Where My Mind has Wandered

Channeling Alan Sorkin

President Barak Obama didn't walk to the capitol to meet with congressional Republicans like President Jeb Bartlett did in the West Wing, but he did make the trip. It was not the first deja vu moment for West Wing fans, and I bet it won't be the last.

The strangest coincidence for me remains the bizarre choice of photo backdrop during the McCain acceptance speech. McCain was pictured in front of a mansion-like building for an agonizingly long time during his speech, prompting even Republicans to question "what is that, one of his mansions?" It turned out to be a Hollywood high school commonly used as a backdrop for TV and movie shoots. Over and above the odd, even disconcerting pairing of McCain with Hollywood, the school was also used as a backdrop for the West Wing scene in which Jimmy Smits announces he is running for president. Add to the story that Sorkin based the Smits character in part on Obama, and the bloggers went banana cakes for a very amusing 48-hour news cycle. Good times, good times.

So why is the comparison between Jeb Bartlett and Barak Obama so ... so ... well, so natural? It might be easy to say that after eight years of wandering in the desert liberal fans of the West Wing simply see their ideals finally represented in the White House. I think it is much more than that.

• Both Barak Obama and the fictional Jeb Bartlett are intellectuals. They are smart, damn smart, and it feels good. The President of the most powerful nation on the planet should be smart and accomplished.
• They are well-spoken. They can string a sentence together that is not only coherent, it can be at times insightful, compassionate, subtle, and inspiring. After eight years of pre-K English it really jumps out at you.
• They comport themselves in a manner that is presidential. It is impossible to define, but you know it to be true.
• They both project an aura of thoughtful, ethical behavior. It is an open-minded, intellectual ethics that is both more worldly and more paternal than the narrow, ideological, fundamentalist ethics of the past administration.

A little Google will lead you to plenty of comparisons and connections between the two. I'd get used to it, I expect more to come.

Little Wisdom in Tax Cuts Alone

The congressional Republicans risk looking very out of touch with voters in their insistence on a tax cut-only stimulus package. Not only does it seem an overly simplistic answer to a complicated problem, Republicans once again look like they are hewing to a narrow position based more upon ideology than common sense. That approach has gotten them, and the country, in a heap of trouble over the last eight years.

Their complaint that the Democrats won't listen to their ideas, particularly in the House, is undermined when their sole idea is simply more tax cuts. The Republicans did not do much listening when they were in power, but I do have sympathy for their complaints. Yet, how much listening does one really need to do when the Republican plan is a one-trick pony?

Will tax cuts alone improve the economy? I think a little, but too little and much too late to pull us out the nose dive we are in. Home Depot didn't shutter Expo and lay off more than 15,000 employees because taxes are too high. They did it because home building and renovation is at a dead-halt, and giving the average family a few thousand dollars in tax relief isn't going to change that.

Will tax cuts stimulate the economy? First, let's place the horrific pile of debt we are creating by lowering taxes at a time when tax revenue is caving in off to the side and consider tax cuts in a comfy, unrealistic vacuum. Tax cuts will help a little in the short-term, and probably more in the long-run.

Publicly traded companies may have little incentive to turn that tax cut into new jobs. Companies are "right-sizing" to a new economic outlook that suggests a long, slow recovery (after when we hit the bottom). They are not going to add more salary and benefit commitment to their expense line. With money frozen they cannot take on additional debt to finance new investments, and are unlikely to do so even if they could. They are more likely to focus on margin performance and shareholder value.

Mid-sized companies might spend a little of that tax break. They are more likely to be privately-owned, giving them some relief from shareholder expectations. They are also less able to absorb deep staff cuts without undermining their business. Small companies can only scale with staff, but the economy dictates their scale. They are more likely to use the cuts to keep the people they have, not hire new ones. Business tax cuts are more likely to help save existing jobs and create some freelance, contract, and part-time work than create a big lift in full-time employment.

The personal income tax won't do much of anything. We won't see a tax cut that exceeds average household credit card debt, so any spending it generates is still debt-spending. And now with Americans have tightened their belts and expectations they are too scared to spend money. Even the money that leaks out in consumer spending isn't a long-term solution. We saw that with the 2008 tax credit, which did nothing to help heal the underlying economy. And a tax cut can't help you if you have already lost a job. What you need is a salaried income, and that's why we need investment in projects that save jobs and create new jobs.

Public infrastructure projects can generate a lot of regional work. The construction is just the start, there is a ripple effect that spreads from arts to public affairs to communications. And it can happen quickly; the money starts flowing well before people start digging and pouring cement. It is not my favorite solution, but it is a piece of the puzzle. A lot of business can get hurt from construction projects, particularly road construction. Many business did not survive the Washington Avenue, Vandeventer Overpass, and Highway 40 construction projects over the last few years in St. Louis (I really miss King Louie's). But the stimulus outweighs the disruption and many of the projects sorely need to be done.

The investment in alternative energy also makes sense. It will impact science, technology, and ultimately manufacturing -- all sectors of our economy that need to be more competitive. This is a success by a thousand cuts scenario. We can't just expect the blunt tool of tax cuts to get the job done.

A fire needs both oxygen and wood to burn. Tax cuts may give us more oxygen, but we need to add some fuel to the fire.

Why you need some mobile.

I found the December 1 ADWEEK -- particularly the article “Economy Puts Mobile Marketing on Hold” -- thought provoking. Yes, I agree with the general premise of that article that “despite the hype, optimism and growth potential” the mobile medium “won’t dial up in ’09.” The financial situation will put downward pressure on experimental spend, particularly in more conservative organizations. And many of the current mobile marketing applications just don’t deliver.

The advertising industry is getting much, much better at digital marketing. If read through the 2008 Buzz Award winners in the same issue of ADWEEK you see some very smart work. At the same time, you can tell it the industry is behind the curve on mobile marketing when you read “display ads on the mobile are coming fast.” Yikes. In the United States the mobile device is an extremely personal space. This may be less true the more advanced Scandinavian and Asia-Pacific mobile markets where commercial and ad content has had some success.

The last place I want to see a display ad is on my handheld device. Many mobile applications still make little sense, including the geo-targeting of information. I don’t care how many people in the region are sick (Zicam). When I out shopping and I can’t find the pants I want to buy in the size and color combo I want then I’ll call you (so to speak), but don’t call me.

That said, the article led me to some other thoughts about the state of mobile marketing and how I will counsel clients in 2009. I realize my thoughts below are not actionable advice for specific programs and tactics. Read this more as the base, or frame of mind from which t approach mobile programming.

Experiment with mobile. When I worked on DSL marketing in the early years I privately referred to broadband as the “big lie.” The speed wasn’t there to support the claim of rich media, and the penetration wasn’t there to rely on it for very broad consumer marketing efforts. Rich media was also still too fat – really good compression for Flash and video was still a work in progress. But for some marketers, broadband was the real deal -- if they were targeting the right niche. And broadband was going to have an immense impact, just not for another 18 to 24 months.

I’ll argue that the organizations that judiciously experimented at the front end of the curve benefited. They cut their teeth, learned important lessons and gained street credibility with key audiences. I think that in the United States and Canada we are at that moment with mobile marketing. In 18-to-24 months the curve will begin to accelerate and the companies that experiment in 2009, run smart pilot programs, will be way ahead and everyone else will be left playing catch-up. And you don’t have to start with external marketing, employee communications is a great way to experiment with mobile.

Where should the money come from? I’d be pulling back on print and TV advertising in a big way. The ROI just isn’t what it used to be (keep the radio, radio packs an ROI punch and I think it is undervalued).

Don’t forget the Internet. Most companies haven’t figured out online marketing, and they’ll have more bottom-line impact in the near-term with online efforts than they will with mobile. The impact of social media is still badly misunderstood by many marketers, and the upside of getting it right can be tremendous. And then there is the secret sauce that we have learned at Fleishman-Hillard: the power of combining face-to-face and experiential marketing with digital word-of-mouth.  Mobile has a role to play here, but in a discrete manner with specific audiences (tweens to late twenties).

If you are global go mobile. If you are a global company run by American executives you better take a good look at your mobile strategic roadmap, because odds are you are way behind the curve in markets outside of North America. 

Don’t be intimidated. A lot of marketers shy away from new technology because it seems difficult, they are unsure or cost, they don’t know what to ask for, and they don’t know where to start. Don’t let that be a barrier. We offer our clients digital and mobile immersion sessions so they can understand the possibilities without getting “sold” while they are trying to learn. The landscape is changing, the earth is moving, and if you think the same old approach will do the job because it is tried and true you are in for some uncomfortable surprises.

The Best Advice

There was some curious advice from PRWeek in the January 5th issue, not that curious advice on digital matters is a surprise from public relations, marketing, and advertising trades.

SEO will save the day. Yes, search engine optimization is important. But before you rely on SEO to drive sales or awareness you better understand what it is (and what it is not) and how SEO is related to your business. If you sell items for less than $250 online, and you have competitors who sell identical or similar items, your SEO profile will be very different from an organization that sells more expensive items or does allow or rely primarily on online transactions. The most critical aspect of SEO for many organizations is the power of inbound links, which is about the last thing I usually here from an SEO professional. And the inbound link is more a product of outreach and relationship building that picking the right words or over-spending on online ad buys. 

Think twice about stunts. The suggestion here was that stunts like subservient chicken will not represent money well spent in 2009, and that online promotion will need to be more "rationale." Try explaining that to the "will it blend" people, who have driven sales in a boring category by blending everything from iphones to glow sticks. Humor and the unexpected can still drive awareness and sales, particularly with 18-34 men. Such "stunts" are entirely rationale if you understand your audience and the power of smart viral marketing.

There are a few old lessons that I think still apply in 2009. One is to always try and answer the question "what is your audience's role in my product, message, or initiative?" The second is success by a thousand cuts. You can pool all your effort into one online effort, miss, and fail. Or you can experiment with a few online trial baloons that attempt to address the same problem or opportunity in different ways and then follow up on those that succeed. The third is do more than scrape the social media surface. Creating a Facebook page or group is not the same as really understanding Facebook and programming appropriately, and the same is true of any social media platform.

The best advice for 2009 may simply be to make sure you always question advice, no matter what the source, to see if it feels right and goes far enough before taking it to heart.

Obama's Inaguration Speech

He nailed it.

What is Creativity?

If you are in the agency business you are familiar with the label "creative." The trades and clients will refer to how creative your agency is and it is a factor in most agency report cards. But what does creativity mean? I think I know what the ingredients are, although I cannot offer the exact recipe.

The first ingredient is authentic creativity, which is sort of a raw intangible that is hard to define but you know it when you see it.

The second ingredient is celebrity. A program with a movie or music star is exciting and sexy. Such programs may or may not have been remarkably creative, but you must have celebrity somewhere in your case study portfolio to be considered creative as an agency.

The third ingredient is programs targeting 19 to 34 year-old males. Do your programs have farts, belches, and sexual references? No? Well then you aren't creative. Seriously, programs that target this audience are typically irreverent and edgy, both common ingredients of the definition of creative.

I've been in the business for 17-years and this feels accurate. We may not know for sure until someone commissions research to validate this, but since that isn't likely to happen you will have to take my word for it.

Beware of the Dog House

J.C. Penny, or all companies, scored what I think is the biggest hit of the holiday season. The "Beware of the Dog House" campaign had people talking about J.C. Penny throughout the holiday shopping season. I was shopping a few days before Christmas in a small boutique and two people I ran into mentioned the campaign without prompting. One, a friend in his mid-60s who I see only a few times a year approached me and made an inside reference to the campaign assuming I would know what he was talking about, and of course I did.

I have not been to a J.C. Penny in over 15 years and frankly I had forgotten it existed. If J.C Penny was not in your consideration set, it was now top of mind. If you already shopped at J.C. Penny but did not go to the jewelry department, you might now. 

The Web-only campaign is very creative and has a high production value, yet is simple and straightforward -- a very smart combination. It also relies on irreverent humor, pretty much a sure winner online. The premise of the campaign, which is anchored by a fantastic video, is that men who give their wives thoughtless gifts are banished to the dog house, a prison-like underground facility where inmates fold laundry. Site visitors can watch the video, put someone in the dog house, see who is in the dog house, and learn how to get out of the dog house. There are a number of factors that make the campaign work for me.

• Video. The video is very funny. The writing is great, the imagery is strong, the casting and acting is solid. It is clear some good money went into the video. The branding is very subtle, J.C. Penny is not mentioned until the very end of the video, but it sticks. With a running time of nearly five minutes the video has room to be creative, something that cannot be accomplished with a television ad. How many times have you seen a really a solid :60 or :30 second ad only to be disappointed when it is run at :10 or :15 seconds for the duration of the ad buy? J.C. Penny could afford to plow money into the production value because there was no broadcast spend. The video is also an asset because it is portable. The YouTube version of the video has been embedded in posts, articles, and on Facebook pages.
• Interaction + Integration. The interactivity is simple, but smart. You can email someone a warning that they are in danger of being put in the dog house, or you can put someone into the dog house. With either you can link into your Facebook account to find friends. The beauty of this is that once an account is linked it will start broadcasting on the user's Facebook profile, driving visibility within his or her peer group. That said, while many people shared the campaign link within Facebook, I suspect the adoption of the application was low. J.C. Penny did not promote the campaign itself within Facebook with a group or page, which is a shocking oversight.
• Simplicity. The site doesn't do more than it needs to. It isn't overly complicated and stays focused on the creative theme and messages. The simplicity makes it easy to absorb, easy to use, and more portable, which is critical with a viral campaign.

Has it been a success for J.C. Penny? I suspect we will find out over time. The campaign must have had a positive impact on awareness and perception. The campaign was fighting against a strong downward trend for both the jewelry category and department stores, so year-over-year in-store jewelry sales may not be a good yardstick. The site did link directly into the online sales channel so J.C. Penny will be able to measure online sales. The site's Alexa ranking rose like a rocket in late November and early January, ranking near 2,000 before dropping south of 40,000 after the holiday. A Google search returns around 275 references and 200 inbound links. The video has been viewed almost one million times on YouTube and generated nearly 500 comments. A better understanding of social media, particularly the Facebook community, would have taken the campaign much further. Integrating the campaign into other successfull Facebook applications (Flair, FFS, etc.) would have carried the campaign much further. Success by a thousand cuts, I can't say it enough.

Exit Strategy

I just listened to a good portion of President George W. Bush's last White House press conference. He has not improved much at the podium over the last eight years, and at times he sounds a bit pickled, but for the first time in a while he sounds genuine. I have to imagine his image, and  therefore his presidency, would have been different if he spoke with more ease and apparent candor when the stakes were higher.

Facebook + Simple

A December 8 article in Adweek chronicled the poor performance of Facebook applications developed by major brands including Nike, Ford, Microsoft, and Fedex. Nike, for example, developed an ambitious application titled Ballers Network -- including support for three languages -- intended to allow basketball players to find pick-up games and manage leagues. After six months the application had 3,400 users per month, small numbers for a major brand like Nike. I checked today and active users were down to 2,400.

Where did Nike go wrong? The Just Do It brand is all about physical activity, so an application that connects you to real basketball games is certainly on brand. As a basketball player I have to say the concept is appealing. The may have erred by making their application to complex, too ambitious. What would make the concept work? The best way to reach basketball players who would need and want league tools is through local community centers and parks departments. My small community has 150 teams of all ages fighting for court space this winter. Reaching out to influencers -- the people who set up these leagues and schedule the court space -- strikes me as a place to start gaining visibility. But that is a feet-on-the-street, face-to-face tactic, something too often ignored in social media efforts.

Perhaps Facebook is not the ideal place to connect the physical and the virtual? The most popular sports application on Facebook is Permier League, in which you build fantasy roster made up of you Facebook friends and play virtual soccer.

The AdWeek article, written by Brian Morrissey, offered two conclusions. First, that partnering with established Facebook apps was an easier way for big brands to reach Facebook users. And second, that applications that involved "simple messaging and modest expectations" seemed to do well.

Buying impressions by partnering with an already successful application can work and may often make sense if all you want is an impression. The example Morrissey uses, Gap partnering with the application Pieces of Flair, did generate impressions for Gap. Those 7 million generic impression were probably pretty inexpensive, but will a piece of flair really stimulate a purchase intent, particularly when you promote a store vs. a specific product? Probably not. With Ballers Network, Nike was aiming for a higher-value impression -- creating a sustained relationship with a specific audience with a higher likelihood of purchasing their product.

From my experience with Facebook the more simple an application is the more adoption you are likely to see. Another application type that works is gaming. The simple games like Word Twist (800,000 active users) and Scramble (480,000 active users) made by Zynga are popular, and they could have been made by any major brand. Hasbro's late and contentious entry into Scrabble on Facebook even has 480,000 users, solid numbers for a pretty poorly developed application.

Simplicity and modest expectations is a good starting point for major brands in Facebook. Experiment, learn from failures but don't sweat them, see what works and capitalize on success.

As interesting as it is to discuss Facebook applications, it is even more fun to watch the advertising industry try to figure Facebook out. Go to AdWeek.com and type "Facebook" into the search engine and you will find almost a reference a day going back to November 2007. The search results present a montage of awe, confusion, consternation, and dismay -- particularly dismay at the poor performance of Facebook ads -- and expose the fundamental mismatch of CPI and CTR metrics within social media.

Hoping Downsizing Ends this Quarter

At the end of 2008 I was hoping that companies would try and shed employees before the end of the year, book as much of the cost as they could, and the job market would stabilize. It does not look like that happened. Thousands of employees continue to be shed in January as companies that did not cut back earlier begin to downsize, and some companies that did cut back trim a bit more. Now I am hoping this will last another 90 days, which seems to align with what I have been hearing from people who know more than I do.

Companies need to be profitable for a host of reasons, including their ability to pay good salaries and invest in improvements, both of which keep them competitive. But high unemployment becomes a drag on the entire economy, reducing collective spending power and increasing the cost of social services. Which brings me back to my hope that companies can turn the corner before job loss gains any more momentum and becomes to hard to be reverse.