DISQUS

Alan,

There's an excellent post on this topic by Buzz Canuck. http://tinyurl.com/mvlxpn

Alan, you hit the nail on the head as to why we see so many clever but useless websites. Too often the key decision-makers have a one-to-many background and see customers as readers, viewers, and listeners, not users, doers, and participants.

Many brand marketers do not understand why this is important, and do not understand why exceptional utility is a better brand experience than clever, cutesy, or shiny.

As you've mentioned before, most "integrated marketing" is nothing more than matched luggage.

The problem as I see it: nobody is appointed Grand Poobah of marcom strategy, and at no time in my career can I remember anyone tasked with diagraming, analyzing and optimizing a user flow (experience) from/to every marcom touchpoint, including customer service. Most traditional/AORs, the people who client's appoint as their thought leaders, are completely ill-equipped to provide this level of strategic planning. Instead, everyone hides behind marketing mix modeling as strategy, which it isn't.

What we have now is a checkbox mentality, and so long as an #800 or URL appears somewhere on the ad, the box is checked.

Wolk and Wipf, it's nice to read folks who share a similar philosophy.

Traditional ad creatives think they're in the entertainment business. The USER mindset is a complete mystery to them. I sometimes imagine they think TV viewers actually lean forward during commercial breaks to witness the fruits of their creative genius.

This post reminded my of an article spotted by Tom Hespos earlier in the month:

Financial Times Article:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a58f44c-1fae-11de-a1...

Hespos' comments:
http://www.imediaconnection.com//content//22663...

Quotes from FT article:

"Revised guidelines on endorsements and testimonials by the Federal Trade Commission, now under review and expected to be adopted, would hold companies liable for untruthful statements made by bloggers and users of social networking sites who receive samples of their products."

"The guidelines would also hold bloggers liable for the statements they make about products."

Wow Alan,

You certainly stirred the pot over at there.

I'm not convinced agency folk are angrier/nastier than ever, but I agree digital media has given anyone and everyone a platform for punditry. Also, I'm not convinced opinionate bloviating is all bad, but I agree the nastiness can stand to be dialed down a tad.

Much of the heated discussion we see stems from decades of agency malpractice - and many self-anointed marketing pundits are have a harder time biting their tongues. Others are just getting high from link-baiting.

"After that, they will want results. SM agencies will be held accountable for meeting client's financial goals, not just "engagement goals."

True. This is one aspect of the SM hype that concerns me. I once had a CMO tell me (partially tongue-in-cheek) he didn't want a "relationship" with his customers..."what's the ROI?" This question is probably much easier to answer for service-based and durable goods companies, but much more difficult for consummable, low-consideration, low margin brands.

Idea owners = the "above the line agency" IS the status quo. And that's often the problem, particularly when the so-called "strategic agency" is being charged with producing the :30 spots and print ads. The client doesn't get a big idea that works across all media, they get a "big idea" or "story" that's ideally suited for the old marketing model of one-to-many...publication and broadcast. Clients also don't get a strategy that works across all disciplines, they get matching luggage.

The vast majority of "above the line", "strategic" agencies simply don't get digital. They don't understand the user mindset - they think of themselves as producers of entertainment to be distributed to passive audiences, and hopefully their entertaining content will persuade or create "buzz". This entertainment mindset fails miserably in media where users are in active control, because the content agencies typically create provides no value to the consumer.

Sorry, I'm having problems keeping my finger off the "r" key this morning.

Agencies lack expertise in social media for the same reason they still lack expertise in Internet marketing. Their mindset is in 'broadcasting creative' to a passive "audience" of millions - viewers, listeners, and readers. They still can't fathom the concept of users, doers, creators, communities - and they don't understand there needs to be a fundamentally different approach to developing marketing ideas and "campaign" strategies. To their defense, many brand managers also believe integration = matching luggage.

Agencies started digital departments because they arrogantly assumed what they didn't know was technology and a few nuances of designing+producing for screen media. Unfortunately, their creative leadership, the guys in charge to develop campaign ideas for all others to emmulate, didn't know jack about how users actually interacted with the medium.

I have yet to see the full-service, 360 degree, multi-disciplined, intergrated marketing agency with chops in TV, print, radio, outdoor, SEO, SEM, social media, interactive promotion, application development, CRM, email marketing, unpaid media, paid media, etc. The big lie is the so-called integratrated agencies want their clients to believe they're competent in all these disciplines, and capable in developing truly intergrated efforts.

On the other hand, teh brand folk are woefully uncapable of evaluating agency compentencies, and have no one they can trust to write the score and play conductor.

Lastly, I sincerely doubt most agency folks understand marketing themselves - selling stuff. If they did, they certainly wouldn't be clinging so tightly to the :30 spot and print ads.

"Consumers call X "really great service" - Only if we're talking about a service-based brands. Consumers wouldn't say they drink Budweiser because of really great service. :-)

> X = Experience + Service + Product
I have a slightly different take on this equation:
Experience = (product or service) + (image & personality) + (association with meaningful social or flow experiences)

Let's use Budweiser as an example.

Price positioning is obviously part of the experience - Bud isn't on other extreme of the premium or "value" price continuum. Packaging, advertising, PR, and news about the brand can also bcome part of the experience - or at least provide context for the experience. For example, I doubt many statisfied AIG insurance customers are bragging about AIG's great service to friends.

The simple and solitary experience of consuming a Bud is intrinsically experiential. The feel of twisting the cap, the shape and coldness of the wet bottle in the hand. The visual and audio qualities of the pour -the smell and taste of the first sip. All of this is an important part of the experience, but only a small part.

The real experience of Budweiser is at the backyard barbeque, the tailgate party, around the TV watching NCAA basketball with family and friends, etc. Brands that forge close, relevant associations with relevant, meaningful, social, and interactive experiences become an integral part of that experience - and resulting memories.

The same applies to service brands, from hotels to service stations. There's the obvious product/service touchpoints, and the broader experiences they are associated with.

Nice series Alan, but I tend to agree with Ana's point. We're in an experience economy.

Price, service, conversations, consumer recognition...imo they're all subsets of an experience.

I appologize for blathering, but I just finished an article on this subject and my head is very much in the space.

Essentially, all brands are experiences...interactive experiences. Unfortunately, most advertising and marcom is neither interactive nor experiential. Ad guys are skilled at creating "creative" for passive "audiences" - readers, listeners, viewer. They don't think of the target as participants - users, doers, creators. They don't have an experience design mindset - and they don't understand the most meaningful experiences are interactive.

How many ad guys do you know who are schooled in human factors? Witnessed a usability lab? Ever heard of Nathan Shedroff or Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi? The mindset in the ad industry just isn't there yet. The traditional AORs think their deficencies are their technology chops. It isn't. Their problem is they have little to no expertise in designing interactive experiences.

Hi Alan,

I assume you've read Bob Garfield's latest column: http://adage.com/article?article_id=135440

Media has a supply and demand problem. There is far more supply than demand, and digital has simply exacerbated the obvious. How may reporters do we need in the London bureau? How many national news anchors do we need? Does advertising sponsored entertainment still make sense for advertisers?

Advertising also has an attention problem. Nobody likes it, it's expensive to create and distribute, and it's easier than ever to avoid. And even with all the new tools at marketer's hands, the cost per touch is rising at rate where the ROI for marcom will soon be negative.

We'll certainly see evolutionary and revolutionary change over the coming decades. Both agencies and media have become fat, lazy and frankly, stupid. And while there are forces that can't be reversed, I believe there are better ways of doing things.

I'm thinking the new advertising metric is the attention/price ratio.

Using Facebook data, or behavioral data for that matter, to target consumers with relevant marketing messages, offers, and experiences would obviously benefit both advertisers and consumers. I don't need to see another tampon ad thank you.

The problem as I see it is Americans have a strong distaste for anything that resembles an "invasion of privacy". Note I said 'resembles'. My guess is there would be a wave of vocal pushback to Scoble's Facebook scenario, similar to what we're seeing in legislation to impede behavioral targeting. It doesn't really matter if Facebook data is truely private or not.

First, I found it a little ironic that Kristof's column appeared in the New York Times.

Also ironic, I'm currently reading the chapter on Commitment and Consistency in Robert Cialdini's book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

Commitment and consistency seems to be part of the human condition, and although new media options may make it easier to consume only news we agree with, I believe the trend in "traditional" media has been in this direction for a long time. In fact, I'm begining to believe the idea of fair, unbiased news media was either a short-lived phenomenon, or pure fantasy. I'd be curious to see some solid research as to whether such a thing an unbiased news media ever existed on a widespread scale.

I haven't run across any employers that offer such a thing as a <40 work week without a more than proportional cut in pay/benefits. You're right though, if Americans lived within their means and had saved 6 months of living expenses, economic downturns like the current one would feel more like a vacation to the unemployed.

Unfortunately the massive loss of retirement savings and the likelihood of lower economic growth/opportunity over the next decade will force Americans to work longer and harder just to maintain their current standard of living. Working less, particularly for those reaching retirement age, won't be an option.

The bigger culture shock awaits Gen Y, many who have tasted the good life but won't ever live as well off as their parents. They are likely to see stagnant wages, higher taxes and higher prices.

Mike,

Your 5 Cs of Social Media are very similar my 5 Cs of engagement:

http://koolaidantidote.wordpress.com/2008/09/04...

Question: Isn't commenting really a subset of conversation? And isn't conversation and contributing a subset of community?

I'll recommend this classic (if you haven't already read it): Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles MacKay.

I'm an avid investor who's read about and experienced a lot of market history. I've even constructed my own equity timing and tactical asset allocation models and keenly aware of the importance of monitoring what the street calls "sentiment".

The media exaserbates fear/greed cycles; the mantra "if it bleeds it leads" is probably truer than ever. I also see little evidence of contrarion thinking in the bloggosphere. If anything, "citizen journalists" are probably more prone to posting exaggerations and unrestrained emotions. I believe the only thing that is changing is the speed in which "popular delusions and madness of crowds" spreads.

Our society has a strong 'live for today' mentality. We're not deliberative, forward thinking people. We're bad at planning, quick to react and prone to follow the herd.

Our agency developed this site around the same concept: http://www.tweet08.com/

Our agency also built a site that aggregates tweets about the candidates. http://www.tweet08.com/

toad's sixth reader,

Did you even read what I wrote? I didn't judge either candidate's policies.

Don't forget Obama introduced a new brand last year, defined as above traditional partisan politics - reaching across the aisle to find common ground and bi-partisan solutions. Voters are just now starting to realize there's a gulf of difference from the brand promise of last year and the ingredients they read on the package this year. The ingredients of the Obama brand are indistinguishable from the Kerry and Gore brands - albeit much prettier packaging.

The McCain brand is indeed very close to the Bush brand, but McCain has had his own brand on the shelves for a very long time. Like Coke and Pepsi, once you get down to a blind taste test, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference. And like Coke/Pepsi, many Bush drinkers can't stand McCain. But once a cola drinker, always a cola drinker.

Good analysis Alan, except I don't believe the Republicans necessarily chose between the lack of experience or elitistism argument. Obama's own lack of experience innoculated Palin against that line of attack.

What blows me away is the deluge of sexist comments from the typically pc media and left-leaning commentators. Unbelievable. If an African American had been the GOP pick for POTUS they'd probably be asking if fried chicken and watermelon would be served at the convention.

"secretary of blowjob...With Palin, I can get laid." < the closet sexists have been unleashed

How true. The problem is; traditional agency's creatives are put in charge of the interactive elements and they don't have any idea wtf they're doing. They're still stuck in a one-to-many, let-me-entertain-you world.