The Conversation Thing

The Licensing Show -- The Power of the Brand is Sizzling

We tramped around the billions of square acres devoted to the Licensing Show at the Javits Center yesterday. Full disclosure -- we were supervising the presence we've created for our client, The Edison Innovation Foundation (www.thomasedison.org), the estate, image, and license of Thomas Edison. But beyond that, here is a museum/bazaar of brands, sizzling brands. Images that come fully -- or not so fully -- formed, ready to, for a price, align, bless, ignite your product brand or show. For most mere mortals, it takes gazillions of dollars and dozens of years to build a brand. But here, for the right number, you can put that into overdrive. Buy (or rent) Elvis, Batman, Marilyn, Pink Floyd, Woodstock, Paris Hilton -- they're all here. All talking. Ali? No problem. The other stunning thing, certain brands are so cool, or powerful, they even use their brand to boost other brands. The "King," that creepy plastic mascot of Burger King was there peddling attitude. The mind boggles as to the possible alignments. Running Shoes? Hospitals? Spas? Well, it's all there. And the bottom line, these brands have value, have been built, have been honed. It takes time, money, and talent (ask Elvis's people, or Ali's.) But in our too much information world, this clarity of mind and image, this promise, appears to worth more than ever.

The mouse that roars

This will come as no surprise, but the Rachel Ray debacle also points out the disproportionate power of blogging and how it can upset mass media -- and powerful ideas -- as we know them. A little burp, or a big noise, has a concomitant effect on ideas, image. So, whether it's the somewhat legit uncovering of a hypocrisy behind the Dove real beauty campaign, or a less relevant conspiracy theory behind the Dunkin' ads, the big boys have to notice. So, to eschew controvesy (see Kathy Taylor's analysis of the Bob Garfield pan of the current Cheeto campaign), advertisers and clients will probably pull back. All of which, in a time of challenging economics, is just the wrong thing we should be doing in our communications. There is never an excuse to lie. There is never an excuse to insult. And the fact is, one person's cheer is another person's jeer. But, if we, as professionals, exercise good taste, we should still be able to SAY THINGS. The problem is, when we all quiet down, the good along with the bad gets thrown out. Again, the ineffable quality known as "good ideas" must rule. And sometimes, that's going to mean taking a hit or two. But to succeed you have to take risks. It's a cliche, but one that we're all too readily losing site of because of the amplified voices of some sites.

Dunkin' Donuts, Rachel Ray & The Scarf

I couldn't help but wonder what I would do if faced when this sort of dilemma? Oh sorry, if you didn't hear about it, Dunkin Donuts decided to cancel one of its commercials and put it in the can forever because a blogger...perhaps a little more of the right-wing persuasion than 'yours truly'...questioned a stylist's choice of neck wear for Ms. Ray, the company's spokesperson. The neck wear was a scarf that looked a lot like the kaffiyeh popularized by Yasser Arafat, the former Palestinian leader.
Now I pride myself in the fact that I don't think that I am totally 'out of it' yet and I do recognize the sensational power of symbols in our culture...but don't you agree that we, as a society, might be showing too much of our old Jingoistic traits and perhaps just a bit of national ignorance and niavete about the Arab culture if we allow a blogger's suggestion that there is an association between a kaffiyeh and terrorism to stand...and influence the marketing decisions of such a good corporate citizen as Dunkin' Donuts?   I agree with the comment made by Amahl Bishara in an article in thestar.com, who said: "Kaffiyehs are worn everyday on the street by Palestinians and other people in the Middle east - by people going to work, going to school, taking care of their families, and just trying to keep warm. To reduce their meaning to support of terrorism has a tacit racist tone to it." 
Dunkin' Donuts: Take the spot out of the can and air it. Don't be influenced by the kooks.
What do you think? We invite you to join the conversation if you'd like.

Crispin Crunchtime

Hard to separate the news from the snark, but it seems like Boulder's wonder frat boys have been falling a bit flat lately -- and damn if the industry isn't doing a big of a Brittany on them? First it was the somewhat deflated welcome to the new VW campaign (David Hasselhoff!) and the generic line, "Das Auto." Then, Nike pulls out. I'm sure they are hitting a lot of balls out of the park, but they don't seem to resonate as much as those glimpses of them in all their natural, well, splendor. Stay tuned. Will corporate America keep giving the Boulder boys a 'gimme' as easily?

Holy Soaps!

We were speaking to a friend over the weekend who works in a technical/creative function on a national soap opera. Although business continues to chug along in heartbreak land, there are rumblings of trouble in dystopia. It seems that the general media value erosion that is sinking everything else is causing belt-tightening even at General Days of Our Lives As the World Turns-ville. Our buddy was saying, if only someone could figure out a way for the shows to keep getting paid? We're working on it, we're working on it!!!

Agency 4367.0

News today from Kathy Taylor over at Adverganza.blogspot.com as well as the ad trades that the venerable William Morris Agency (I think they were Bob Hope's agents or something) have boldly decided to jump the shark, oh, I mean, jump the queue to the front of the new technology-monetization-advertising-talent-there's-no more-music/publishing/movie business model by boldly minting a new shop. The name, Agency 3.0. Well, sorry you guys, we are way ahead of you. We are already creating work for an agency called, Agency 4367.0. How does this work? Well, allow me to give you an example. Say you have a product you want to sell. Say it's, oh, I don't know, Snickers. So, this is how Agency 4367.0 handles it. We get a brain scan of George Clooney eating a Snickers bar (through our exclusive arrangement with his representation) and take that scan, and project it to diodes implanted in the minds of millions, no billions of humans, diodes that exactly replicate not only the exact tastes and sensations of Mr. Clooney's brain as he devours the candy bar, but also replicate his dashing haircut. This gives the entire audience the feeling that they ARE IN FACT George Clooney eating a Snickers bar. So, what do they do? They stop whatever it is they are doing (driving a bus, taking a test, practicing the backhand volley, running th free world) and grab a Snickers bar. Pure media-agnostic algorithm driven celebrity anchored brilliance. So, all we can say to William Morris and Agency 3.0 -- nice knowing you!!!

Trouble in bannerland?

A couple of interesting, coinciding pieces of web news today. One, AP reports that while the Internet is routinely used in buying decisions, its influence is "small compared with offline channels such as friends and sales personnel." That comes from the Pew Internet and American Life Project, tracking purchasing behavior for music, cell phones, homes and apartment rentals. It found the Internet's role to be, quote, "indirect."

Correct me if we're wrong that all seems to endorse the total "conversation thing."

Part two, was highly reported news that paid search is outpacing 'display' ads online (read banners...??):  The online segment continues to experience slower growth with prices of ads purchased through ad networks falling 23% from March to April, per one index, and demand for display ads dropping, although search is holding its own -- this according to Sanford Bernstein.

And what drives search? The conversation, interesting things that engage people in their lives and cause them to 'google' something or other.

And what drives that?

What you say or how you say it?

Used to be the big question in the advertising/marketing business was, "what's more important, what you say or how you say it?" Then, through the genius of people like Bill Bernbach, David Ogilvy, Howard Gossage, Bill Backer, Patrick Kelly and others we realized that form is content. How you say it and what you say are one and the same thing.

Today, that debate has been replaced by, "what's more important what/how you say it or where you say it?" There's a rush to new media, new algorithms, new technologies, that says just build it and they will come. How can we be just the right level of intrusive to inculcate ourselves into the brainpans of our victims (ooops, I mean the audience.) Well, I submit the same solution to this conundrum as the last one. They are both the same. I'm not sure this is radically different from the Lee Clow troops over at media-arts (btw- sorry about Chivas!) Chiat are saying. But are they really walking the walk? Was the Chivas work really that great? I still haven't seen a lot of envy-worthy ideas, ideas that can blast across every widget and algorithm the bean counters chuck at us. H and R Blocks "You've got people," does it. The late Phil Duesenberry's "Don't almost give, give" does it. So, the what/how is at least equally important. (But, think about it, if it really drives the entire conversation, isn't it even more important?)

Strategy -- straightjacket or wings?

Lots of creative people over the years have rebelled against the notion of working off a strategy. "Rules, we don't need no stinking rules." "Hey man, let it all hang out." "Don't worry, dude, we'll write the ads then we'll 'retrofit' the strategy to fit them." "Don't cramp my genius, get off of my cloud." Well, there are two reasons this is so. One: the strategy sucks. It is loose, flabby, a camel (trying to say two things instead of one.) Valid reasons all. Or two, the agency sucks. They just can't write a strategy, they're too lazy to do the upfront work. Neither reason, as you can see, is very valid. To answer this conundrum, I have to fall back on a great quote from my first boss, Norman Berry. "Give me the freedom of a tight strategy." That's it. Learn it. Repeat it. Live it. So, bad strategy = straightjacket. Good strategy = wings. Question answered.

Jonah Bloom weighs in on Dove -- and the conversation.

Check out his post in Adage today. Evidently the controversy just won't shut up. Good.

http://adage.com/columns/article?article_id=126972