Campbell on Branding and Innovation

A Few Interesting Articles

Doing some reading over the past week or so, I came across a few interesting articles I thought I'd share:

In an earlier post on ad agencies as commodities, I mentioned some examples of good/new/different/game-changing/relevant agencies, including Anomaly. Ad Age has a nice write-up of what they're doing well including, most importantly in my opinion, addressing compensation and working on innovation of offerings not communication about offerings.

Spending less on TV, more on worthwhile areas such as interactive, experiences, etc. And make sure and short the stocks of those media giants.

Building off my last post, more on Obama's marketing. Brands that are dynamic and relevant to their audiences generate this kind of work.

Chris Anderson, Wired editor and Long Tail author, on Free and Abundance. Anderson spoke at the Design Strategy Conference last year and previewed this book topic. Smart stuff. And you can get the issue for free.

I was excited to see Lara Lee, former Vice President, Enthusiast Services at Harley-Davidson, with a Business Week article regarding the danger of over-promising on the power of design thinking, lest it come back to haunt you when the economy is down.

Kluster.com - a fantastic concept! Why didn't I do this? (don't answer that) This is sweet and potentially super huge. Any chance they need someone to help integrate innovation frameworks to provide some structure and direction?

And building off my Linkages post, this Business Week article gives me hope that Motorola sticks with mobile phones in spite of themselves.

I hope you enjoy. If it seems like people are getting value out of these types of roundups, I'll post more as I come across good pieces since I'm always reading and harvesting information from all over.

Wanna see a great example of an integrated digital campaign?

You can receive text updates and reminders straight to your cell phone.
You can follow along on Twitter.
You can become a friend on Facebook and MySpace.
It’s hard to avoid the banner ads on sites and blogs.
You can view remix videos on YouTube from rabid fans and celebrities alike.
You can check out photos shared on Flickr.
Sign up on the web site and receive relevant, timely permission-based e-mails.
Hundreds of thousands of online transactions are taking place on the web site.
Even a profile on LinkedIn.

A profile on LinkedIn?

Okay, that tactic may not fit for a packaged goods brand. That’s because the campaign is Barack Obama’s. And, regardless of political leanings, this is one of the finest examples of a coordinated, integrated online marketing campaign I’ve ever seen, having followed politics avidly for years and been involved in the online space for just a little less time.

It’s possible to look back to 2004 and Howard Dean to see the beginnings of this type of campaign with his emphasis on online donations, his strategy of using MeetUp and so on. But this is at a different level, which I suppose shouldn’t be shocking in 2008 except that it is so far beyond anything any candidate has ever done or any competing candidate is doing.

Here is an article and a column that speak to some of the tactics. Permission marketing. Interactive marketing. Together they’re incredibly powerful. To paraphrase from a speech, if politicians can set this up from scratch in less than a year then your brand can do this as well. Yes you can.

Stop Trying to Yell

BusinessWeek has an interesting article on the problems Google and advertisers are having with click-thru rates on MySpace. The number of visitors is dropping, time spent is dropping, and click-thrus are dropping. Therefore Google isn't making the money on ads and advertisers aren't getting the eyeballs and purchases.

As I discussed in an earlier post, this is not surprising as this advertising is interruption-based and therefore not as relevant to users as, for example, keyword search. While the article quotes various people promising that social networks are in their infancy and ad revenues will grow, I really believe ad revenue growth is not sustainable and, long-term, the prospects are dim. Not just for social networks but any interruption-based advertising, be they online display ads or AdSense text ads.

The best bet for companies on social networks or online in general is to create authentic, meaningful, relevant experiences that offer an opportunity to engage in two-way dialogue. I’d rather put my budget toward content on my site, a Facebook page or Adwords than run skyscrapers on a site. I believe the success of social networking sites will continue to be based on collecting, organizing and providing access to highly-targeted audiences. Marketers need to find how to interact with these valuable audiences beyond the lowest common denominator, ads.

Yelling at people is over.

Further Discussion on Saving Ad Agencies

A few weeks ago I wrote on how agencies are becoming commodities and followed that up with six steps to remedy the situation.

I've seen some interesting articles and posts on this topic recently as well - Business Week profiled Saatchi & Saatchi in describing the potential irrelevance of traditional agencies and the competition from other areas including permission marketers. Fast Company just wrote about Publicis trying to reinvent itself digitally - of course, if their hopes are pinned on Honeyshed I'd recommend shorting them (check out David Armano's initial thoughts on Honeyshed). And my friend Sean Scott, interactive wizard at agency Carmichael Lynch, posted ideas here and here on fixing traditional agencies, over at his blog, twofortyeight. I love the concept of adding an information architect to the traditional art director/copywriter duo. That staid partnership is as archaic as the tactics they have generated traditionally - print and TV. And with the importance of digital it only makes sense to include that position early on in the concepting phase. Excellent idea, Sean.

I Love Gadgets, Widgets and Apps

I caught the tail end of a Harley-Davidson Christmas spot the other day. I didn't get to see the whole thing and, as anyone in advertising knows, once you try to catch a spot you'll never see it and the ones you don't want to see keep showing up. So I was super happy to come across the spot on the Harley gadget on my iGoogle page. It turns out that it's on the h-d.com site as well but I didn't think to look there, it's easier when it's pushed to me. Here's the gadget with the spot:

I think it's pretty good, fits the brand and I like the pipes being left under the tree. Whaddya think?

Anyway, I was just sent a Harley Naughty List gift on Facebook based on the holiday campaign from a buddy of mine. I also just became a fan of Patagonia, Dr. Pepper and Willie Nelson on Facebook. I know when Seth, Tom or David post something new thanks to my Bloglines acount. I've been to 87 cities in 12 countries thanks to the TripAdvisor "Cities I've Visited" app. I know there's 72 days, 23 hours and 39 minutes until Daytona Bike Week thanks to the Harley Countdown to Daytona Google Gadget and I can find a Starbucks and arrange a meeting at the closest one thanks to the "Meet Me at Starbucks" gadget.

Whether it's RSS feeds from your site or blog, gadgets and apps, an offer via Twitter, or basic opt-in, relevant and respectful e-mail, this is where it's at - permission marketing. Finding fans and letting them participate on their terms. I love it. I'm much more likely to learn about new Patagonia Spring products through my Facebook feed or their catalog (which is the original permission marketing vehicle) than through print or TV. If I have a meeting with someone, how much easier is it to set something up through Starbucks - I now know where one is that works for everyone involved in the meeting and can schedule it. And the cost. The cost! It doesn't reach 600 million Americans (which is impossible since there are only 300 million in the US but that's what reach and frequency from your media team or the pass-along rate from your PR team will claim) but it's impactful, relevant, respectful and cost efficient.

So to Scott B., Debbie G., Katia H. and Sean S., keep the Harley interactive goodness coming. And start sending me more gadget content and more Facebook news feeds. After all, I'm offically a fan. :)

A Few Remedies to Avoid becoming a Commodity

So my last post was on how ad agencies are in the commodity business. I’m not sure how to fix the dinosaur Y&R’s, DDB’s and Leo Burnett’s of the world. I suppose the best course for them is a continued slide into irrelevance (along with the holding companies) so that something new and great can be built out of their ashes.

But as promised, here are a few things I would do if I was starting an agency or running a small- to mid-size one:

1. Find a niche. Be the best at online community-building or the only place to call for luxury goods marketing. If you are charged with a crime you don’t want a jack-of-all-trades lawyer. You want the best criminal trial lawyer you can get. If I am running a new museum, I want the expert in museum marketing and if I’m doing search marketing I want someone who knows that space as good or better than anyone else (in this case a small agency, Overdrive, in Boston). This means not pitching any piece of business that comes along. In order to stand for something you have to make choices.

2. Talk to your customers and your non-customers. How do they honestly view you? What you do. How you do it. How you communicate it. I don’t recall a single time anyone at the ad agency I worked at asked current clients or non-clients regularly to provide an honest assessment of the agency and I was never asked by my agencies how I viewed them. You can’t change or improve if you don’t know what your target audience thinks. What’s the first thing agencies recommend when taking on new business? Talk to the client’s target audience.

3. Go strong or don't go at all. If you’re going to truly be media-neutral then make sure you hire and structure yourself accordingly. Don’t hire one direct mail expert and say you offer direct mail expertise. Did you hire production people that know the intricacies of it? Data mining experts? DM copywriters? Are your departments structured to reflect neutrality or are the deck chairs just rearranged on your Titanic.

4. Focus on business results. Hold yourself accountable. Make sure everything you do is tied to results. If the client is being vague, demand clear objectives and how they'll be measured because it protects you and them. If not, don't be surprised when regime change includes you. The point that Morris Hite's quote gets to is that advertising doesn’t exist to drive awareness or win awards.

5. Don’t blame the client for “not letting you.” If you have the greatest idea and it ties back to objectives and business results, then it’s your duty to convince them. If afterwards you were wrong, admit it. If you were right, tout it. If they continue to not “let you,” fire them. They’re only hurting your agency’s brand.

6. Start innovating. The industry is super ripe for this – new business models, new methods, new communication vehicles. If business is a spear, traditional marketing communications is the tip. Agencies have moved back from the tip a bit, into below-the-line marketing communications. Agencies need to move further back into new product/service development, branding environments, and more. This is where real value is today and in the future.

What do you think? Am I on track, way off or missing anything?

Also, Scott asked in my last post who I think are the half-dozen or so agencies that are doing things right and stand for something. In no particular order:

- R/GA - They're interactive, good at it and aren't pretending to be something else.
- Crispin Porter - Trite response, but like it or not they stand for something. They decided to solve problems in new ways that are now taken for granted.
- Zimmerman - They know retail and they are interested in linking to results.
- Anomaly - They're taking a fresh approach to the industry with business models, innovation of offerings, etc.

Any other agencies you're impressed with?

More Interruption-based Advertising Thoughts

Seth Godin just wrote a post on Facebook’s new advertising strategy, where he addresses one of the problems I also wrote about in my Google Interruption Media post – essentially that just because interruption-based ads are hyper-targeted they’re still interruption ads.

He writes, “Any platform that makes ads a distraction or a cost is always going to fail compared to a site where the ads are a welcome part of the deal.”

Permission-based marketing (coined by Seth Godin in his book…drumroll please…Permission Marketing) is one of the few options companies have to be relevant to customers (the main one being the creation of meaningful product/service offerings).

I’m going to wait a bit to see what the shopping element of Facebook looks like. As Sam said in a comment to my Google post, “I think (as a non-professional marketer) that the future is continium advertising, ads that extend the experience of the audience.” And there’s where the shopping element could be more seamless and a game-changing opportunity for Facebook, or someone else innovative, down the road.

The person/company that solves the ad relevance issue will receive riches beyond their imagination and, more importantly, the eternal gratitude of the rest of the world, which is tired of seeing hokey TV spots, copy-heavy print ads and giant inflatable coffee cups on the roof of their local Dunkin’ Donuts.

My path to the Institute of Design

Today is the second day of the Fall recruitID, where great companies from all over attend. It’s a fantastic opportunity for students to meet with companies and design consultancies. One question I’ve been asked during interviews is how I ended up at ID. I have been meaning to write on this every since Jamey commented on this blog a few weeks ago.

Jamey wrote:

“Jon - 
David Armano turned me on to your blog. I'm facing the same dilemma it seems you have gone through. I'm considering the my career and agree that design is key to the future of business for innovation and development. I've been exploring MBA versus MDes and will be looking at the MDM program you're involved with. As a fellow Milwaukeean, it looks like Chicago is the location that is leading the way via IIT or Kellogg to achieve that type of education.
I'll be curious to follow your posts and get a better idea of how you reached the decision to go the MDM route and what you feel the future value for you and your career will be.”

So I thought I would share my “journey” to the world of design thinking. Here it goes.

I was working at Cramer-Krasselt as an ad account executive in 2004. At the time, the agency was working on a lot of TV and print and I felt there had to be better ways to engage people than shouting to them through TV spots and cluttered magazines. Media fragmentation was making “mass” media less massive and as you know it’s only getting worse. The end was coming for the Advertising Industrial Complex.

I was working on the WD-40 Company account and we were doing some fantastic work on their core hardware products – WD-40, Lava and 3-IN-One oil. Starting with a clean slate, we went from ideation sessions and concept evaluation to ethnographic research, prototyping through marketing communications program execution. It was incredible! We developed with WD-40 the Smart Straw, solving the number one customer complaint of losing the little red straw, the Lava Pro line and 3-IN-One Professional. There was nothing that got me jazzed like walking through a Lowe’s or Home Depot and seeing a customer putting a product I helped bring to life into their shopping cart.

I came across Seth Godin’s Purple Cow in the Fall of 2004 which helped generate more interest for me. If you haven’t read it, the premise is largely based on the idea that you can’t just yell out marketing messages about a product anymore. You have to build the marketing into the product, make it remarkable from the start.

I got the opportunity to join Harley-Davidson and felt that working on the client side for a while would give me the opportunity to implement some of this thinking since I would be looking at the full business rather than just touching the marketing communications slice of the pie.

I kept reading and talking with people about design and innovation and then in Spring 2006 attended the Wisconsin Innovates conference where Tom Peters was the keynote speaker. During a breakout session I asked Tom, a frequent critic of MBA programs, what his thoughts were on going back to school for an MBA, for design or to keep working. His recommendation was to stay in the workforce and do something remarkable or, if I wanted to go back to school, that something unique like design would be the way to go because you learn to approach problems differently and find solutions in other ways.

That sealed it for me. Here are Tom and I after the breakout session. Kinda cool I got a picture with him. I'm on the left. :)

I had read an article about ID by Bruce Nussbaum in BusinessWeek the year before and started researching schools that taught design with business and only found a couple – ID and Roger Martin’s Rotman School of Management – that really intrigued me.

So it took me a year from talking to Tom Peters to get up the nerve to apply to ID and then take the risk of quitting my job to do something I was passionate about.

And it’s been so super worth it. I’ve been able to interview with companies and design consultancies that get it and have been doing this for years. They understand that all the touchpoints that have been ignored for decades while mass media was the focus are where you create and reinforce brands – product/service development, environments like retail locations, employee dress and signage, interactive, packaging, collateral. All based on insights derived from user-centered research.

So that's my long-winded story, what's yours? Were you always in design? Are you just now getting into it? Are you still in the exploration phase?

Google's Flawed Interruption Media Strategy

Google’s stock price hit $600 last week as the company continues to hit on all cylinders - search marketing dollars rolling in; acquisitions like DoubleClick and YouTube; a possible bid on UHF spectrum (here and here); etc. What can slow them down as they take over the world of media and advertising? Will they bring the same ad effectiveness to other media that they brought to search?

I have one idea, and it’s just an idea, but what if the thing that slows Google down is advertising itself, specifically the problems inherent with interruption media. As way of brief explanation for anyone who needs it, interruption media advertising is advertising based on the idea that a consumer is given entertainment, information, etc. and that is then interrupted to serve an ad to the audience, whether it’s a print ad in the middle of your Cat Fancy magazine article, a banner ad along the top of a CNN.com story or a TV spot during Grey’s Anatomy.

Google’s entire business model is predicated on serving the right ad at the right time to the right person. They historically have done this in two primary ways, Adwords and Adsense. The Adwords program serves ads, typically text, along your search engine results while Adsense serves ads on content pages of participating web sites. In super simple terms, Google gets paid when an ad is clicked on. Adwords always gets higher click-through rates than Adsense, and therefore generates more revenue for Google, for one simple reason – relevancy.

I managed pay-per-click (PPC) search marketing (Adwords and Adsense) for Harley-Davidson and I am a big fan, especially of Adwords. It is an incredible program, a modern day Yellow Pages. If you were a plumber in Milwaukee what better place to put your ad dollars than in the Yellow Pages where you know people who need a plumber will go. They are actively seeking out the product/service you provide. Search marketing works the same way and its full potential has still not been reached. This tactic contrasts with the plumber running TV spots, where you count on interrupting potential customers’ programming, hope they stick around to pay attention, hope they need your services, hope they remember you and then hope they call. That’s a lot of hope.

There is a huge difference between needing a plumber and therefore trying to find one in the search engine (Adwords) versus reading about, say, replacing storm windows on a DIY site and having an Adsense plumber ad show up. Even if you might need a plumber, it’s not as relevant. You’re not in active “plumber-seeking” mode. Your mind is on storm window work.

To serve more ads while capturing more data Google gives all their innovative products away – Gmail, Picasa, Google Docs, search and so on. Even the rumored Google phone would supposedly be “free” with ads served up. And this is a brilliant business model.

But with Google’s foray into radio ads, print ads, TV (subscription required) and online video and display ads, they’re getting even further away from the realm of the Adwords search ad model for the less effective, less impactful, less relevant world of interruption advertising. Now, Google captures so much data on us that they are going to get better and better at delivering the right interruption-media ad to you but, even with the best algorithms in the world, that ad you see is still interruption-based and therefore less relevant, so the success won’t ever be near the level of search. And since Google advertising is about pay-by-accountability/measurement of audience impact, that means measurements like click-through rates will be lower, which means revenue will be lower. And that doesn’t take into account the privacy backlash that could result from the ever-growing accumulation of personal data on users.

Am I worried about Google faltering any time soon? Uh, no.

Would I short their stock anytime soon? Nope.

Am I saying they should not get into the world of interruption media? Of course not, there’s lots of money there.

But would I count on their big move into interruption media ensuring revenue growth at the same pace that search advertising created for them? Not at all.

Would I tell advertisers not to use Google new offerings? No, in fact it’s more accountable than a lot of the junk out there.

But will it be as effective? Not a chance.

I’m not a computer scientist, don’t know algorithms and can’t guess at what super-brilliant ideas Google’s working on next. But I do know advertising and know that interruption media is less effective. If search dollars slow in a few years I don’t expect an interruption media strategy to pick up the slack completely.

What do you think, am I way off?