Influential Marketing Blog

Influential Marketing Blog Featured in Wall Street Journal

Many of you may have already caught this yesterday, but this blog was cited in the Recommended Reading  section of the Wall Street Journal yesterday in an article by Keith Huang.  As Jay Berkowitz from Ten Golden Rules shares on his team blog, my blog was one of 60 resources that they recommended to the journalist as part of their reading list and was selected from that list as a recommended resource for companies looking to "optimize their online presence."  Here's the writeup:

Influential Marketing Blog, rohitbhargava.typepad.com
Rohit Bhargava's blog is intellectual and educational. In a recent post, he discusses the art of stamp collection and how, even today, many smaller countries use stamps as a key marketing tool. He writes, 'Next time you pass a post office in any country, pay attention to how they are using their philately to promote the country, cater to tourists, or commemorate moments of significance.'

It is a great media hit and to be selected from a list of what I am guessing were 60 stellar resources is flattering.  I'm in awe at being included among the other bloggers and authors mentioned in the article - including Seth Godin, Steve Rubel, Matt Cutts, John Battelle, Chris Anderson, Joseph Jaffe, and Danny Sullivan. Thanks to Jay for including me in this great list, and to Keith for selecting to include my blog!

Can Anyone Solve This Ticketmaster Riddle?

I am a passionate hater of Ticketmaster.com.  Paying a surcharge to a site whose main purpose it is to make it difficult for me to complete an online transaction seems wrong on every level.  Imagine you were forced to make every travel booking for any hotel you ever wanted to stay at through Expedia.com.  That's the equivalent of the monopoly Ticketmaster has, and it's amazing in our world of increasing choice online that an old world monopoly like theirs has managed to last this long.  Here's my latest frustration:

If you can tell me what this CAPTCHA actually says, I'll give you a million dollars.  Just post your best guess, along with your swiss bank account number so I can wire you the money if you're right ...

Update (08/10/07): Here are two other CAPTCHAs that I got when going back to search for tickets for another show one day after writing this post (no joke).  I never realized CAPTCHAs could be so well branded, but at least they're honest ...

Now all they need to do is work on their poor spelling.

Shell Has Eureka Moment, But Sends Wrong Message

Good advertising is based on insights ... a singular idea or truth that gets to the heart of a product or brand.  The trouble with insight, though, is that it comes in two forms.  There is insight that can help you to create a great communications message - and there is insight that can help you do your business better.  They are not usually the same.  And when they are confused, you have a situation like Shell's Eureka film - part of their Real Energy campaign.  There are more than a few people who have talked about how the film has been well executed.  It's hard to argue with that, as the film is compelling and well produced - easily watchable despite being a 9 minute long commercial.  The method of distribution (inserts in Wired magazine) and postings on YouTube of the short and long videos of the film also make sense (though it didn't take long for someone to post an embeddable version to get around a request to disable embedding on the original Shell posted video).  The problem comes in the strategy and is actually very simple if you think about it:

1. Every oil company is trying to be green and get more goodwill from consumers.
2. People in general are afraid that oil companies are exploiting the earth, oil will run out and prices will keep rising.

The conclusion most competitors have drawn is that marketing and communication needs to focus on positive non-oil messages such as what they are doing to fund alternative energy sources.  Of course they are getting more efficient about drilling for oil ... everyone expects that because it makes business sense.  Unfortunately, broadcasting a "eureka moment" of an engineer getting the idea to create a flexible oil drill to suck oil deposits out of the ocean like a teenager sucks a drink through a straw is not a great choice for a consumer message.  Even the online landing page for the campaign does little to help the cause, outlining that the flexible drill was necessary to "prevent all that precious oil going to waste."  Some could argue the oil was fine where it was, but ultimately the unintended message they send is: Shell cares about inventing new technologies to suck the earth dry.

The irony is, once you delve into the film and learn about the process and the benefits, there actually is great value in the method for the environment in terms of being able to use fewer drilling platforms and produce less waste.  It seems to be a great technology advance for Shell as well as the industry.  Yet the visual of an oil company slurping every last drop of oil from the earth through their superstraw is exactly the wrong way to portray the industry and Shell itself.  This was obviously a eureka moment and a great business case for Shell - something shareholders are likely to love.  Using it as the hero story for their consumer marketing just seems like a bad idea no matter how well produced it is.

Watch the video:

Full Disclosure: BP is a longstanding Ogilvy client, though I am not currently part of the BP team or participating in any ongoing work for BP.

Newsflash for Ask.com: The Algorithm is Dying

In case you hadn't heard - Ask.com has a new advertising campaign through their new partnership with Crispin, Porter & Bogusky (CP+B) focused on making a hero out of the algorithm.  The idea behind the marketing strategy is described on their blog:

If you get great search results, you don’t care why or how you got them.  But for more than 80% of searches, there can be more than one right answer. And even when there is one right answer, there’s more than one way of getting you there, understanding those results, or getting ideas for alternative searches. For these searches, the editorial voice of your search engine matters. Search isn’t the commodity it may, at times, seem to be.

You might know CPB for their superfun and standout ad campaigns for Volkswagen and Burger King (including my favorite, the Subservient Chicken viral).We've been working with them to create a campaign that champions "The Algorithm" and how it brings good search to life--from plain old “ten blue links” to popular, algorithm-driven features such as Smart Answers and Zoom related search.  ... So ready or not world, here comes the Algorithm, soon to take its rightful place as a household word, once and for all.

Um, ok.  Obviously they are excited to be working with the "cool kids" at CP+B, which is great.  And the campaigns that are mentioned were wonderfully creative campaigns that defined a new positioning for each client and offered something new and viral.  Unfortunately, there are three pretty obvious flaws in this marketing strategy for Ask:

1. No one cares about the algorithm - This is a fact which they already note above, stating that consumers don't care how they get search results as long as they work.  Everyone in the tech industry is trying to be more "human" with their advertising - but Ask inexplicably decides to go the other way and focus on the algorithm.   
2. The algorithm is declining in importance - As anyone following the search industry knows, the rise of social networks and human filtered search mean the algorithm is not what is used to be.  Even Ask notes above that "the editorial voice of your search engine matters."  Seriously, does the editorial voice of Ask come from an algorithm?  Not so much.
3. The core brand value or positioning for Ask is not about the algorithm - This is perhaps the largest strategic issue of this campaign, that it misses the mark in focus.  Ask happens to be a search engine, but the core value proposition is not about the power of the algorithm.   For years the company focused on user friendliness and having Jeeves as a personal assistant to navigate results.  Quite simply, the algorithm is not what makes Ask unique.

Strategically, the campaign misses the mark pretty widely - and the only explanation for how it launched that I can think of is a marketing team getting blinded to strategy by a creative concept that they fall in love with (probably because of a great sales job from the CP+B team).  Unlike most of CP+B's work, this is definitely not a winning idea.  As Techcrunch recently shared, the execution doesn't seem too much smarter with their Unabomber billboards and incomprehensible microsite.  Even Valleywag was confused.  Am I missing something?  This doesn't inspire too much confidence in Ask.

Learning from Blackberry's Social Media Marketing Mistakes

Blackberry's recent "Share Your Stories" campaign was inspiring for me, though probably not in the way they intended.  I actually love my Blackberry, but their entire "Share your Story" campaign just struck me as lacking in any of the lessons many other marketers have learned about Web 2.0 marketing and what works in social media.  The mistakes were so basic, that it led me to put together this post listing a few of them and some reactions for how they could have been avoided.  As more and more consumers continue to find ways to interact with brands that they are passionate about, the popularity of UGC campaigns will continue to rise.  Blackberry has such great potential to tap their own brand enthusiasts for efforts like this ... but they fall short in this campaign in several ways.  Without further intro, here are some of the key mistakes and thoughts on how Blackberry might have been able to execute this campaign idea differently:

1. Mistake #1 - Not offering a payoff or incentive for users:  Asking consumers to share their stories with you is one thing, but giving them an incentive beyond relying on their affinity for your brand is vital.  This is not about turning any campaign into a contest with winners and prizes.  The incentive could be as simple as guaranteeing that your story is shared with the most relevant people inside of Blackberry, or sending a personal email of thanks back.  The point is, an incentive answers the question of why ... and without necessarily promising a financial reward as the answer.
2. Mistake #2 - Forgetting about photos and video: It probably seems odd in this time of popularity for online video and YouTube for any User Generated Content campaign to launch without some ability for customers to include their photos and videos as part of their submissions.  Of course text based entry is easier - but for those customers who really love their Blackberries, why not let them submit images and video.  Particularly when one of the coolest features of the new Pearl is the integrated camera.
3. Mistake #3 - Only promoting campaign through advertising:  The way I found the campaign was through a banner ad on CBSNews.com (not exactly a hotbed for consumer generated content).  Though I am unsure about their other online advertising efforts, I am fairly certain they missed the most easy promotion available to them - a link from the Blackberry.com website.  There are always a host of reasons why clients decide not to link to their promotions from their own homepage, and the only reason I have accepted in the past as reasonable is not wanting to give up the real estate on a ecommerce site to a promotional unit.  Blackberry has no such reason and should be promoting this campaign everywhere they can, especially on their own site.
4. Mistake #4 - Avoiding publishing contributions real time: Again, legal and filtering reasons are probably behind Blackberry's choice to not publish any stories immediately ... however as a consumer being invited to share my story and not be able to read anyone others before doing so seems odd.  What is the plan for these stories they are getting anyway?  According to the T&Cs, the only thing that's clear is that a consumer gives up all rights and control to any story they submit.  The only way they could make it any scarier for a consumer to participate is by asking for a full driver's license number upfront like Bud.TV initially did when they first launched (which they have since corrected).

Does anyone have any other thoughts on something I might be missing here?  Would love to hear more from other folks who are launching (or considering launching) new User Generated Content campaigns using social media and struggling with some of these issues ...

Airport Security Bins and 10 Other Spots We Need Advertising

Apparently, the latest "innovation" in advertising is offering up ad space on the bottom of those security bins used in every airport.  Despite fears that it might confuse people during an already confusing moment of separating liquids and laptops into quart-sized bags, it seems that airport authorities are ready to go ahead with the plan (according to a piece earlier this week in USAToday).  After all, if consumers are used to ads everywhere else, it seems only natural to put them here too.  But what are some of the more unique places with advertising opportunities that we are not tapping?  Surely in this overexposed world there are other unused canvases just waiting to be decorated by the brilliance of advertising creative.  Here's my list of a few that we might see sometime soon, some ideas on who the perfect advertiser for each might be, and an example tagline:

1. Hubcaps (Goodyear, Car Manufacturers, ZipCar) Nothing handles these roads like Goodyear.
2. Fruits and Vegetables (5aDay, WeightWatchers) Try this fruit with [product name here]
3. Bottom Logos on Beach Flipflops (to make footprints in sand) (Beach Resorts, Crocs)
4. Screen Printed Contact lenses (Nike, Lenscrafters)
5. Chinese Takeout boxes (Netflix) Would you like some Netflix with that?
6. Public Restroom Doors (Glade Air Fresheners) Glade ... if it stinks, we can fix it.
7. Grass/Lawns (Local sports teams, local elections, Residential services)
8. Airline seat backs (Portable DVD players or MP3 players) Watch your own stuff.
9. Movie Theater Popcorn Bags (Candy bars, Orville Redenbacher) Movie theater taste, right at home.
10. Printed Aluminum Foil (GE Ovens, Betty Crocker) The ultimate choice for baking.

Isn't this too much?  Of course not!  Consumers are still free to ignore the messages, aren't they?  Anyway, I also have the perfect advertiser and tagline for those security bins ... Amtrak: "Next time, take the train."

A Recap of 2006 on Influential Interactive Marketing

Let's start with a warning ... this is the "clip show" post where I recycle a lot of old material so if that causes you extreme pain, please close this window now and come back tomorrow.  For all the rest of you, it's the holidays and a quick glance around the marketing blogosphere will show that these clip show posts are in right now.  With nearly 400 post on this blog already, there is lots of content to choose from ... allowing me the luxury to conveniently ignore those posts from the past year that are outdated or that I just don't like anymore.  Here is a sampling of the rest:

Concepts & Ideas:
This is a collection of concepts and ideas that were introduced or discussed on this blog and then travelled virally to other blogs and were discussed elsewhere in media.  A good collection of ideas, many of which I still hope to implement on a client campaign (but haven't yet).

• Soundbombs
• Virtual Hugs
• Placecasting
• Widget Marketing
• Text Messaging Customer Service
• Tagging with Domain Names
• Social Media Optimization
• Automated Blog Translation
• Photopedia
• Human Search Filters

Rules & Guides:
These are a group of "Guy Kawasaki style" posts written in list format as guides to various topics from SMO to viral marketing.  It's a format I have always liked and you will probably see many more posts in this format going into 2007.

• Avoiding the Dark Side of Social Media
• 5 Rules of Social Media Optimization
• Signs Your Viral Marketing May Flop
• 7 Tips on Pitching Bloggers
• Golden Rules of Blog Etiquette

Presentations & Published Work:
Links to presentations given at industry events as well as guest contributions to other blogs.  There is some good powerpoint link bait in here, useful for those who are interested in any of these topics but couldn't make it to the events referenced.

• 7 Rules for Getting into Search (Search Engine Strategies Conference)
• 7 Tips on Pitching Bloggers (White Paper)
• The Human Side of Search (Search Insider Summit)
• Guide to Blog Marketing (SixApart Seminar) 
• Finding your Personality in Personal Media (Guest Column on Strumpette)

That's it.  Look out tomorrow for an all new post about what I think the top ten marketing ideas to watch will be in 2007.

Snakes on a Plane Viral Campaign Misses the Multicultural Mark

I came across an interesting viral campaign for the upcoming movie "Snakes on a Plane" where users can go online and enter names to have a personalized viral message sent to someone spoken by Samuel L. Jackson.  I have seen this viral talking idea before, such as with the "7 days left" campaign for The Ring 2 ... but in that case the promotion was not personalized.  So visiting the site, I was expecting another smart piece of a marketing strategy from a film that has done well to foster a fan frenzy by reshooting scenes based on fan input, encouraging discussion through fan blogs like Snakes on a Blog and even a fan wiki.  Sadly, this viral campaign is a disappointing example of what happens when movie marketers forget about multicultural audiences. 

The first step in sending a viral talking message is to enter your name and your recipient's name.  I first tried it by entering my name and my wife's name and came up with the error message "I can't say the name Rohit or Chhavi and still make a personalized talking message."  Bummer, but maybe we just have tough names.  So I went to the Social Security Administration's website where they list the 50 most popular baby names from any year (as registered by their office).  I then tried two "ethnic sounding" names from 2004: Isaiah and Ava ... and got the same error message.  This is like an online version of the experience every kid from another culture has when going into the tourist store to see all the personalized keychains and license plates with only names like James or Emily.  Of course, those stores can't be expected to carry every name ... but in a viral campaign like this where technology serves the personalization, this should not be a barrier.  Unfortunately a concept that could have worked well as yet another buzz builder for highly hyped movie online ends up alienating multicultural audiences and falling flat.

technorati tags: Snakes On a Plane snakesonaplane Snakes Samuel L. Jackson Samuel Jackson Samuelljackson viralmarketing movies movie multicultural hollywood mobilemarketing rohit bhargava marketing advertising

del.ico.us tags: Snakes On a Plane snakesonaplane Snakes Samuel L. Jackson Samuel Jackson Samuelljackson viralmarketing movies movie multicultural hollywood mobilemarketing rohit bhargava marketing advertising
icerocket tags: Snakes On a Plane snakesonaplane Snakes Samuel L. Jackson Samuel Jackson Samuelljackson viralmarketing movies movie multicultural hollywood mobilemarketing rohit bhargava marketing advertising

The Importance of a Movie Theater Website

Searching for a movie this weekend, I cursed my way through yet another painful online experience dealing with AMC Theaters.  The main problem, in their case, is that I know their brand and I have been to their theaters.  And because I do, I have higher expectations from AMC.  For one, I assume the theater's website would be easy to find so I skipped Google to go to www.amctheater.com.  Wrong.  So I tried www.amctheatre.com.  Wrong again.  Frustrated, I finally went to Google and typed in AMC Theater, to find the website was www.amctheatres.com.  The other two sites are not in use, but for sale - I can only assume AMC is too cheap to pay for them.  Not a great first branding impression.

As I arrived at the site, I was greeted with an extremely confusing interface pushing lots of things I don't care about, like free popcorn.  Seriously, sell me that stuff when I get there, not online.  Just get me to my theater for showtimes.  They would know that if they asked any of their customers.  The saga continued when I discovered the hard way that booking a ticket online doesn't work reliably with Firefox - luckily, I could use the Firefox IE plugin to get around that issue.  Still, you would think a brand like AMC would be able to get their development team to fix that.  Ultimately, I made it through to the order screen and started the process of getting my tickets.  The last time I was on the site, I signed up for the MovieWatcher club.  But apparently it takes 4-6 weeks to get a number (not the card, just a number), even though I can get approved for a credit card in 90 seconds.  Big bummer.  So I left that field empty, while thinking to myself that I've never belonged to a loyalty program for a brand I believed less in.  Finally I made it to the last step, and submitted my order, only to get an error page saying the site was experiencing technical difficulties and I should try again in an hour!  Um, my movie starts in 45 minutes - so that's probably not going to work for me. 

So we jumped in the car after wasting 15 minutes and made it to the movie theater with five minutes to spare.  At the theater, my experience was the polar opposite.  I bought my tickets at an automated kiosk in less than 1 minute. I could purchase popcorn there too, and walk in to pickup without waiting.  And I made it in before the previews started.  Inside the theater the seats were modern and comfortable and the quality of picture and audio was perfect.  The in-person experience was everything I wanted it to be.  Unfortunately, I almost didn't go because of the barriers I experienced online.  With the struggles of movie theaters, you would think the customer experience on AMC's website (and every other movie theater) would be a higher priority for them.  After all, for most people isn't that where the decision to go to the movies usually starts?

technorati tags: amc theater box office marketing rohit bhargava 
del.ico.us tags: amc theater box office marketing rohit bhargava 
icerocket tags: amc theater box office marketing rohit bhargava

5 Signs Your Viral Marketing May Flop

In light of Chevy Tahoe's recent experience with consumer backlash towards their promotion run on The Apprentice, viral marketing is a hot topic of discussion in marketing circles these days.  Is it too risky to do well?  Should companies avoid it?  Is Chevy doing the right thing by not stepping in and removing negative consumer created ads from their site as Nike did during the whole "sweatshop" escapade?  I think it's too soon to tell what damage this may or may not do to the Chevy Tahoe brand - but it has certainly gotten people thinking about marketing in an era where giving up control of marketing messages is becoming a necessity.  Is there a formula for doing viral marketing that works?  Unfortunately, you never really know what will truly take off - however, I believe you can predict what is going to flop.  To that end, for marketers considering launching a viral marketing campaign, here is my list of top five ways that you can tell viral marketing may not be the best tactic for your campaign:

1. The people who hate you are louder than the people who like you. This was Chevy's big mistake.  The anti-SUV groups are organizing and gaining support.  The people who drive SUVs or buy SUVs are often ashamed of their choice. Put these together and you have an environment ripe for backlash against any consumer generated program trying to get consumers to declare their love for an SUV.  Chevy should have seen this trend and stayed away from viral marketing.
2. You don't have something sexy, funny, controversial or voyeuristic.  These four are my own list of what qualities have made successful viral marketing campaigns (and in particular viral videos online).  The first three are self-explanatory, and the last is meant to cover the phenomenon of curiosity marketing that I have written about before.  If you can't honestly look at your program and say that it fits one of these four categories, make some changes or risk boring consumers and wasting your marketing budget. 
3. The message is too difficult (or impossible) to pass on. Viral marketing is not only about getting someone to interact with a message, it needs to be viral - it needs to have a pass along effect.  Billboards, events, or stunts can all have a creative concept that could be viral, but if customers have no easy way to spread the word about your promotion, you should think twice about whether it will truly be effective.
4. Your focus is on the tactic instead of the strategy.  It's the ultimate cart before horse marketing mistake - committed all the time on countless programs.  You have a creative idea, you (and your agency) fall in love with it, and you want to do it.  The only problem is, it has nothing to do with your brand or products.  What you could end up with is Subservient Chicken - a highly original viral marketing program that wins awards, but does little for your brand. Contrast this with Mastercard's priceless.com campaign which was on strategy, on message, and on brand.  Avoid recreating the chicken - you can do better.
5. Overselling and overbranding. Viral marketing online, by its nature focuses on content.  This content is meant to deliver a message, usually through ways that are engaging and compelling for people to interact with. The biggest mistake marketers make is feeling the necessity to overly brand their efforts or sell their product due to fear that customers won't follow through or won't know who was behind the promotion.  Customers will always find out - if you really have a compelling campaign that makes sense for your brand, people will know who's behind it.

technorati tags: chevy tahoe chevytahoe cgm marketing subservientchicken apprentice theapprentice nytimes viralmarketing mastercard priceless.com branding brand nike rohitbhargava chevy tahoe apprentice
del.ico.us tags: chevy tahoe chevytahoe cgm marketing subservientchicken apprentice theapprentice nytimes viralmarketing mastercard priceless.com branding brand nike rohitbhargava chevy tahoe apprentice

 

Wirefly.com Masters the Art of Rebate Phishing

Rebate Phishing: The practice of luring customers online to make a purchase with the promise of receiving a nonexistent rebate check in return.

Recently unleashed from the bonds of my 2-year mobile phone contract, I went online this weekend to search for a new mobile phone.  Within seconds, I ended up at Wirefly.com - one of the most popular online sellers of mobile phone contracts.  On their site, I looked for new phones on Cingular (my current provider) and found lots of seemingly great deals.  As an informed consumer, I knew that wireless providers initially subsidize phones based on signing two year contracts and that online phone vendors make hefty commissions.  But I also know that deals are different when upgrading phones as an existing customer versus becoming a new customer.  At least, they are everywhere online except Wirefly.com. 

Wirefly is the only site that offers the same rebates for existing Cingular customers as well as new customers.  And their deals are the best.  What's the catch?  To find out, first I called and spoke to a very nice saleswomen who guaranteed that I would, in fact, be able to get all the advertised rebates easily. Unconvinced, I started reading customer reviews on Wirefly from Reseller Ratings and Epinions - both of which showed the same story.  Turns out, lots of consumers shelled out full purchase prices for phones, then were denied their rebate checks.  They had been victims of rebate phishing.  It's a great scam, because only a few of the victims will actually find out about it ... the rest falling off because of the mandatory 3-6 month waiting period before being allowed to submit rebates.  Rebates have always been profitable for marketers, when you factor in the non-redemption rate.  For Wirefly, and others like them online - they have figured out a way to make rebates a lot more profitable.  Just offer them to everyone and deal with the fallout 3-6 months down the road.  Ultimately, I purchased my Sony w600 directly from Cingular with a corporate discount.  It wasn't free - but I paid a discounted up front price for it, and at least I'm sure I will actually get it.  Best of all, I don't have to file any rebates.

Update (02/26/07): Apparently, Inphonic has finally settled on claims for the ongoing government case against them and will be paying "restitution" to about 9000 customers, according to ConsumerAffairs.com.

technorati tags: sony w600 marketing phishing mobile rebates ecommerce cingular wirefly gadgetsrebate phishing
del.icio.us tags:  sony w600 marketing phishing mobile rebates ecommerce cingular wirefly gadgetsrebate phishing   

GMC's New Viral Campaign Fails to Deliver

In times square this weekend, I spotted a long billboard with mathematical equations and schematic drawings along with the cryptic URL - www.beyondthedrawingboard.com.  Unfortunately, a visit to the website delivers neither a new online community for tech geeks, nor an innovative new virtual drawing board for users to collaborate on.  Instead, the site is nothing more than a standard marketing effort for the new GMC Yukon with the hollow cliched promise of yet another SUV that will help city slickers get in touch with a natural side of themselves most don't possess.  My reaction to the site, and the reaction of others that I spoke to was one of extreme disappointment, and some anger at feeling mislead.  It brings up an interesting, and often forgotten nuance of viral marketing campaigns.  That it's not enough to peak interest and get people to talk about your promotion, you have to follow up on the promise you originally make.  For GMC, the billboard promised something new, something a user could interact with.  The reality fell far short.  As far as impact goes, I imagine this will probably come out as meaningless either way ... as most automotive advertising does.  Someone considering buying a GMC Yukon won't be deterred, and someone who was never interested in the car is unlikely to be converted.  No harm, no foul - I suppose.

Update: Adland also points to some interesting print ads for this campaign that ran in Sports Illustrated.

Nike Survives Ill-fated JoinBode.com Effort

Using celebrity spokespeople can be a tricky thing - especially when it comes to athletes and sports sponsorships.  Nike and Visa both learned this with their ill-fated Olympic sponsorships of Bode Miller and Lindsay Jacobellis, respectively.  Both turned out disappointing performances, with Bode Miller coming off as a total ass yesterday with his declaration that he "didn't really want to win" at the Olympics ... and Jacobellis having the choke of the century to lose the gold in her snowboarding event by falling with only a few meters of snow between her and an uncontested finish line.  Yes, sports celebrity sponsorships can be a tricky thing.  For Visa, they had other eggs in this basket - the Jacobellis spot was just one piece of their strategy. 

But Nike pushed Bode and the "Bode way of life" hard - even giving him a Che Guevara-esque silhouette (above).  They launched www.joinbode.com before the Olympics even started, featuring a series of videos making Bode into a Zen-like character offering his views on nature and happiness.  Bode was the do-it-my-way champion.  He was a winner.  JoinBode.com was a chance to join him - another "Be like Mike" crusade.  But then he lost. And didn't seem to give a sh*t.  And made excuses for losing. This is the point when a program like Nike's can rapidly turn into failure.  Except, right after his final loss, the TV spots featured him talking about what it meant to win no medals.  Perhaps they recorded a spot with every alternative before the Olympics, and just ran this one ... but it strikes me as a great backup strategy to manage the risk of backing an athlete who could fail.  There's a lesson in here for other marketers: if your campaign is focused around an idiot for a spokesperson - you better have a Plan B.

The Super Bowl Best and Worst Ads

Every year there are lists of the best and worst ads from the Super Bowl - and usually I look at them with frustration because they have nothing to do with advertising effectiveness ... just pure entertainment.  Entertainment is fine, but it's hard to imagine that any of the advertisers in the Super Bowl will truly realize a financial benefit from their advertising based on entertainment alone.  The best ads, in my opinion, are the ones that no one else could have done.  They reflect some insight.  They use a company's uniqueness.  They represent an idea no competitor could have pulled off.  To that end, here's my list of the best and worst of the Super Bowl commercials:

1. Aleve's Arthritis Spot with Leonard Nimoy - Just the image of Spock attending a Star Trek convention without being able to do that "live long and prosper" sign with his hands cracks me up.  A perfect articulation of how arthritis could affect your life, and how Aleve solves the problem.
2. Disney's "I'm going to Disney World" Spot - Images of players from both teams rehearsing how they are going to repeat Phil Simms famous promise to go to Disney World after winning the Super Bowl.  Funny, believable ... and unique to Disney.
3. Dove's Campaign for Beauty - You have to appreciate a CPG company taking their huge ad spend during the Super Bowl and dedicating it to a charitable and emotional message about a foundation it supports.  Ok, this was O&M (our sister agency) that did this ... but I would love it even if we had nothing to do with it.

And a couple of losers:

1. Every Automotive Ad - Don't they all just look the same?  Cars rising out of water, driving through tunnels, getting tossed around and coming out ok ... does this stuff really work?  The Hummer Dinosaur ad was original - but got groans at the end when people realized it was for a Hummer. 
2. Full Throttle Ads - Coke would have been better off just putting out ads for Coke or Diet Coke instead of promoting this new crappy addition to the already crowded beverage market.  Every ad for this "energy drink" elicted a "huh?" reaction from our crowd.  Oh, and nice choice showing Red Bull - their main competitor in the ad.  Red Bull should send them a bunch of flowers.  You can't buy that kind of PR.

Check out The Adbowl for a list of all the spots and a chance to vote for the best and worst.

The New US Airways Missed WOM Opportunity

As part of the merger between US Airways and America West airlines announced in November last year (2005), they had an intriguing new decision to make about the beverage brands that they served on their flights.  America West had Pepsi and Budweiser, US Airways had Coke and Miller.  Over the past decade, both brands in each category have ruthlessly attacked each other head to head in a battle to convince consumers of their superiority.  And many consumers are die-hard passionate about which brand they choose, and why the new combined airline should choose one or the other.  Some newspapers around the time of the merger announcement even conducted their own contests. 

But what a missed opportunity for two airlines that desperately need to generate to some positive publicity and connect with consumers (like most airlines in the beaten up travel industry).  What better setup than to have a choice like this and encourage your consumers to help make it for you?  If they had launched an online contest, asking people to vote for their favourites, they would have offered a voice to the thousands and perhaps even millions that have a strong preference.  Get them to vote, ask them to publicize the contest, and even give them branded assets to use on their blogs and forums to invite more people to vote.  Given the subject for the contest, it could have become a hugely successful word of mouth promotion, publicizing the new merged airline to a huge worldwide audience. Maybe the four brands could even have participated to drive their consumer base to get out and vote - make this a real showdown.  Unfortunately, the moment has come and gone, and perhaps the merged airline has already quietly made their choice (though I couldn't find what it was, given a quick internet search).  What a wasted opportunity ...

Sun Tries to Make Servers Sexy

A recent print ad from Sun about the Fire X4100 server is modeled on a Playboy centerfold spread and features images of the server and quotes on the data sheet such as "I'm petite and powerful with plenty of room for cables."  The ad drives users online to www.sun.com/sweetdreams as a landing page to learn more about the campaign.  Unfortunately, the landing page does nothing with the core concept of the campaign, and as a result provides a great case study for how often web landing pages are a forgotten element when a campaign takes a uni-dimensional view of the consumer. 

The landing page does not contain any reference to the playful nature of the centerfold ad, and in fact the given URL simply redirects to a product page for the X4100.  The result is a confusing user experience where the potential power of an integrated marketing campaign is severly diluted.  In this lost opportunity, there are two key lessons that emerge for marketers planning an integrated campaign across multiple mediums:

1. Have a dedicated landing page instead of just directing (or redirecting) to an existing product/corporate page
2. Make sure the message and imagery is consistent between creative driving users to the landing page and what is featured on the page

Both seems like obvious points, but at times it seems that the necessity of including a URL along with the fact that most companies now have a web presence has created a phenomenon of including a website URL without thinking through the content on the page you are sending people to.  The result is that weak landing pages that lose the very consumers most valuable to connect with - the ones that chose to interact further with a campaign.  Improving the landing page is the key to keeping or losing those high value customers.

Email Marketing Needs to Get Back to Basics

Yesterday I came across this box banner ad for the Room Store on the Washington Post homepage.  As a consumer, I went to the Room Store 2 weeks ago, and fell in love with a two piece brown leather sofa set.  Since the list price is more than $2000, I figured I would wait for a sale.  So along comes this banner ad, which I click on hoping to find the sale I was waiting for.  But the imagery on the landing page suggests that this particular sale is just for mattresses.  So I continue to the website hoping to find an email form where I might opt-in to receive marketing messages about future sales.  Here I am, a consumer - knowing what I want, that I want to buy it from Room Store, that it is (presumably) a high margin item for the store, and wanting to placed on their marketing list ... and I came away from the site anonymously.  They don't know who I am, or anything about my purchase intent.

As far as squandered opportunities go, this would seem fairly huge ... but certainly not common, right?  Wrong, according to a new article from Marketing Sherpa (article has free access until 10/23).  In their coverage of a survey released by SilverPop today, they state that 29% of the top 360 companies (as listed by Dun & Bradsteet rankings) don't offer an email opt-in form anywhere on their Web sites!  With all the backlash against spam and making opt-outs easy, are marketers forgetting about the opt-ins?  Right now the prevailing "glass half empty" view of email marketing makes it a risky proposition where companies often have more legal reviews that content reviews of outbound marketing messages.  The lesson here is that successful email marketing campaigns need to focus on getting back to the basics ... a customer gives us their email address, and we send him/her relevant messages that they will care about.  It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Chrysler's Firehouse: Corporate Blog Gone Wrong

Perhaps aiming to avoid the mistakes of Dell in ignoring Jeff Jarvis' blog comments and experience, Chrysler PR chief Jason Vines has taken a wide swing in the opposite direction, lashing out at Steve Hall of Adrants in response to his (justified) posting about the new Firehouse.biz blog as being "stupid, illogical, idiotic and insane."  Mainly Hall's criticism took issue with the composition of the blog as a journalist-only affair where you could only gain access by showing the proper press credentials.  Of course, the comparisons were drawn to GM's well regarded FastLane blog.  To add to Steve's comments and offer my support for a fellow blogger, he's spot on with his view on Chrysler's new blog.  You need to look no further than a few of their own "Rules of the Blog" for reasons why this will fail and earn further ire from bloggers:

• Rule #1 - In the spirit of honest, free-flowing conversation we'd prefer you post comments using your real name, but you will be given the opportunity to post under a screen name. [RB - A blog which requires a login to keep non-journalists out starts with "in the spirit of honest, free flowing conversation"?]
• Rule #2 - Users must stay on topic within any given thread. New topics must be made the subject of a new thread. [RB - Sounds more like a discussion board than a blog]
• Rule #4 - Blog administrators retain the right to ask the user to re-write a proposed submission to comply with the rules of the blog before being posted. [RB - Interesting - does this also mean you will proof my proposed submission for spelling too?  What if I use "colour" - is that ok?]
• Rule #9 - Proprietary information may be inadvertently posted on the blog. DaimlerChrysler blog administrators will act to remove it as soon as possible, and users who have viewed the information will be asked to disregard and not re-distribute it. [RB - I wonder, how can proprietary information be inadvertently posted when you are screening postings, and asking users to rewrite them prior to being published?]
• Rule #11-The FireHouse.biz is not intended as a forum for outside suggestions, including but not limited to those which pertain to vehicle design, product attributes, marketing or advertising, and no such material will be posted. [RB - So after registering a group of journalists who are usually expected to have and offer their opinions, you expect them not to offer any thoughts at all?  What a missed opportunity!]

Perhaps what Chrysler should have done is launched a "media extranet."  Certainly that's what they have now, and it could have helped them avoid the blogosphere showdown starting right now.  Of course, then there would be no buzz either ... which could be Vines' ultimate intention any way he can get it. 

Update (10/31/05):  Lots of people have posted about Chrysler's effort since this post and talked about how they are perhaps only expanding the definition of a blog, and how none of us has a right to define what a blog should or should not be.  I'm not a blog expert and I don't have the right definition of what a blog should be.  But I do know marketing, and I know that sometimes it makes sense to do something to capitalize on the buzz around the trend of the moment.  Blogs are hot right now.  GM has gotten a ton of credit based on being the first mover to blogs with Fastlane.  The way I see it, Chrysler had to launch something, and they had to call it a blog no matter what. 

Are they redefining blogs as we know them?  Time will tell.  For now, the only thing I can tell is that they have launched a site for media similar to closed extranet style sites that have been launched before.  And unlike others launched before, they called it a blog ... generating lots of discussion/outrage online.  But whether people are discussing, bitching or defending, they are still focused on Chrysler.  And ultimately, I believe that was their goal.

Lessons from Dumb Spokesperson Campaigns

In the PR world, I have witnessed no better way to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars down the drain than to pay some expensive and questionably effective spokesperson to do a range of marketing activities, satellite media tours, and limited half-day appearances.  True metrics supporting celebrity spokesperson choices are often difficult to find.  As an article in CMO magazine suggests, using a celebrity spokesperson is often an emotional choice (just feels right) by marketer or agency, where wishful thinking takes the place of intelligence. 

Here are several examples:

1. Catherine Zeta Jones for Tmobile - As if *former* Tmobile customers needed another reminder of how little the company spends on improving their network quality in comparison to ad campaigns ...
2. NFL Refs for Miller Lite - Um, instead of an athlete - you chose the refs?  Point A, no one likes refs.  Point B, people usually think refs make bad calls - not "good calls."  Duh.
3. Cheryl Crow for Dell - In light of the recent "Dell Hell" blog posts - you would think they might find a more credible/relevant spokesperson.  Or at least someone who you could believe actually owned a Dell at home ... 

Clearly, bad campaign ideas don't get better by using popular or well recognized spokespeople.  Relevance is still the ultimate requirement for effective marketing - an element successful spokesperson campaigns such as "Jared from Subway" illustrate (by the way, NOT a celebrity spokesperson).  His ads have single-handledly propelled Subway to achieve their brand positioning as the healthy fast food alternative.  Contrast this with the Baby Bob Super Bowl ads from Quiznos - which were not only stupid, but also helped them to blow millions of dollars.  Spokesperson campaigns are a mixed blessing - with much soul searching involved to get the right person on board.  For more and more of our clients, I have started to question whether it's the right way to go.   

Blogger's Addendum: Ogilvy PR has executed a number of celebrity spokesperson health campaigns, most notably with Morgan Freeman and Katie Couric on behalf of CDC's Colorectal Cancer campaign.  I recently also posted about Yahoo's Blog for Hope initiative using Celebrity bloggers.  Social marketing campaigns with volunteered/pro-bono time from celebrities are in a different realm to paid spokesperson campaigns - and I should note that we have seen extremely strong results from our efforts using spokespersons for these type of eadvocacy campaigns.

One DM Firm that should Stay Offline

I recently got an email from a service called "Where Christians Meet" promising to help me find my soulmate.  Intrigued at how I made it onto this list (considering I am married and not Christian) I checked into it and found that the email had been sent by a company called Harrison Direct.  Apparently they are a DM firm that specializes in email marketing, though clearly not in accurate targeting.  Their website provides a description of their services:

Whether your objective is to acquire new customers, retain valued existing ones, build brand awareness or increase revenue, Harrison Direct will facilitate direct communications with the best target audience.

Huh?  The rest of the five page site offers similarly useless marketing gibberish to describe the company.  Didn't we leave these days of brochure-ware "internet presence" sites behind us?  It seems like the main call to action is the "Unsubscribe" page, which presumably gets so much use, they have included it on the main navigation.  The really interesting part is that their unsubscribe feature is protected by an "enter the graphics you see" feature to prevent fraud.  Their contact us form has the same thing.  As if large numbers of spammers where going to their site and entering fraudulent comments. 

In any case, I'm now happily unsubscribed, and waiting for their next campaign where I will probably have to do it all again.  If only there weren't so much security on the unsubscribe feature ... maybe a malicious hacker would take my email account and unsubscribe me from multiple emails without my knowledge.  I should be so lucky.

ADDENDUM (07/10) - Check out some other experiences with Harrison Direct