Cymfony's Influence 2.0

See Jim's Picks and Pans...

...of last night's Super Ad Bowl at our SuperBowlAdvertisers.com blog.

Super Bowl ads bad for stock price? I doubt it.

The SportsBiz blog on CNBC speculated that a 20% drop in the stock of sports apparel maker Under Armor was caused by the company's announcement that they will advertise on the Super Bowl. I know it has been a slow news year for Super Bowl advertising, but this blogger should stick to sports, and forget about the business...

We noted this news earlier today on our SuperBowlAdvertisers.com blog. Digging into it shows there is more to the story than the Super Bowl ad. The company announced 2007 results and discussed 2008 outlook in a press release yesterday. The main points are:

• The company confirmed previously forecast overall revenue and profit growth for the year.
• But the company announced front-loading the marketing expenses in the first half of the year to support the launch of their Performance Trainer shoes. The Super Bowl ad is one element of this acceleration of marketing expenses.
• The Performance Trainer shoes hit the store in May, so sales of those shoes won't hit the books until H2.
• Wachovia immediately downgraded the stock to "market perform" citing "...the slowdown at retail...and the uncertainty of launching the cross trainers" as reasons to "step to the sidelines on the stock."
• CreditSuisse maintained their "outperform" rating, noting that "Marketing is a critical investment for any brand company..."

So the bean counters are nervous about the company spending a bunch of money now and promising future revenues from an unproven product in an uncertain economy. The Super Bowl is the least of the concerns.

Doritos Super Bowl contest -- what do last year's winners say?

On Monday, Doritos announced the three finalists for this year's Crash the Super Bowl contest. I took that opportunity to talk to last year's winners, Dale Backus and Wes Philips of 5 Point Productions. The full podcast is on our SuperBowlAdvertisers.com blog.

I talked with Dale and Wes right after their success last year, so I used this as an excuse to catch up on how that success drove their business this year, what they think of changing to more of an American Idol type contest vs. last year's ad contest -- and, of course, which of the finalists they were going to vote for.

We also spoke with a reporter at Ad Age yesterday, so a story should be out soon. Dale and Wes revealed one other bit of history I hadn't known before: they had only started 5 Point Productions a month or so before entering the contest.

Take a few minutes to listen to the podcast -- Dale and Wes tell the story of how they used word of mouth marketing to drive the voting that made them a finalist and have some advice for Doritos about how to overcome some of the potential limitations the music video format may have in delivering strong brand messaging for Doritos.

Social Networks' 2008 Tightrope Walk

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble....

My musings on whether social media has become a bubble has stirred up a bit of buzz.

But here's the real issue: in order to develop a solid revenue model, social networks must walk a very thin line between pleasing marketers without alienating their users. The models and examples exist today; the question is: will media companies and marketers resist the urge for the quick hit and exercise the retraint, wisdom, and patience to build a mutually beneficial relationship with their audience?

Paul LaMonica at CNN Money picked up on it earlier this week and so when I was in New York we had a wide-ranging discussion which he wrote up here.

The blog Socialized, took it the wrong way, and thought I was an idiot. I corrected her interpretation and she kindly put up a new post to draw attention to my comments.

To save you all the trouble of wading through all the various links and comments, here is a succinct summary of my key points.

1. The bubble is in VC funding and start up companies, not in consumer behavior. I elaborated on this in this post and as I told Paul the trend of consumers using social media is "unequivocal, inexorable, and irreversible." Just as consumers kept using the Internet after the 2000 bubble burst, they will keep using social media no matter how much money the VCs lose or how much doom-and-gloom comes from the media. Smart marketers will keep their eyes on their audience.
2. The social media business model creates greater tension than other media businesses. Any media business has to manage the tension between editorial and advertising. But here the tension is especially acute. One of the drivers of social media's growth is that consumers are sick of the ad clutter in other media. In addition, the value of social media is personal relationship, not information. Ads that are relevant to the editorial are more accepted (think cosmetics ads in Cosmo or shotgun ads in Field & Stream. What kind of ad is relevant to insert between two people building a personal rapport?
3. Marketers are likely to push the model the wrong way. In marketers' embryonic understanding of the social media ethos, they will ask -- and push for -- what they know: guaranteed placements and impressions/GRPs or some other measure or audience size. Banner ads everywhere....lists of members they can ping to invite to friend their brand profile. Facebook is facing a mini-rebellion from their members with a 50,000-strong group called "Petition: Facebook, stop invading my privacy." (As an aside I was invited to join this group -- by a friend who is a senior marketer at a CPG company!)

To me this is reminiscent of the pop-up ad phase of online advertising: advertisers wanted more intrusive units than 468x60 banners, sites obliged them, felt huge backlash from their audience, and dialed down, or even eliminated pop-ups altogether. Kudos to Facebook for listening to their users and rapidly amending policies that meet resistance, as they have done with the Beacon Opt-out policy.

But social networks have a better alternative than retreat: educate marketers on the right way to become part of the social media environment. The panel I did at AdTech this month had great case studies from Coke, Digitas (representing Delta), MySpace and YouTube that begin to provide models other advertisers can follow to be successful.

And, thanks to MySpace, Isobar, and Carat, there is great research that has defined the "Momentum Effect" as the ROI driver in social media. This is a MUST READ report for marketers entering this space (get it here) (Disclosure/mini-plug: my colleagues at TNS were one of three partners is executing the research, along with TRU and Marketing Evolution).

Will social networks have the backbone to turn down revenue is marketers demand types of placements that will alienat users? Will marketers learn to give up control and learn to become the kind of friend that social network users will welcome?

This will be the real story of 2008, not Bubble 2.0.

Memo to Bob Parsons: You are so wrong!

Dear Bob:

I read that you have decided that it is not worth it to promote GoDaddy's Super Bowl ad ahead of the game as you have in the past. I say, the strategy of promoting early isn't wrong -- your execution last year was flawed! Tune in to my webinar tomorrow with the Advertising Research Foundation and I'll show you the proof!

Bob,

A recent Brandweek article, quoted you as saying that you won't promote GoDaddy's ad as aggressively before the game as in year's past:

What we learned is that doesn’t really pay off because people are going to watch anyhow. So while that might work for other occasions, that doesn’t work for the Super Bowl.

Our analysis (to be published in the December Journal of Advertising Research) shows that advertisers who promote their ad aggressively before the game (whom we dubbed "Play Action Advertisers") got 10 times the coverage and consumer discussion as those who didn't.

10 times!!

We calculated that Doritos got a minimum of 40 million impressions even before the coin toss. That's almost half of the audience that the game gets. Stick that in your ROI calculator!

And those who showed their ad online before the game got 4 times the coverage of those who announced early, but did not show their ad. You can download an abstract of this (and some other analysis we did at our site

Bob: The lesson you should take away from last year is that you can't do the same thing two years in a row. It was boring and seemed a lot more contrived than the 2006 effort. (see my 2006 post in which I awarded you the "They Really Get It" Award). Scroll down to the bottom of this post to read my review of your brilliant strategy.

So promote your ad aggressively ahead of the game -- if your really have something new to say!

PS. I take back what I said about questioning your reason for being on the Super Bowl at all, both in last year's and my 2005 review (where I gave you the "Load up the Cannon with Gerbils" Award). I recently started a blog about my other obssession -- LED lighting -- at http://ledlightsathome.com . When I decided to do it, GoDaddy was top of mind and you got my $14 to register the domain (actually more like $80 because I also registered a few variations thereof).

(cross-posted at www.superbowladvertisers.com )

The Road to Super Bowl XLII

With the Patriots steamrolling through the NFL this season, many people here in the Boston area are thinking a lot about the Super Bowl coming up this February.  But here at Cymfony, the Super Bowl has become a year-round obsession – but for a different reason:  It is the perfect example of Influence 2.0.

We tracked discussion of last year’s game and conducted several studies on the audience impact of the media coverage and consumer discussion of last year’s Super Bowl advertisers. Over the past month, these studies have been published in a variety of publications.

• Visibility vs Surprise: Which Drives the Greatest Discussion of Super Bowl Ads?  To be published in the 12/07 issue of the “Journal of Advertising Research” from the ARF.

• What This Year’s Super Bowl Advertisers Can Learn from Doritos. Published in the 11/07 issue of Media Magazine

• Is There No Such Thing as Bad News? - How controversy drives word-of-mouth around Super Bowl advertising and how it can bite the brand. Published in 11/07 “Measuring Word of Mouth Vol. 3” from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association

I encourage you to buy the WOMMA and JAR publications for the full story (and other great research as well).  We've also compiled some of the insights from each of these studies in a brief informational abstract that is available for download on our site now.   

The gist of our findings: Last year's success of advertisers like Doritos and Nationwide changes Super Bowl advertising -- it's no longer about great buzz after the game, pre-game media coverage is just as important, maybe more so.

(Disclosure: shameless plug coming) In response to this change, we are stepping up our analysis and launching a new product: the Super Bowl Advertising Audience Impact Report. Check it out at www.cymfony.com/superbowl.asp Clients will get a timely, in-depth analysis of the media coverage and consumer discussion of Super Bowl advertisers each week leading up to and immediately following the game on February 3.

This report will address:

• How much coverage is each advertiser generating? 
• Which ads are consumers discussing online? What are they saying?
• What is the quality and tone of the coverage?
• How is the event impacting consumer engagement with the brand?
• How are pre-game promotional strategies influencing coverage?

After the post-game coverage peaks on Monday after the game, our Super Bowl analysts will lead a detailed online briefing Tuesday afternoon to discuss the ad winners and losers as reported by consumers and the media. This will all get wrapped up in a comprehensive report a couple weeks later when the coverage is complete.

Some of us around here are as excited about this new report as we are about the steamrolling Patriots.  (OK, we admit it, we're social media geeks!)

I'm not the only one thinking Bubble 2.0...

Maurice Levy, Chairman of Publicis echoed my concern that social media is gaining the inflated expectations we saw in Bubble 1.0. Am I worried? Actually, no.

While one lesson of Bubble 1.0 was that zillions of start-ups cannot live by hype alone, the other lesson was that while investors and even marketers may get disillusioned, consumers pay no attention to the trials and tribulations of the VC community. People look for tools and things that bring value to their lives.

Just as consumer adoption of the internet was unfazed by the bust of 2001 - 2002, adoption of social media will be equally unaffected should we see a social media bust take place. They'll just keep connecting to one another, creating videos, making virtual friends....

What should marketers do if the bloom comes off the social media rose? Ignore the anguished cries of VCs and even the doomsday blather that the media may put out. Keep your eye on the people who buy and use your brands. Stay involved with social media because your consumers will be involved with it.

More on Conversational Marketing

My blog post last week about whether social media is scaling the Hype Curve hit a nerve last week and spawned two podcasts. So I faced off with Joseph Jaffe and Pete Blackshaw....

...but don't expect a smackdown. While we disagree on a number of points, we all agree on the inexorable transition from the mass marketing world to one that is much more dynamic and engaged.

Joseph and Jen McClure of the Society for New Communications Research started a good conversation on the post, and we decided to take it live. We quickly get beyond quibbling over the timing and the research to tackle the much bigger issue of what Conversational Marketing (or whatever you want to call it) will mean to the practice of marketing in the future. Catch it at the New Communications Review here .

The debate also caught the eye of Ann Handley of Marketing Profs who recruited Paul Dunay of Buzz Marketing for Technology and Pete Blackshaw (who needs no introduction!). We dissect the barriers between marketing today and where it needs to evolve to be truly responsive and conversational with consumers. And, I hope, shed some light on how to make the transition. Give it a listen here.

Great video -- The Advertiser/Consumer Breakup

Tired of all the conference blah-blah about how marketing must change? Are you still meeting resistance in your organizations to what you know has to be done to adapt to consumer attitude and behavior changes. Maybe you should circulate this video.

Here is a hilarious video that IMHO perfectly captures the state of marketing today. Kudos to Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions for putting it together.

The Break Up
Uploaded by geertdesager

New White Paper Addresses Regulatory Issues in Social Media for Pharma Marketers

I'm pleased to announce the newest Cymfony Influence 2.0 White Paper: "Connecting with Patients, Overcoming Uncertainty". We've collaborated with other industry experts to help pharmaceutical companies navigate the complexities of launching social media initiatives within the restrictions of DTC promotion regulations.

We're often asked by our pharma clients and prospects how to engage in social media given the strict FDA regulations around direct-to-consumer marketing. The FDA hasn't issued any guidance (in fact, they haven't issued guidance for Internet marketing). For a long time we looked for others who had made suggestions or analyzed the issues involved, to no avail.

So we've put a stake in the ground -- you can download the paper here. I had two great co-authors on this project: John Serio, a lawyer with Seyfarth Shaw LLP who specializes in food and drug law and regulations, and Fard Johnmar of Envision Solutions, a healthcare marketing communications consultant.

In the paper, we propose a framework for identifying the key issues across the entire spectrum of social media types. We review the core principles that are the foundation of DTC promotion regulation and discuss how they should be viewed in light of social media's unique characteristics. We zero in to show how to assess adverse event reporting requirements, off-label promotion risks, and fair balance when designing a social media initiative.    

Of course, nothing substitues for detailed FDA guidance. But we believe drug companies can participate in many types of social media without undue risk. We hope this paper will give marketers, regulatory compliance, and legal professionals in healthcare companies a common understanding of the issues, and ideas on how to mitigate the risks and become part of the active conversation that patients are having every day. 

My co-authors and I will also present these ideas in a webinar on September 11 at 1:00 eastern time. I hope you will register and join us on the call.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first paper of its kind. I hope it will stimulate a lot of discussion and that you'll share your thoughts with me here.

Paid blog posts -- still the wrong model, one year later.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: paying bloggers to write about you isn't blogging, it's copywriting. Unfortunately, today's Wall Street Journal article doesn't appreciate the difference.

Last year I wished that we would all help the paid blogging model fail quickly. Instead it appears to be gaining momentum. Some may mistake this as a sign of the growth of importance of blogging; in fact, this is a sign that marketers are still thinking in 1.0 marketing ways: whom do I pay to put the message I want in the place I want it?

This is the wrong model for blogging because it contradicts the essence that makes blogging different from other media: blogs are supposed to be the unvarnished thoughts, experiences, and opinions of We, the People. Blogs have attracted people because we no longer trust that the products in TV shows -- even the stories on the news -- are the result of impartial editorial judgment. We turn away from other media because we suspect it is all bought and paid for one way or another. If blogs don't offer a distinctly different alternative, they don't have a reason to exist.

But I'm no purist. If we must have paid blogging, let's all agree that the standard for disclosure should be no lower than the standard for traditional journalists: state that you're being paid at the beginning of the post. If a traditional publication or writer have a conflict, they state it upfront in the article, not buried somewhere in fine print, the masthead, camouflaged with some cutesy name or hidden in some disclosure document in a file drawer somewhere. And this disclosure isn't at the discretion of each writer: it is enforced by the organization writing the check to her.

(Does anyone else appreciate the irony that everyone's all up in arms that Rupert Murdoch will surreptitiously slant the WSJ's editorial approach, but the WSJ seems to think it is OK for bloggers to surreptitiously take money to slant what they write?)

The pro-pay advocates will say, "But if bloggers say upfront that they're being paid, people won't believe the post."

My point exactly. If readers will only believe it when you withhold material information about the motivation of the author, then it should only be published with the disclosure of that motivation.

Or better yet, don't waste everyone's time. 

Social Media Forecast: Looks a lot like online advertising 1994 - 2000

Mediaweek, citing an eMarketer report, states, "User-generated content on the Web is set to rapidly shift from a budding consumer trend to a serious business over the next five years." For those of us who have watched the adoption of online advertising, we are seeing history repeat itself.

This eMarketer report states that UCG sites will earn $1 billion in ad revenues this year, and $4.3 billion by 2011. Mediaweek goes on to state, "Plus, users have shown no indication that creating their own Web content for others to consume is a passing fad, found eMarketer. By 2011, the researcher estimates there will be 95 million Web users creating content online, up from 64 million last year."

The analogy to Web 1.0 online advertising is this: 1994 is usually cited as the birth of online advertising, and in 1997, the medium's fourth year, the IAB reported $900 million in ad revenue. Arguably, 2005 was the first year of social media, so 2007, the third year of its existence, will see $1 billion. Very similar growth curve. Online advertising hit $4 billion in 1999, its sixth year; UGC will hit this landmark in its 7th year. Since UGC growth isn't being propelled by a bubble that was starting to inflate in 1999, the curve again looks similar.

At the same time eMarketer also published an article "UGC not Critical for Many Marketers" in which only 12% of survey respondents said UGC was "very important" to their marketing efforts. The top reasons according to eMarketer "lack of clear ROI was often named as an objection. Other reasons listed included "management doesn't embrace it yet," "we simply haven't given it enough priority to consider it at this point" and "we've had difficulty in getting the establishment to understand it."

Nonetheless, over 40% are either using it already or considering it for next year. emarketer explains, "respondents understood the benefits of using UGC. A third of respondents said UGC was cost-efficient compared with traditional marketing and advertising, and 31% said it was useful because the credibility of traditional advertising and marketing was declining."

This is really deja vu for me: I wrote the following in an October 2001 Forrester Report titled "Online Advertising Retrenches":

"Marketers wrestle with opposing forces that alternatively urge them forward and hold them back from adopting Web site display advertising. They sense the Web's potential but recoil from the risks of being a pioneer and so wait for proven metrics and ad formats to appear."

In a nutshell, consumer media consumption habits are changing faster than marketers can learn and adapt. But year by year, from dipping a toe in the water, to pilot tests, to full adoption, the shift is on an inexorable course. The only question is whether the shift will be faster or slower than the prognosicators think.

I have an obvious bias, but my money is on it growing faster. Being a former prognosicator, here is how I would think about it:

1. There is no VC-fueled dotcom spending here, so the growth is unlikely to be interrupted for 3 years as happend to online advertising.
2. Senior marketing executives and industry observers like Bob Garfield have woken up to the reality that the age of mass marketing is in decline and they no longer need to be convinced to move beyond the tried-and-true tactics of the past. Traditional advertising spending is slowing and "below-the line" (I've always hated that phrase) on CRM, interactive, direct mail, etc. is growing.
3. Social media represents a bigger change than online advertising was. Banners were another format to push messages through; blogs and social networks require a much more dynamic relationship with consumers.

IMHO, the biggest drag on the growth of online ads in the '90's was lack of urgency because marketers still had total confidence in TV and mass marketing. Without that comfort, marketers will be much more willing to invest in the necessary learning to add new social media tools to their marketing arsenal.

Can this industry be saved?

A pair of articles this week got me really depressed about the state of advertising. They indicate that marketers' only response in this time of change is to shout louder and to make ever more outlandish claims. If the industry wants higher consumer "engagement", we'd better fix both of these problems really quickly.

First was Advertising Age's "Caught in the Clutter Crossfire: Your Brand." Not only does it cite a growing list of digital and physical places where ads appear outside of traditional media venues, it notes "TV commercial pods are fatter than they've ever been."

Then Business Week's "Why the Hype Just Keeps on Coming." Under increasing pressure to differentiate products, benefit claims are stretching farther and farther. The article quotes a spokesperson for the Body Vibe exercise product which the Better Business Bureau ruled made a false claim that celebrities and athletes used their product. Their defense:

"The sites and athletes who we are referencing do not use Body Vibe exactly but use the body vibration techniques and we will correct that in our Web site."

I have no doubt it is a better claim that the athletes use the product than that they use techniques that the product uses. But it is exactly these kinds of shortcuts that alienate consumers. And lest you think it is only small advertisers who make outlandish claims, the article cites a number of leading brands that have had to pull ads or promise not to run them again because the claims were deemed misleading.

Both of these are classic "tragedy of the commons" issues. Consumer attention and trust are the "common property" that all advertisers use, but there is no individual disincentive to abuse them. Meanwhile we can clearly see the impact of the aggregate overuse of the "resource": lower trust and more ad avoidance to all messages.

About a month ago, Ad Age had an article on the latest wave of proposed laws creating "do not mail" lists for postal mail. Another example where the consumer is going to privatize the commons to keep marketers out.

As co-chair of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association Ethics committe, I've spent a lot of the last year thinking about responsible behavior in the emerging WOM space. We have our share of tragedy of the commons issues as my fellow Board member Pete Blackshaw pointed out. But the stories cited above indicate ethics is a bigger issue than just WOM.

I know a lot of marketers think ethics is a mushy, altruistic concept, but evidence like this indicates we marketers are reaching the outer limits of tolerance for an attitude of "if-it-is-cool-and-we-can-get-away-with-it-let's-do-it" mentality. When we don't have our ethics right, consumers take more control to shut us out.

But I also believe the opposite is true: strong ethics will begin to emerge as a competitive differentiator and gain consumer engagement and loyalty.

Super Bowl Ad Reviews: Q4

The final installment....

Touchdown: The "Dish Up A Plate of Those for Me" Award: Budweiser "King Crab"

Crabs and beer, one of those perfect combinations, like milk and Oreos, or lobster and butter. So when Budweiser shows up on the beach, the word goes out in the crab grapevine and buckets-full of them come to worship at the cooler. As the sun sets, Stonehenge-like, between two long necks sticking out of the cooler, this crowd of crustaceans is ready for a big pot of boiling water. I'm getting out my crustacean-cracking tools. (I guess I'm really susceptible to this ad because I didn't have time for dinner while watching the game, reviewing all the ads, and blogging.)

Fumble: The "Let's Try Boring them Into Buying Our Product" Award: Prudential "Rock"

Being an Ogilvy-trained ad guy, I live and die by David Ogilvy's many pithy sayings, including "you can't bore the consumer into buying your product." Unfortunately, not every advertising pro has read Confessions of an Advertising Man.

Stonehenge makes another appearance in this ad as Prudential sets up all the wonderful things rocks can do for you: inspire, sooth, entertain, on and on and on. And, of course, you see it coming that the Prudential rock will help you plan for a "rock solid retirement". Funny, they didn't mention how you can use a rock to hit your opponent over the head and win a game of rock/paper/scissors to get the last Bud Light.

Now, I was a geology major in college (no I'm not kidding), and even I can't find anything appealing in this ad.

Super Bowl Ad Reviews: Q3

No Doritos ads, this quarter, so straight to the best and worst.

Touchdown: The "Sizzle and Steak" Award: Coke "Happiness Factory"

There's a saying in the ad biz: sell the sizzle, not the steak. This means wrap your message in high production values or a special offer, rather than focus on the key benefits. This is often a good strategy in a low-interest category or where there is little differentiation among competitive products.

But this ad delivers both sizzle and steak. The animation and production values of the inner workings of a Coke vending machine deliver more Coke magic. Each stage of the delivery of this bottle of Coke charmingly depicts a benefit, for example, the penguins at the North Pole pack it with cool refreshment, while the fireworks and parade endow it with celebration and excitement.

Fumble: The "This Ad Ain't Goin' on Tour" Award: Revlon "Don't Fade Away"

What a missed opportunity. Sheryl Crow sings a very appealing song about not fading away, the key benefit of the Colorist product. But instead of just letting the communication happen, they force it by explaining in laborious detail that the Colorist treatment won't fade away over the weeks of the tour. Get it? Just in case you didn't, they bring in her stylist who fears for his job because the Revlon product is so good she won't need him any more. At least he'd get to escape from this dreadful scene.

Super Bowl Ad Reviews: Q2

So far I'm two for two: Doritos also showed the consumer-created "Checkout Girl" spot which I gave a B+. I wonder if they'll do "Duct Tape" in the second half?

Enough about me, here are my "Touchdown" and "Fumble" awards for the second quarter.

Touchdown: "Best Handoff" Award: Sprint Nextel and Motorola

This duo of spots started with Sprint's very funny spoof of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads, promoting that Sprint's Mobile Broadband access is the cure for the devastating condition known as "connectile dysfunction". An especially funny idea since Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, etc have been such big Super Bowl advertisers in the past.

Then the ad is followed by a Motorola promo for watching NFL highlights on a Razr powered by, you guessed it, Sprint. Hopefully the Bears will find some of this kind of teamwork in the second half to take the game back from the Colts.

Fumble: "These Creatives Need Adult Supervision" Award: Chevrolet "Shirtless"

IMHO, it is just not Chevy's night. This spot, which is the winner of their college contest, has a bunch of attractive women in an HHR, that gets surrounded by guys stripping and making love to the car. The tag line is "Guys can't keep their hands off it".

So is this car for guys or girls? I can't imagine girls would want a car that will attract this bunch of not-terribly-attractive guys. And guys certainly don't want a car that other guys can't keep their hands off of.....

It totally puzzles me that a woman would come up with this concept.

I also have to mention Garmin's "Maposaurus" spot -- they are definitely a contender for the Rookie of the Year Award. A hapless driver starts to unfold his map to figure out where he is and it not only takes over his car, but goes on a Godzilla-like rampage. A nearby driver with a Garmin GPS system comes to the rescue, turning into a Power Ranger to defeat the power of evil and make the world safe for motorists again.

Garmin understood that a Super Bowl spot has to have great production values and humor, but they manage to get their selling message across clearly.

Supplement, Monday Feb 7.

I woke up this morning with a smile on my face from one other ad: Anheuser-Busch's "Dalmation' spot. Disclosure: I am a dog nut, and especially fond of adopted dogs (and in mourning over the loss of one of my girls in December). So this undoubtedly biases my review of this ad.

In it a mixed-breed dog is rejected and unloved; he sees the dalmation riding on the coach pulled by the A-B Clydesdales, and wishes it could be him. His doggie guarding angel grants his wish when he is splashed with mud, miraculously creating the black spots that allows him to pass as a dalmation. Now, he is proudly riding alongside the real dalmation. I love it, but it is kind of sappy. But then A-B takes a bit of the saccharin out of it when the Queen of the Parade hugs our little impostor and is covered with his mud. Nice touch!

Super Bowl Ad Reviews: Q1

Neither the Bears nor the Colts keep control of the ball. But yours truly has total control over the ads.

I called it -- the Doritos consumer-created ad "Live the Flavor" won the voting to play on the Super Bowl, just as I had hoped.

Touchdown: "The Magic is Back" Award: Coke "Grand Theft Coke"

WOW -- Wieden & Kennedy is bringing back the old Coke magic with this ad.  First is the use of video game style graphics -- dead on for the target audience and a unique, eye-catching style. My first thought was why no other advertisers (other than video games themselves) have used this style. Then there is the positive, upbeat message of the ad -- what a welcome contrast to the violence and sexual innuendos of so many of the other ads, and of the Grand Theft Auto game itself. Third, the song "Give a little love" brings back fond memories of "I'd like to teach the world to sing", without being quite so sappy.

Fumble: "Kitchen Sink Creative Strategy" Award: Chevrolet Anthem

It sounds good on paper: get a whole bunch of artists from all genres of music  -- from oldies to Hip Hop to country to Motown -- to sing songs about Chevy. But at the end of the commercial I'm left wondering: Is this brand for me? They are trying to say it is for everyone, so it ends up being for no one. For years, Chevrolet has stood for the heartland of America, and linked themselves to Country music: a clear statement that anyone who loves America can relate to, whether they live in the Corn Belt or on the coasts. Now, the brand is in no-man's land.

Before the kickoff, Doritos scores a touchdown

In the REAL contest (the battle of the Super Bowl ads to see which advertisers will get the most for their money), Doritos has already put a big lead on the board. From January 1 - February 2, coverage of their contest to have consumers create their Super Bowl ad has generated over 40 million impressions -- almost half the number the game will deliver.

Cymfony has been tracking coverage of Super Bowl advertising in television (thanks to our friends at Critical Mention!), Internet traditional media sites (sites like reuters.com, abcnews.com, msnbc.com and thousands of others) and social media sites (blogs, discussion boards, social network sites, etc.).

Here's one other stat: the social media sources deliver less than 5% of all the impressions generated. While the blogs and social networks are undeniably important, they still have a long way to go to match traditional media's impact. But this shouldn't be a surprise: according to Quantcast, Engadget gets between 30,000 - 40,000 unique visits per day. A broadcast on a local TV station like ABC 9 in Cincinnati delivers an audience of 65,653 while the online version of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel newspaper delivers 66,416 readers.

Beyond just the raw amount of exposure, Doritos wins on another dimension: almost half of the discussions of the Doritos ads are positive and almost none are negative. At Cymfony, we almost never see this strong of positive reaction for any brand.

    

By contrast, Nationwide's Kevin Federline ad also shows strong favorability, but in a more typical pattern, almost 17% of the discussion is negative (you can't please all the people all the time).

 

But while Nationwide also got a fair amount of coverage and discussion, K-Fed really can't please the blogosphere: just under 30% of discussion in the social media world is negative.

   

Read my picks of the best and worst of Super Bowl ads: First Quarter, Second Quarter, Third Quarter, Fourth Quarter.

Doritos Ads -- The Full Review

I promised I would do a more complete evaluation of the five finalists for the Doritos "Crash the Superbowl" contest. Here you go...

For background, go to my first post where I gave a quick reaction and second post where I graded each spot.

My Overall winner: Live the Flavor

This spot earned an A- for consistent quality in strategy, production, and just being a really charming spot.

To sum it up: Boy meets chips. Boy loses chips. Boy gets girl.

This spot starts with a total guy situation. Our somewhat nerdy hero is driving with one hand, while tearing open a bag of Doritos with his mouth. Oh, yeah. Been there, done that. He then gets distracted by a cute chick (who happens to be eating Doritos also -- could this be love?) and crashes the car (at which point the chips go flying all over -- there's an interesting story the creators tell of how they got the chips to fly out of the bag). She comes running to his rescue -- but also trips, showing that, in addition to a junk food addiction, they have a certain clumsiness in common. As he leans out of the car to see if she is all right, THAT look passes between them and you know this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

Great script. A complete story in 30 seconds. Situations that are right on with the target audience. And tons of charm. My only reservation (and maybe someone from Frito-Lay would comment here) is if the romantic angle is too chick-friendly for what I suspect is a guy product category. Maybe that's why this spot has received 223 "Love it" ratings to 347 for "Checkout Girl".

But I'll let it slide because as the story of budding romance unfolds, the creator, 5pointp, slips in the selling points with equal charm and style. At each key moment, they cut in a well art-directed graphic frame with a Doritos benefit that reflects the action: when the guy sees the girl, it's spicy. When he smiles at her in his goofy way, it's cheesy, etc. We also get  crunchy and bold.

So you know which ad I'm hoping to see on February 4!

Ties for second: Duct Tape and Checkout Girl

While both of these spots got a B+, Duct Tape edges out Checkout Girl on how dead-on the idea is for the target market: bunch of guys getting ready to head out to do some male bonding. One of them rips a big, long strip of duct tape, explaining, "Gotta keep my roommate off my Doritos". His buddies nod in agreement. So far, a little chuckle. Now comes the kicker: As they head out and close the door...no I won't spoil the ending. Suffice it to say I got a big guffaw. Check it out, if you haven't seen it already. I expect to see a display of Doritos next to the duct tape next time I go to Home Depot. Herbertbros also get points for coming up with a concept that works with Doritos' "Snack Strong" tag line.

Checkout Girl has two things going for it:  a good (if somewhat expected) situation which allows creator kristidenhert to work in many varieties of Doritos (including some I didn't know existed) and a terrific performance by Ms. Checkout. No, make that a phenomenal performance -- She walks away with Best Actress award in this competition. I found myself watching it over and over to see her transform from the surly cashier type that inhabits my local grocery into the Allurer of Albertson's...the Siren of Safeway...Vamp of Von's. The casting of the sketchy biker-type as customer undercuts the believability of her getting all hot-and-bothered enough to need a "Clean up on register 6".

Chip Lover's Dream, is the most pedestrian idea of all the spots. The title is also used as the tag line, but it isn't compelling or memorable. At least the couch-potato dreaming of scaling lofty heights fits the target. When his piton pulls out of the cliff, he grabs his Doritos, trying to finish them off before he hits the ground (and wakes up). Some nice art directing in shooting the falling scenes and the climber's face stuffing chips in his mouth add extra humor.

Mousetrap has great potential with a simple but surprising story, but suffered from two weaknesses. The guy doesn't seem to be the target audience; a little too Armani with an opera soundtrack to really have the target audience thinking, "Do I have to turn off the game and watch PBS if I eat these things?" And the ending doesn't wrap up the spot completely, settling for far too much time of the fake mouse beating the crap out of Armani Guy -- or maybe that's the point. Maybe MouseGuy is saying, "Go back to your champagne and canape social circles and leave the junk food to us real men, er, mice." But billyfederighi gets an A- for art direction: great job on building the fake wall and for not disguising the fakeness of the mouse suit.

Like American Idol winners getting their choice of record label contracts, will the winner of this contest get their pick of Madison Avenue creative jobs?

Superbowl advertisers are missing the real game

Ad Age reports that many Superbowl advertisers are staying quiet about buying the expensive spots. This is exactly the wrong strategy.

At $2.6 million per spot, even with 100,000,000 people watching, this works out to a $26 cost per thousand, high by any standards. Add the fact that this is a very untargeted audience and any specific advertiser's cost per target audience thousand escalates rapidly. There's no way to get a return on just the 30 seconds of the game alone.

Last year, I posted my thoughts about the right Superbowl ad strategy:

"The only way to rationalize this expense is to use it as a platform for public relations, word of mouth, and other exposure for your spot. Just as the ads have come to almost overshadow the game, the value from exposure before and after the game overshadows the 30 seconds the brand is paying for. "

Ad Age attributes companies' reluctance to promote their Superbowl ads to "accountants and procurement types breath[ing] down CMO necks."

In other words, the bean counters, trying to squeeze more efficiency out of marketing budgets, are accomplishing exactly the opposite of what they intend.

I have expected that the buzz about the Superbowl ads this year would focus on Doritos, the NFL, and Chevrolet who are conducting a contest for consumer-generated ads. It looks like the other advertisers are making this a reality by leaving the field wide open (pun intended)...

Doritos Ads -- More evaluation

Yesterday, I ranked the five final ads in the Doritos "Crash the Superbowl" contest based on my gut reaction. Today I ask more rigorous questions -- and change my ranking slightly...

The first question: Do these ads meet the standards of a "real" agency? To answer this question, I had to travel back in time to put myself in the mindset of my ad agency days, ie, if I were the management supervisor on the Doritos account, would I feel confident presenting these ideas to the client? The answer is a definite yes. In fact, at times I had to present much worse work and try to sell it to my client!

But I don't believe agencies are in danger of being put out of business by Ad Age's "Agency of the Year" -- the consumer. If every brand were to run a contest like this for every new campaign, the novelty would quickly wear off and they would receive no submissions. I do wonder if networks of freelancers will crop up to compete for assignments at a fraction of a Madison Avenue fee.

But agencies will face tough questions about why they need to spend $350,000 or more to shoot an ad when these consumers delivered quite good production values on a shoestring.

The second question: How good are these ads, really? How well do they accomplish Doritos' branding and sales objectives? To answer this, I evaluated the ideas by five criteria; definitions of these criteria and their weightings are below. Here are the grades (click to enlarge):

   

These grades confirm my rating of "Live the Flavor" and "Checkout Girl" as the top two ads, "Duct Tape" and "Chip Lover's Dream" move up but "Mousetrap" drops to the bottom.

In my next installment, I'll do my best to channel Bob Garfield and review each ad.

Here are the definitions and weighting of the criteria:

Strategic fit: 40%. Call me a stickler, I don't care who creates the ad I insist that it fits the brand's strategy. I've made the assumption that their target audience is young men; the rules of the contest allude to attributes like boldness, flavor, and the action the attributes drive.

Quality of idea: 30%. I'm also a believer in the Big Idea: is the fundamental idea driving the ad compelling and engaging?

Art Direction: 10%. Art Directors are responsible for casting, sets, props, and the grapic design of the spot. Grades are based on the quality of these elements.

Copywriting: 10%. Interestingly, only two ads --"Checkout Girl" and "Duct Tape" -- have a spoken script. But copywriters are also responsible for the storyline of the ad. The stronger, tighter, and more complete the story, the higher the grade.

Production: 10%. This criterion includes the quality of the finished video, the acting and direction, and additional special effects included.

Doritos announces final five consumer-created ads

As if on cue following Ad Age's naming of the consumer as Agency of the Year, Doritos unveiled the final five candidates in their contest for consumers to create the brand's Superbowl commercial. Here is my ranking....

Doritos launched their "Crash the Superbowl" contest back in October and consumers have submitted over 1000 ads. After a couple of "playoff" rounds, Doritos announced the final five.

I took at quick look at them, and I rank them as follows:

1. Live the Flavor
2. Checkout Girl
3. Mousetrap
4. Duct Tape
5. Chip Lovers Dream

As an ex agency guy, I can't resist commenting on whether they actually live up to what a real agency would produce. But it's late tonight.

Watch this space for more discussion over the next few days...

Ad Age misses the point of consumer control

First, Time Magazine named "You" as Person of the Year. Now Ad Age names the consumer as Agency of the Year. Time got it right. Ad Age got it wrong....

Time put their finger on the pulse of this change when they said, "It's about the many wresting power from the few...and how that will not only change the world, but change the way the world changes."

In other words, "you" have the power, and society and its institutions must get ready for the changes that "you" will demand.

But Ad Age says, "The question for 2007 will be whether marketers and agencies find ways to harness that consumer-bred creativity...and deploy it to the service of brands."

In other words, big corporations and brands still have the power, they only let the consumer have the illusion they have the power. The marketer may not be able to give the consumer a creative brief and tell them what to do, but if they are wiley enough, they can still manipulate, cajole, fool, and bribe the consumer to do what they want.

I'll concede that you may be able to get a bunch of consumers to suck up to the brand for a couple of months to win the bragging right of having their commercial picked for the Superbowl. But what happens on February 5? There are a lot of other conversations out there about the brand -- praising, damning, complaining, and advising -- that won't be so easily whitewashed by a chance at short-term fame.

Ad Age has been seduced by the lure of the big YouTube pop, and is leading its readers astray with the mirage of viewership numbers that are as ephermeral as the next email.

The lesson Ad Age missed -- and that marketers should focus on -- is how to harness consumer-bred creativity and deploy it to the service of those consumers, by listening and learning what the consumer says makes for a great brand, then delivering it in real, differentiated, meaningful features and benefits. 

The next great marketers will see the real benefits brands can gain in this consumer-controlled world: deriving superior consumer insight to drive sustainable competitive advantage.* They will shape the experience consumers have with the brand to the desires and needs that consumers now spontaneously and directly express. These brands will build a longer-term, stronger bond with consumers based on real value consumers receive, and give up the illusion that the slick sell can make up for the lack of real benefits.

*Thanks to Prof. Robert Lauterborn for sharing his marketing mantra with me!

2007 Prognostications

I've been speculating on what 2007 will hold. Here are links to some of the places I've been quoted. Check them out, plus some bonus thoughts....

Heidi Cohen published my thoughts on how marketers will embrace online video in new ways on ClickZ.

Mickey Alam Khan wrote an excellent recap of a long conversation he and I had at AdTech about what all the changes in the media landscape mean for advertisers and media companies in his recent DM News editorial.

Then, ADOTAS tapped me for an article of crystal-ball gazing, based on the Time Magazine Person of the Year, which should appear soon....

Now, for a couple of other thoughts:

Bubble 2.0 ? -- I don't think so. Earlier this fall David Pogue worried that AOL's switch to a totally free ad-supported service signals the return of the late '90's Internet bubble. I agree, we have some froth in the market, but there is one big difference: online advertising is heading toward $16 billion this year, and it is real money, not VC cash that sloshed through Bubble 1.0. But an even more telling example is YouTube suing TechCrunch to protect their business model. This is the anti-bubble -- content may want to be free (in the popular Bubble 1.0 era phrase), but content owners/creators/distributors are not charitable institutions. For there to be content worth watching, somebody has to make some money somewhere along the line.

Web 2.0 is growing up. Reuters investing in Pluck is a strong signal that the worlds of "traditional" and "social" media continue to converge, bringing blogs to a wider, less tech-happy audience. Moves like this advance the case for Influence 2.0, the intersection and interaction of both mainstream and traditional media. With YouTube safely entrenced in the Google world and striking deals with NBC Universal, Vivendi's Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, the NHL, and others, it is clear that real companies are starting to work Web 2.0 into their business models. Contrary to Steve Rubel's thoughts, there is still a long way to go, but the trend will accelerate in 2007.

The post-TiVo era begins. TiVo taught consumers they could break the control network programming bosses had over scheduling. Then the networks completely gave control over by putting popular shows on iTunes, and consumers learned they could have their video content not only whenever but wherever they wanted it. In 2007 as video-enabled mobile phones become a reality, consumers will have even more freedom to view what they want, when they want, wherever they want. Ads will spread but the real change will come as marketers create more product demonstrations and segments with expert advice. Someone wondering what to make their family for dinner will dial up a 5-minute segment with Rachel Ray sponsored by Kraft.

Beyond MySpace. Marketers will seek sites that are “not your teenager’s social network”. MySpace still grabs all the attention, but social networks have begun to spread, popping up to serve different segments of consumers. Though sites like Gather.com and eons.com don’t have the raw numbers of MySpace, they have the buying power of aging Boomers and the NPR audience. Marketers will discover that novelties like a brand character page on these sites won’t cut it. Instead, brands will engage with consumers on how to fulfill their LifeDreams on eons.com while resurrecting the concept of “cause-related marketing” to support issues the Gather.com audience cares about.

More fake blogs. As a member of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association Board of Directors, it pains me to say this. But we will see more examples where marketers try to take shortcuts to create buzz by pretending to be someone they are not. Sony launched AllIWantforXmasIsAPSP.com, having missed the lessons of the “Walmarting across America” fake blog controversy that gave the retailer and their PR firm, Edelman, such a black eye just a month before. Pardon the slightly commercial message, but there is still time to establish a New Year's Resolution of engaging in ethical marketing practices: join WOMMA, embrace the Honesty ROI principles, and institute the practical ethics steps that will help you engage in authentic, valuable conversation with consumers.

What is it with auto makers and "The Sound of Music"?

Has anyone else noticed both Kia and Toyota using songs from The Sound of Music in their end-of-year clearance commercials?

You can't miss Kia salespeople acting out the "So Long, Farewell" number as the Kias roll out of the showroom.

If I hadn't just watched the movie (one of our family holiday traditions) I might have missed "My Favorite Things" in the background music of the Toyotathon commercial.

Why would both car companies pick music from the same Broadway musical at the same time? I guess it's just one of those mysteries of advertising....

(BTW -- Neither commercial rate being posted to YouTube!)

A Blue Christmas for Blu-ray

Consumers are talking about next generation video formats: Blu-ray and HD DVD. This new Cymfony report gives the edge to HD DVD, but not for the reasons you may think.

Here are a few highlights of the study, which you can download here:

• Talk is evenly divided between the two formats, but postive comments about HD DVD are 46% higher than positives about Blu-ray.
• Over twice as many post authors say they are impressed by HD DVD than are impressed with Blu-ray.
• Sony, a leader of the Blu-ray consortium, inspires skepticism and resentment among a significant segment of post authors. They cite a string of Sony-led formats (such as Betamax) that have failed and accuse the company of arrogance.

This was a surprise to me. Much of the mainstsream media coverage of these high-def formats talks about the "format wars", drawing the analogy to the videotape format battle between VHS and Betamax. Our research shows there's more going on with consumers: it's not that consumers are waiting for one format to win before they purchase, but they actively doubt Sony's ability to win the battle. Here's my favorite post:

"Sony, on the other hand, has a track record of starting format wars, and losing them too...but they just don't seem to learn their lesson because they're so greedy."

A key point is that most conversation is still among early adopter videophiles and gamers. So far, both audiences have similar downbeat assessments. This doesn't bode well for the word-of-mouth that is likely to guide mainstream consumers.

One point also came through clearly: people don't see much difference between these two formats, and don't discuss the higher storage capacity or "next generation interactivity" that Sony touts as Blu-ray advantages.

In the report we steered away from making recommendations, but let me make this suggestion to Sony here: issue a movie that really struts Blu-ray's stuff. The few movies out on Blu-ray have the usual extras: added scenes, director interviews, etc. and in some cases post authors note that the Blu-ray version has fewer extras than a standard DVD! This hardly provides a reason to throw out my DVD player that is only 3 years old...

Disclosure: Jon Fortt at Business 2.0 blogged about the report, expressing concern about who was behind it. The answer: nobody. We did this as an independent research project, none of the companies involved in either format paid for it, had any input to it, or even were aware we were doing it. None of the lead companies for either format are clients of Cymfony.

I think this is a good example of the insight companies can and should be tapping into to understand what is truly driving the success or failure of their marketing.

Gread Ideas I Learned in October, Part 4

ROMO COP.

No, this is not a new Schwarzenegger sci-fi flick. It's the right approach to marketing measurement.

Back to Rex Briggs' and Greg Stuart's What Sticks for this one -- or actually two -- ideas: Return on Marketing Objective and Communication Optimization Process.

I really like the distinction Briggs and Stuart draw between ROMO and ROI (Return on Investment). I've ranted that the measurement obsession is wrong: ROI (usually defined as immediate sales spurred by an individual ad) is NOT the only valid measure of marketing effectiveness. If it were, all we as marketers would do is a bunch of couponing and discounts, and as the authors state on page 50 "If you condition consumers to wait for price discounts..then you're also conditioining them to switch from your brand to a very similar competitive brand that may be offering a price deal this week."

(They refer to breakfast cereals in this paragraph -- I wonder if this is the old (circa early '90's) General Mills market mix model study by Promotion Decisions, Inc. authored by Greg Ambach and Mike Hess. They proved that promotion generated immediate sales but not repeat sales while advertising generated repeat sales, both at higher price and higher frequency. I was going to link to it from this post, but couldn't find it online any more. It's an oldie but goodie! If anyone knows if it is still online, leave me a comment.)

But back to the real story. ROMO is so important because in so many catagories and many media, it is unrealistic to expect a person to drop everything and make a purchase that moment. When they purchase later, the last ad/marketing piece/brochure, etc. that he/she sees gets all the credit, discrediting all the other previous marketing stimuli. Market mix modeling is a great tool to straighten out the misallocation of credit, but it is costly and complex.

Boosting consideration and purchase intention provide a return because the indicate that the consumer is moving toward a purchase. Rex's Cross Media Optimization methodology is a great tool But since these metrics are softer than revenue, the process behind measurement is as important as the metric itself, the authors argue.

This is where COP comes in. The authors lay out and illustrate three critical steps: 1) to get everyone to agree on the primary goals of the campaign;  2) create the right measurement tools, processes, and metrics; and 3) devise scenarios on how to change the campaign as results data come in.

It sounds deceptively simple, but in reality is hard. They bring this to life with the example of the McDonald's chicken flatbread sandwich. The company had to answer the following question: if the ad increased traffic, but people ended up buying a Big Mac and not the chicken sandwich, was the advertising successful?

What Sticks provides some great advice on how to apply this discipline to benefit the quality of marketing programs, improve the ability to rapidly respond to results of the campaign, and appropriately get recognition for marketing success.

Great Ideas I learned in October -- Part 3

Conversational Marketing

With all this talk of "the consumer in control", the waning effectiveness of traditional advertising, and the new models of Web 2.0, most marketing models haven't really changed, witness the growth of regular banner ads and Google AdWords appearing on blogs.

But social media are about conversations. Putting Web 1.0 banner and search ads in social media is like putting a radio ad on TV and leaving the screen blank. It probably works to some extent, but it doesn't really use the unique qualities of the medium to their fullest.

I've had the good fortune to work closely with Tom Hespos of Underscore Marketing and Tom Troja of Pajamas Media this month, helping them flesh out the implementation of their concept of Conversational Marketing. The insight driving the idea is deceptively simple: if consumers go to blogs to be part of a conversation, the ads should invite them to enter a conversation with the marketer.

Tom Troja conceived of an advertising concept he calls "Can We Talk?" which uses ads not to push messages at the target audience, but invites individuals to begin a dialogue with a brand. To make this a practical program, we've combined Cymfony's tools to monitor and analyze topics discussed in the blogosphere, with the Pajamas Media blog network, and the strategy and creative skills of Underscore. Together, we've created a process to identify relevant topics, pose these topics to consumers on sites where they are in conversation mode, and give them an immediate opportunity to begin a conversation with the company.

Stay tuned for more on this innovative model!

Great Ideas I learned in October -- Part 2

People, not consumers

At the ANA Masters of Marketing conference, P&G's Jim Stengel said, "Let's stop talking about consumers. Let's talk about people."

This is an echo of a conversation I had with Rishad Tobaccowalla, CEO of Denuo, earlier this year, as well as the rant he went on at OMMA.

The statements that "the consumer is in control" and "markets are conversations" are ubiquitous, cropping up in almost every presentation at every conference. Stengel and Tobaccowalla rightly point out that you don't have a conversation with a consumer, you have a conversation with a person. Products aren't used by a target audience, they are used by a person. This is more than a semantic difference.

At the IIR Market Research event, P&G's VP of Consumer and Market Knowledge, Kim Dedeker, carried on this theme, describing P&G's "Walk a Mile" program which encourages senior managers to walk a mile in the shoes of the people who use their products. She told the story of one executive who lived for 2 weeks on the budget a single mother might have, describing how at the end of the period, he had to make a choice he had never faced before: buy milk for his kids, or buy presents for their teachers.

If consumers people are in control, then brands must know those people better than they ever have. If not, they can't offer the benefits those people seek and that person will seek the benefits from some other brand.

Also at the ANA conference, I had the pleasure of meeting Robert Lauterborn, Professor of Advertising, of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. I had interviewed Prof. Lauterborn years ago when I was at Forrester. He quoted me the mantra he instilled in his students, which I've quoted frequently since then. It is truer now than when I first heard it:

"The only sustainable competititve advantage is superior consumer insight."

I don't think he'd mind if I revised it slightly to "The only sustainable competitive advantage is superior insight into people -- and their wants, needs and motivations."

marketing advertising consumers P&G

Great Ideas I Learned in October -- Part 1

I've been traveling attending conferences, and not blogging much in October. Now it is time for me to catch up and share with you several of the best ideas I've picked up along the way.

There will be more to come over the next few days, but the first is 70-20-10...

Idea 1 comes from the plane time I've had to catch up on reading several of the new marketing books out. On one flight I read What Sticks by Rex Briggs and Greg Stuart. This is a must-read book for marketers of all levels. Beginners get a solid grounding in the immutable fundamentals of advertising and media veterans learn some new twists on old rules, folk ways, and unspoken assumptions about how advertising works.

There are many worthy ideas in this book, but the one I'll share now is the 70-20-10 rule:

• 70% of a marketer's budget should be spent on proven tactics, media, and program that can reliably deliver business results.
• 20% of the budget should fund tests within these proven vehicles. Some tests will fail, some will succeed, but in aggregate you probably end up with the same business results