It's Fixed in the Next Release - Marketing

"Word of Mouth" + Campaign = Oxymoron

nospam@example.com (Alan Langford) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:50:10 -0600

With the rise of social media sites and services (Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, and so on), a whole new field of "Social Marketing Expert" has been created. Aside from the obvious fact that it's hard to be a credible expert in a relatively new domain, the silliness of some of these "experts" is laughable.

By far the best of this bunch are those who have been discredited elsewhere and are hoping that their bankrupt strategies can somehow find new life in a new medium. It may be true that "the medium is the message", but sometimes the message sucks universally and thus transcends all media.

The prime example here is "word of mouth" marketers. These aren't the people who say, quite correctly, that word of mouth is the most powerful form of marketing communication anyone can get, but those who figure that somehow word of mouth is a tool, something that can be created out of thin air.

Surely manufactured word of mouth has been sufficiently discredited that we don't have to bear through more ill-advised campaigns in the social media space. Is there anyone still doing the "paid shill" scam, where people are paid to go into public spaces and talk up specific products? Have sufficient bloggers been roasted over online flames for accepting money in exchange for talking up products? Apparently not.

So get ready for a (hopefully brief) onslaught of bull masquerading as recommendations. It will be easy to spot, let's take a look at a quick example:

Slimeball:	Good morning.
You:	Good morning Slimeball, what's the weather like over there?
Slimeball:	Pretty good, it's a great day for DumbProduct!
You:	So, it's warm and sunny or something?
Slimeball:	Actually it's raining quite heavily, perfect for DumbProduct.
You:	I see, and how are the kids?
Slimeball:	They're happy, thanks to DumbProduct.
You:	Just hold on a second while I block you and write a negative blog post about DumbProduct's unethical marketing techniques.

Bottom line: if you're a marketer don't do this. Just don't. Build genuine word of mouth by delivering a great product and providing great service. Encourage your customers to talk about you, but please, never cross the line and start trying to pay for it. No good can come from this.

Quick Rant: Animated Favicons

nospam@example.com (Alan Langford) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:12:33 -0600

For those who don't know, a favicon is the graphic that shows up in the location bar and bookmarks of modern browsers. They're great visual clues that help you remember what's on a page.

It is possible to have this icon animated, at least for some browsers. DON'T DO IT.

Animated graphics are designed to catch your eye. Once your attention is caught, you're supposed to understand a message and respond. That response takes you to a web site. If a favicon is up, then you are already on the site, so animation just catches your eye and distracts you from the site. Anyone who thinks distracting viewers from paying attention to their site should get out of the business and consider a career as a utility pole.

The other possible thought behind an animated icon is that in a sea of tabs and bookmarks, the animation calls attention to your site. That might work, but if every icon is animated, then the result is a sea of irritation, so it's not a strategy that will work for long. As far as tabs are concerned... I just visited these sites, I can recognize your icon without having it wave at me. In fact, the second time it interferes with my attention, your tab will get closed.

Summary: Animated favicons have lots of drawbacks and little upside. Just say no.

The New Swoop: Four-Colour Quadrant Based Logos

nospam@example.com (Alan Langford) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:32:44 -0600

Google's new Icon

Microsoft

Joomla

One site I miss from years back is swoop.org. It was a compendium of "swoop" based logos, showing the design trend (or lack of originality if you're less generous) pioneered by the Nike logo.

Maybe it's time to do the same with four colour quadrant-based logos. I admit, I used this motif in a logo about four years ago. Maybe that's a sign. When part-time hacks like me start using a motif, it's time to put it to bed.

Yet this past week, Google introduced a new four-colour, quadrant based "favicon". And... and... and it just plain sucks. Not only is it a stunning example of trailing-edge design, it features limited readability. On my system, the outlined lowercase "g", which bleeds into the background, is lost in either the default brownish grey of the default theme, or completely obliterated by the black background of my alternative theme. If you can't control the background, don't use bleed. Isn't that Design 101?

Two revisions back, Google's icon was an elegant representation of the uppercase G on their full logo. I have no idea why they moved away from that, but each successive revision has been worse.

So here's some advice for aspiring designers: get past the four colour quadrant motif. Come up with something new and original, or at least rip off something that's less tired. Please.

Realizing that the Brand Bubble has Burst

nospam@example.com (Alan Langford) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:41:22 -0600

In Media Metrics: Hate to Burst Your Bubble, John Gerzema discusses the erosion of the power of branding. In the process he makes an interesting observation: many companies have capitalized their brands, and they carry them on their books at considerable values. If these brands are in fact not worth anything close to the value they've been assigned, then there's another financial crisis on the horizon.

Gerzema is writing from his perspective as "Chief Insights Officer" at Young & Rubicam. As soon as I stop chuckling at this utterly ludicrous title, the observation is that as a member of the industry that has created and perpetuated the myth of brand value, his take is bound to be somewhat biased. This is the industry that has for decades convinced otherwise rational executives to spend stupid amounts of money on an intangible concept while simultaneously convincing them that the result is a capital asset.

Now certainly it can be argued that a brand has some value. Awareness of a product is linked to the selection of a product for purchase, without question. But the brand itself is still intangible. The value of a brand should be measured as the cost of changing it. As an example, let's say Pepsi decided to rebrand itself as "Foo". There would be considerable cost and significant time involved in doing this, but it's possible. With some tired brands (Levis comes to mind), it might even be advisable. This cost of rebranding is the true value of the asset. My bet is that the actual cost is considerably less than the asset value on many balance sheets. In his article, Gerzma asserts that "brands account for 30 percent of the market capitalization of the S&P 500, or almost $4 trillion dollars" (without citation). That's one heck of a bubble.

In discussing the extent of the bubble, Gerzma writes "Further signs of this worrying disconnect emerged as we examined the extent of the gap between business and consumer perceptions of brand value". What's funniest there is the phrase "worrying disconnect". To me it seems like a "reconnect" between consumers and reality that can only be worrying to big advertising agencies and to CFO's with overvalued brands.

All that money companies have poured into ineffective marketing efforts — driven by "gut feel", and marked by a complete inability to measure performance in any truly analytical way — is money thrown away. It's lost, it's gone. We have tools that measure the effectiveness of most of these things now in hard numbers, and the brand game is up, it's done.

Still someone with a "CxO" title at a major agency has a responsibility to evangelize for his industry, be he right or wrong. He applauds the performance of brands who are "innovating beyond advertising", such as in product development, corporate social responsibility and sustainability". I hate to break it to him, but in these cases the brand is just an identifier that links a consumer to an enterprise that is doing these real, tangible things such as producing good products in a responsible way. Now there's an insight!

Gerzma wraps up his weak argument that big agencies somehow still have a purpose with "today, everything is marketing and only creativity matters if a brand is to hold its value in this rapidly transforming and unforgiving marketplace." This is a complete and utter contradiction of the reality that he has observed but still cannot accept: good products and good service are everything, and marketing is in large part the process of communicating the good things you do through various channels. Worse, some channels cannot be controlled, such as social media.

The days of managing a message through monolithic media are long gone. Now it's about doing a excellent job and getting people to talk about what your organization does in a genuine way. Social media can be influenced, but ham-handed attempts to "manage" it are almost certainly destined to end badly. If I was involved in a big advertising agency, that's the bubble I would be most worried about. That and keeping my resume up to date.

Viral Marketing from a Venture Capital Company?

nospam@example.com (Alan Langford) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:56:08 -0600

Two interesting things about viral marketing:

In a lot of cases, you can't even be sure if there was originally a marketing intent behind it.
Just about any business can wind up as the subject of a viral "buzz".

That's any business, even including a Sand Road Venture Capital firm. Take a look at this "Anti-Portfolio" from Bessemer Venture Partners.

I've had that link sent to me via IM twice today. That's buzz.

Why does it work? It's true, it's funny, and it's out of the box. Every VC I've met to date seems to like to put forward the image of near-prescient infallibility. Openly admitting to your mistakes, and naming names is an utter reversal of this image-making. It is so novel and unusual that it's immedately worth passing along. Not only that but it instantly humanizes the entire firm and makes them seem like the sorts of people you'd like to pitch to first.

Its both superb and brilliant — be it intentional or not.

OpenProj: Proprietary Spin Meets Open Source Product

nospam@example.com (Alan Langford) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:56:34 -0600

Notification of the 1.0 release of OpenPrjoj came through my news feed recently. The contents were a typical press release. The release quickly gets to making the statement "Projity announced the initial OpenProj beta in the Fall, over 200,000 users joined the beta testing in over 132 countries." Now this is interesting, because a news item just five days previous claims "OpenProj has now been downloaded over 200,000 times with deployments accelerating around the world."

It seems to me that someone has drawn an equivalence between "downloads" and "beta testers". What they can really claim is "200,000 tire kickers" or without the metaphor, "200,000 evaluations".

I can speak to this because I'm one of the people who downloaded it. I have to say that I was impressed, both with the concept and with the obvious level of effort that's been put into it.

I used it to import a Project file, with the intention of making some changes and printing a report. Although I was able to change the data, the report they produced was wholly inadequate. Butt-ugly, rasterized fonts, and so on. It sucked. I wound up exporting it to an OpenCalc file and reporting from there.

Now if I was a beta tester, I'd probably have provided some feedback to let them know about my experiences. If it was really a beta release (instead of just another one of thousands of projects with "v0.9" releases) you think it might have told me. After all user involvement is part of the "social contract" of open source.

I resent being placed in a group (or so it seems) that I never thought I belonged to. This press release smacks of the kind of marketing over-hype that isn't — and shouldn't — be associated with an open source project.

So make that "over 199,999 users".

Ranked #1 on Google!

nospam@example.com (Alan Langford) — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:15:00 -0500

A year or so ago, I needed a tool to generate thumbnails of Web pages. I found a lot of inadequate tools and a server based solution with limited flexibility (thumbshots.org). So I decided to throw together Thumb-Page to do the job, and then I decided to release it as open source.

Since then, it's been a surprisingly popular application. I figured maybe a few hundred people would be interested in it... instead it's clocking in at about 400 per month. Now compared to a "hot" shareware application that can pull in 400,000 downloads per month, that's not so hot, but it's still pretty good.
Continue reading "Ranked #1 on Google!"

When Advertiser Integration Goes Terribly Terribly Wrong

nospam@example.com (Alan Langford) — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 12:25:00 -0600

I caught an episode of HGTV's "Designer Superstar Challenge" last night. It's a pretty hokey pseudo-reality show where a bunch of hopeful "designer host" candidates compete in hopes of landing a job hosting a show on HGTV. Sound like a premise for bad programming? You bet it does. You keep on thinking that the winner will wind up hosting the next challenge, and they'll just keep on endlessly searching for a new host until they find one that's good. It's the perfection of cannibalistic programming, each new season consuming the previous winner.

What takes this from merely cheesy to "bad movie bad" -- as in so bad it's funny -- is Home Depot's sponsorship. More accurately, it's the gymnastics the show goes through in an attempt to integrate Home Depot that took this episode from bad to laugh-out-loud awful.

Continue reading "When Advertiser Integration Goes Terribly Terribly Wrong"

Consumer Culture is Consuming Culture

nospam@example.com (Alan Langford) — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:19:00 -0600

The way I see it, there are two classes of activity that people engage in: creating and consuming. These classes apply quite broadly, from creating wealth and consuming goods, to creating art and absorbing information (a form of consumption) by reading a book.

Left to their own devices, I believe most humans have a need to create. Whether it be knitting a scarf or developing a cancer fighting drug, creating is an intrinsic part of human existence.

Yet in our mass-marketed, consumer driven culture, individual creativity seems to have suffered greatly. Cultural gateways such as large publishers and mololithic music and entertainment companies arbitrate and edit our views, selecting what we see based more on economic potential than cultural value. Thousands of people are creating works that may be of value, but we rarely discover them. Individuals who might otherwise be creating their own works are watching television with their minds only partially engaged, or worse, expressing their creativity by assembling the latest and greatest over-branded, over-promoted consumer goods into a "personal statement" of cookie-cutter uniformity.

The Internet is an immensely positive disruptive force that provides hope of to reversing this destructive trend. Once musicians discover that they can both find an audience and earn a substantial living by dealing directly with fans, record companies will cease to add value. They will lose control and become "disintermediated" in short order. New intermediaries who provide value that is relevant to the Internet age will thrive (officialcommunity.net is a good example).

Large entertainment companies will be restricted to projects that require large capital investments, but even then the prevalence of easy copying will limit their potential returns, which will be reflected in smaller production budgets. The days of the quarter-billion dollar blockbuster are numbered.

Sites like lulu.com will revolutionize publishing. Blogging and photo upload sites give a stage to hundreds of thousands of people with something to say, or with images to share; They provide a platform for creativity.

Idealists refer to this as the "democratization" of culture, but they couldn't be more wrong. Any widely distributed, truly democratic process is subject to displacement by larger commercial interests with profit as a motive. Ironically what's required are large, strong, profit-oriented corporations who embrace "quasi-democratic access" as a paradigm, and who find a way to profit without interfering with the mechanics of that paradigm. This is why Google, Yahoo, eBay, and even Amazon have become culturally important institutions. These companies will serve as the seed for a new cultural renaissance.