David is referring to is a sickness that seems to strike many marketers and is passed on to their agencies (or perhaps it is the other way round): namely TNBTS, or The Next Big Thing Syndrome. The good news is that there is a cure. Itâs called strategy. When there is none present, I strongly recommend abstinence (hence, the title of Davidâs article, and why I chose to take the same title although I have a divergent opinion.).
âClutterâ represents all the noise out there; the tonnage; the quantity of startup candidates. In fact, when TechCrunch pretty much opened its entire startup database to the public, I rejoiced. 30,000+ one-liner descriptions in an Excel spreadsheet! Thatâs like referring to the phone book as your list of potential dates. Good luck with that! The antidote to noise is the filter, curation or vetting that helps weed âtoo manyâ and weave âtoo fewâ into âjust right.â
The problem with P.R. is P.R. itself. Ever since I stumbled into the world of P.R. during my social media days, I keep coming back to âthose who can, do; those who canât, P.R.â as I wrote in an Online Spin six+ months ago. I do recognize, however, that there is value to both internal and external merchandising. I think where David and I diverge is that he is referring to P.R. as being first to market with Vine, Snapchat or Google Glass â ALL OF WHICH are hyped up by the very P.R. and trade engine that accepts or rejects what is newsworthy on their terms. In addition, none of these platforms are early stage; none of the collaborations are strategic; all of them benefit the trade publications and the platforms themselves (can you say acquisition or IPO?) as opposed to the brands that helped them get there in the first place!
Then thereâs âresults.â Certainly if a startup collaboration is being attached to quarterly earnings, then we would do well to cut off funding to them altogether and instead invest this money to determine the same âresultsâ from âworkingâ media â specifically, how many millions of dollars are being completely wasted and negligently justified through outdated marketing mix modeling.
I hope 2014 is not the year of the startup. Itâs very simple: 2013 was the year of the startup. 2012 was the year of the startup. Every single year in which the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and kicking is the year of the startup. Startups are nothing new. They were, are and always will exist.
To cover startups so prolifically (Berkowitz notes that the word startup was mentioned in Ad Age more times in 2012 than 2005-2009 combined) and then summarily declare, âitâs overâ is proof positive of TNBTS.
I hope 2014 puts an end to endless âspeed datingâ without any intention of a second date; hack-a-thons with an emphasis on the word âhackâ; brand accelerators that are led by agencies who implode when their one-man-band startup-guy leaves to join another agency or, more likely, a startup; and, last but least, the $5,000 pilot program, which is nothing more than a checkmark on the Next Big Thing checklist.
When the dust settles, fewer brands will be standing, and these brands will continue to enjoy unprecedented competitive advantages from profoundly partnering with startups. Brands like Under Armor, which just acquired MapMyFitness. Brands like Intuit, which acquired Mint. Brands like Avis, which acquired ZipCar. Or Brands like MondelÄz International (an Evol8tion client) that just won Mobile Marketer of the Year based in part on their Mobile Futures Program.
They all thank you for reading Davidâs article and taking it at face value.
I haven't posted my Online Spin articles for a while, but I'd like to do so now with 3 related ones that all triangulate on a brand marketer's need to change, move quicker, embrace the "fear" of failure (the only thing to fear is fear itself) and ultimately, adopt a much more progressive lean-forward approach to new media, emerging technology and partnership with startups/entrepreneurs.
The opportunity cost of inertia - This article focuses on doing nothing. Being hamstrung with indecision or just procrastinating in general.
Facebook isn't failing marketers. Marketers are failing marketers - This article really isn't about Facebook at all, but rather the approach that marketers take when evaluating and ultimately executing new media or emerging media programs. With respect to the former, it's all about old school reach and therefore replication and with the latter, it's anemic lip-service due to the lack of reach. The unadulterated creativity, originality and disruptive innovation is nowhere to be found...
I have seen the enemy - and the enemy is within - My latest article, which goes back to the notion of "doing nothing" but this time focuses on all the wheel spinning, lost time and therefore expended resources on deciding NOT to move forward on opportunities already under consideration.
Here's the final article in its entirety:
Companies are their own worst enemies. The amount of wheel-spinning that takes place to get an initiative in place or even started, only for the rug to be ripped out underneath due to âa new CMO coming inâ (or an existing one going out), âa budget cutâ or âa reorg,â translates into significant hours expended, and therefore has a very real price tag.
I think itâs important we recognize the tangible cost of dragging our feet, being stuck in holding patterns and/or ultimately having cold feet as a substantial cost of doing business.
The waste of time -- and therefore money -- is mission critical, especially when dealing in a complex, dynamic and turbulent marketplace, with -- letâs face it -- extremely scarce resource (and by scarce resources, Iâm talking about talent and time). While we all complain about budget cuts, in reality we are swimming in obscene excessive amounts of money that go into the temporal renting of multitasking eyeballs (yes, Iâm talking about YOU, 30-second spot).
As a writer and speaker, I get to clench my fist and shake it disapprovingly at you a lot. You agree with me and yet you do nothing about it.
As a consultant and âagencyâ guy, I get to feel the short stick by being on the receiving end of your constant âreorgsâ and additional approvals and reviews.
But honestly, donât worry about me -- this is about you. Iâm really worried about you.
Did you ever stop and think that all this time lost is actually hurting the current and future state of your business? In other words, hastening the next reorg and restructure? Your inability to get anything done that is different, original, unique and/or innovative is without question putting your own continuity and value INTO question.
Seriously, consider the ROI of not doing anything. Itâs a Return on Inertia that is ironically very measurable both as an opportunity cost (past/hours) and opportunity lost (future/execution).
Instead, consider the analogy of waiting in a very long line. Youâve stood for an hour and youâre strongly considering calling it quits and walking away. Only, youâve already spent an hour and who knows, the wait might only be another 30 minutes or so. And then before you know it, itâs 90 minutes or 2 hours. Now you DEFINITELY canât walk away, because youâve invested 2 hours, which is much more than the hour. And then itâs three hours -- and so on.
Why not apply the same logic to your projects? Stay the course!. Consider all the hours and legwork that got you this far and use that as the incentive to keep going.
And if all else fails, consider this: âIf youâre not adding to your legacy, youâre adding to your eulogy.â
Those of you who don't subscribe to Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson's For Immediate Release are probably still blissfully living underneat the rock of ages where 4-color bleeds, mechanicals and 30-second spots reign supreme.
For the rest of you, you would know FIR is one of the longest standing P.R. and Communications podcasts out there. Period. And the best.
I also had the pleasure of working with both Shel and Neville during the crayon days.
Last week, my co-author, Maarten Albarda and I had a great conversation about Z.E.R.O. and I particularly enjoyed the questions from a slightly different perspective (P.R. v Advertising)
You can listen to the post directly here (or if you're subscribed to Across the Sound or Jaffe Juice podcasts, it will download automatically via iTunes). The very thoughtful post on the podcast can be found here.
If you're still interested in reviewing the book, I'll send you a copy. Let me know.
If you'd like to purchase the book, you can do so here. It comes with a full 100% money back guarantee...however you do need to pay us a 10% fee on any incremental revenue or cost savings generated beyond $1,000,000 that comes from the book. Hint: The latter scenario is much more likely (you have been warned)
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