Check Out ChangeThis

Stumbled across ChangeThis while Googling something I wanted to share with a co-worker.

ChangeThis is a "way station" for authors and publishers looking to share the main themes of their business books. They condense their main themes down to an easily digestible PDF - almost like you're getting the Powerpoint, lecture version of the book.

And, no, it's not just some unknown writers on here. I was surprised to find works from the likes of Seth Godin, John Kotter and David Maister.

So, if you're short on time, you're sharing some ideas with co-workers, or want to sample a book before you run out and by the full text, check out ChangeThis. Nice resource.

Be On the Lookout for an Epidemic

I was trolling my Google Reader feed this morning when I came across a year-end wrap-up of books at John Moore's Brand Autopsy blog.

One of his Top 10 Must Reads is a book by Lucas Conley, "Obsessive Branding Disorder".

And, after reading John's breakdown of the book, I fear we're about to experience a wave of OBD sweep through our industry.

Conley's tough on the concept of branding; too tough, I think. But the salient take away, in my mind, is that branding can be corrupted, turned into a cure-all, a religion of sorts.

If a product is defective or deficient, some people can start to believe that it can be fixed by branding. And that never works, not in the long term.

My fear stems from the rapid changes going through the TV industry right now. Everyone is so concerned with cutting costs, and making it through some tough quarters ahead, that we can very easily lose sight of the product.

TV is a capital intensive business; it's why new players don't just pop into the game. When capital dries up, however, what can you really afford to live without? And how much can your brand make up for, or afford to give up? These questions need to be kept front of mind as we make tough choices about our businesses.

Also, we need to be prepared as the brand managers for our respective organizations to deal with the unrealistic expectations (both our own, and of other managers) of what branding can do. Audiences are smarter than we might give them credit for. They can tell when a product is compromised.

We have to be ready to maintain our products' health - but that means that we have to fight for the product as much as we fight for the promotion. One cannot thrive without the other. They are inseparable. If not one else in our organizations remembers that, we brand managers must.

Dizzying Days at the Peacock

TV Week has a good wrap-up of the big moves at NBC over the past two weeks, with a nice cross-section of the industry reaction. You can find it here.

Taste Tests with a Twist

Burger King is rolling out a new campaign with a new spin on an old idea.

They took a Whopper v. Big Mac taste test to parts of the world that wouldn't be familiar with either product. The idea being, "See what people think when no one has told them what to think".



I like Burger King's advertising. I think it's inventive, edgy and definitely compelling. The "Whopper Freakout" ads were gutsy. The "I Am Man" song, that made it clear who their target audience had become, hit all the right notes. The "Whopper and Whopper Jr." ads add a level of storyline to the product. And, yes, even the resurrected, creepy King has reached some level of status; it's now a pretty popular Halloween costume.

Of course, when you try to be different, there's no telling how people will react. Here's an article today from the Wall Street Journal on how the spots are already courting controversy.

Anchors Away!

The New York Times reports today on an increasingly popular cost-cutting measure in local TV news: Dropping the anchor.

Say what you will... We all know that the Ted Baxter caricature is more true than we're allowed to admit. But for decades, a good portion of promotion was devoted to building the brand on the strength of your anchor. What's bad for the anchors, therefore, is ultimately bad for the product.

Get set for a new set of promotions strategies to emerge.

The Triage Unit

It's always been a closely held belief of mine that Promotions departments can be an effective first line of defense. The nature of our work requires us to be more strategically minded than most of the other departments we work closely with. Branding and promotion are all about positioning yourself or your product in the most advantageous way you can.

So, I guess it should come as no surprise that we so often become the Triage Unit to our organizations. Things go wrong, we get called in to offer our opinion and, more than likely, stabilize the patient until the bigger work can be done.

Challenging? Certainly.

Frustrating? Most likely.

But let me offer a little something to appreciate about being the Triage Unit right now. It's an advantage to be the "go-to" folks when things get really bad. And I don't think I need to point out that things are really bad right now.

I've been a bit overwhelmed by all the stuff going on lately; all the stuff that needs some kind of triage. It's nice to know, having talked with some compatriots, that I'm not alone. Somehow, we became the folks that know how to make life in the trenches more palatable. So, chins up. We got patients to treat; and sadly, there will probably be more on the way.

Feedback - Giving and Getting It

Tammy Erickson writes an interesting blog for the Harvard Business Review. It's called "Across the Ages", and it deals specifically with the challenges inherent in managing people of different generations and, therefore, different mindsets.

As I watch Gen Ys enter our business, I'm struck by how different they are from me and my Gen X compatriots. But then, I'm quite different from my Boomer managers / coworkers.

I highly recommend Tammy's blog for regular reading. You'd be surprised what you'll learn and apply.

More specifically, this week she raises the issue of feedback and how different generations react to it. You can jump to that article here.

Also, she makes mention of a new web service called Rypple that makes it easy for you to solicit feedback from coworkers in an anonymous, purely web-based fashion. Kind of like a 360 review, without the depth. Here's their explainer video from their site.


Rypple Introduction from Rypple on Vimeo.

Drop the "Zero"...

Time magazine has an interesting article on Toyota's "Saved by Zero" commercial, which makes most folks I know cringe every time it plays. But the spot raises an interesting question for what we do: Is it okay if a spot drives the target audience crazy, so long as it drives traffic to your product? Give this article a read to get Totyota's take.

Change as a movement, and a marketing lesson

Anyone who has visited this site, or knows me personally, knows that I was an ardent supporter of Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid. To date, the impact of his victory has been discussed extensively, so I will spare you further discussion of that here. As a marketer / advertiser / brand manager, I feel the lessons from the Obama campaign will be picked apart for a long time to come.

So, I make this entry only to share a few tidbits.

First, for anyone who missed it, Ad Age chose the Obama campaign as the "Marketer of the Year" for 2008. You can read the story here.

From a more personal perspective, I'd like to share some of the personal lessons I learned as a donor, volunteer and "close follower" of the campaign.

I think that you would be hard-pressed to argue the effectiveness of the campaign's use of grass-roots support. As organized as the campaign was, and as much purchasing power as it had, it struck me every time I visited an office of how much supporters were encouraged to add their own imprimateur on the campaign.

Take the "O" logo, for example. Every office or rally was covered in the "O" logo, many of those logos made or recreated by hand. The logo became the mark for supporters, and supporters embraced it wholeheartedly. Not just because it was well-designed, but because it became the symbol of their tribe. (FYI: Seth Godin's latest book, Tribes, takes up the Obama campaign as a great example of marketing leadership.) And the best part? The Obama campaign embraced any and all attempts to recreate the logo.

Would you ever do that? Could you ever see yourself letting your audience remake your logo? Could you keep yourself from feeling the need to correct / fix it?

Second, the campaign was ingenious at finding new ways to market fundraising. Can you imagine the difference in the campaign's power without tapping interesting resources like artist Shep Fairey? Or, did you know that the campaign had a section on its website called "Runway to Change", where you could buy campaign-themed attire designed by such big names as Vera Wang, Diane von Furstenberg and Juicy Couture? How about the text messaging database that was turned into a powerful fundraising tool by encouraging donations every month?

Lastly, I think we could all afford to pick apart the campaign's tactics to learn lessons about mobilizing your audience.

Going back to texting: Just about every station uses text messaging in some way now; either to push out news and information, send the occassional sponsor coupon, for on-air feedback and voting, etc. I wonder, though, what we could put into motion if we used texting as a way to communicate - really communicate - with our audience.

On Election Day, I received messages to my phone almost on an hourly basis. Messages with simple reminders about going to vote. Messages about being nice to other people in line, especially to McCain supporters. Messages encouraging me to wait in line to vote, if necessary. Messages to remind me where my local Obama office was, just in case I could give an hour or two to help get out the vote.

Now, even after the election has been won, comes word that barackobama.com will live on to keep the lines of communication open to supporters. I invite you to check the comments on the site responding to this news; they are uniformally positive.

Imagine what we could make happen with our audiences if we took some of these tactics apart and learned from them. However you voted, or however you feel about Obama, his campaign has lessons to impart. I look forward to what we all learn from this campaign in the coming months and years. I feel very strongly it will make us all better marketers, and, there, at least, President-Elect Obama will bring us results.

Update 11/13/08:
Umair Haque of the Harvard Business Review offers some interesting management and innovation lessons to be culled from the Obama campaign in this article.

The Most Interesting Ad Campaign... Part Deux

A previous post about the fabulous advertising for Dos Equis deserves an update after seeing this video on Ad Age's site today.

Feeding an entertainment juggernaut by way of grassroots

It's Saturday. Like many husbands across this great land, that means I get to spend a good portion of my day dying slowly at the mall while my wife searches for some article of clothing she swears she has to replace. Today, it's boots at Macy's - and yes, she's using my Card Rewards to boot. Great...



So, after sitting uncomfortably in the shoe department with her for 5 minutes, I realize she's going to be a while. I tell her to call me when she's done, and I head down the mall to kill some time looking at merchandise I might want to buy. And that's when I saw it.


Madden Challenge 2008 was at the mall. Best Buy and Madden's maker, EA, set up a few dozen stations for mallrats like me to play the game. Just in case you didn't know how, you could choose to gather round a makeshift living room with a nice big screen where local, self-styled Madden wonders could compete for a chance to win $85K in prizes. The "living room" was packed.



I'm a recent convert to Madden, playing the simplified version on my Wii (I simply can't make time to read the manual and play the advanced version). Knowing my limitations, then, I joined the crowd huddled around the couch. Some guy, playing as the Jacksonville Jaguars, was laying the smackdown on another guy, playing as the Dallas Cowboys. This being a Philly suburb, the Cowboys guy wasn't getting any sympathy as the Jaguars shut him out, including a goal line stop in the final seconds of the game. The excitement was so palpable, you would've thought it was a real-live NFL game.

This made me wonder: Madden - as an entertainment property - is in its 20th year. The game is as good as its ever been, with interaction and graphics to match. Is this kind of marketing necessary?

The answer - I think, pretty obviously - is "Of course not". This kind of guerrilla marketing - complete with pretty girls hired just to man the signup booth - probably isn't going to push sales much more. The market's pretty saturated.

Nevertheless, EA is being really smart here. It's not about the sales, as much as it is about feeding the subculture. That slice of America that get together on a friend's couch and competes for bragging rights. That slice of America that completes a football play with a few finger clicks and shouts "DON'T TRY ME, MAN! DON'T DO IT!"- like I saw one 12 year old do to his older brother. That slice of America that likes to bust its friends chops for making a bad call. That slice of America that wants to imagine themselves actually commanding a football team. If they can win a free trip to the Caribbean and play for $85K, too, so much the better.

Here's an article I found on the tour. Apparently, there are bigger events to be visited. So, here's a listing of the schedule. Check one out if you can. It's a lot more fun than waiting around for your wife...

Interesting Insight from Kevin Roberts

Kevin Roberts, CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, and author of Lovemarks, has a blog you should check out or RSS.

Today I found this post on what he thinks are Jobs for the Future. Thankfully, many of our skills translate - so that should be a good thing.

And, just a heads up - his use of the word SISOMO is a reference from another of his books, which is conveniently titled SISOMO.

Resist Temptation - Call in the Team!

Burnout is one of the biggest dangers in what we do. If you're (un)lucky enough to be very good at what we do, burnout is a very real and present danger in your regular work-life. People often want or expect you to be the one who "makes something happen". Or, worse, you expect it of yourself.

That expectation is unfortunately quite dangerous. You will burn yourself out, and you will make less effective decisions.

Tammy Erickson of the Harvard Business Review has some interesting insights to offer on this topic in her article, Hard Times Demand Teamwork - Not an MVP

Also, read the related
HBR article: Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams

Eight Types of Creative Directors

There's a new cartoon book out called "This One Time at Brand Camp" by Thomas Fishburne.

I'll leave it to you to decide if it's worth buying (he's loaded a nice number of his cartoons on Flickr for your reference), but this one seemed worthy of sharing.

An argument for broadcasters turning into narrow-casters

I was catching up on some reading this morning, and came across an article in a Wired magazine I hadn't bothered to break the spine on. Nothing mind-blowing - a review of a new book about why traffic is so screwy and why the human factor is what makes it so bad. In the process of explaining the basic theme of the book, the reviewer brought up the concept of Nash Equilibrium, and it made me think of TV.

Nash Equilirium? You know it. It's a classic of Game Theory. It's the idea that if you have a strategy, based on the expectation that you now what your competitors will do, and that their srategy will not change, then you have no incentive to change your strategy. You know what - that was a clumsy explanation. Why don't we just see how the movie "A Beautiful Mind" summed it up. (Yes, this theory was developed by that Nash...)



OK, got it? Good. Now, here's my question: When will broadcasters get this? Let me explain.

Who are we all after in the broadcast game? Who's our blonde that we're all chasing? Young females, preferably 18 - 49, with some disposable income. She's everybody's favorite target. The problem, however, is just like this illustration with the blonde. We can't all get her. So, why can't we follow our best interests by pursuing other options?

Don't get me wrong - I get it. The broadcast game is still interested in the most fish in the net at any one time. But I've never worked at a station that named a different target viewer than the young female. And, yes - I get that we want her because she's the one who chooses between Minute Maid and Tropicana in the household, and that what advertisers care about.

At some point, though, this game changed on us. She's had too many other options for too many years. Still, there we all are, chasing after her.

Aren't there some guys who'd like to be sold something? Maybe some older viewers out there? Kids? There are so many different audiences, and pursuing each of them than can be pretty lucrative (although I grant that your daytime numbers can be painfully low with some of these audiences).

So why are we all in this tug-of-war for the same viewer?

This may sound like sacrilege, but imagine how off guard your competitor would be if you gave up pursuing the same old audience?

Consider the words of Sun Tzu (Translation by Lionel Giles):
"Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected.

An army may march great distances without distress, if it marches through country where the enemy is not."

Like the movie clip explains: Pursuing the young female may be what's best for us individually, but it's not necessarily what's best for both ourselves and the industry.

The Most Interesting Ad Campaign in the World

I love those Dos Equis"The Most Interesting Man in the World" ads. (You know what? Let's just agree to refer to him by MIM for the sake of typing...) They're not only painfully funny, but they're a prime example of approaching a sales problem in an unconventional way. Corona has owned the Mexican beer market for a long time, but Dos Equis increased its market share 18% Y/Y in the first half of 2008. Read Heineken's earnings report here. (It should be noted Dos Equis is brewed by FEMSA Cervezas, but they operate in partnership with Heineken. Heineken's report had the most ready data on Dos Equis' market share growth.)

What's more, Dos Equis has extended the campaign past traditional media. Radio and TV ads drove the initial push (long live TV!), but now the creative team behind this campaign is engaging the audience on multiple platforms.

There's the hilarious website where you can track the MIM in all his glory, sign up for a chance to become his assistant, and engage in other high-jinks.

And then, there's the Facebook fan page, which you really have to appreciate, especially when you see fans dressing as the character. It's not often we get an advertising character that draws a fan base. When was the last time, really? The "Time to Make the Donuts" guy? Or the "Where's The Beef?" lady?

Some of the most entertaining advertising in the world... Plus, it worked for sales... Let's enjoy! And, as always, "Stay Thirsty, My Friends".

United Airlines' "Heart"

Lovely spot. Gets you right in the - well, you know where...

New links added to recommended sites

Hey, just wanted to point out there's some new links over to the left for "Ads of the World", an online advertising archive, and "Idea Sandbox Blog", a creative forum.

I'm already really starting to dig "Ads of the World", especially since you can browse by medium. Here's a couple spots I found just this morning...

Beautiful setup on this one...


Absolut takes their "Absolut World" campaign to a new place...


Really nice spot for a computer - and it's NOT APPLE! Go figure!


OK, I'll warn you... The product being advertised here may be objectionable to some... But, I have to applaud their gumption to spoof one of the best loved spots of the past couple years here....


Alright, hopefully this encourages you to dig around on these sites. I think they're really helpful for sparking ideas... Enjoy.

A Tribute to Gnarls Barkley

Remember when music videos were cool because they were interesting to watch? When videos had a narrative and weren't just some formulaic amalgam of shots? You know, the good, old days when MTV actually played music?

After checking Motionographer (link can found under recommended sites to the left) this morning, I've been thinking about Gnarls Barkley and how much I appreciate their inventive music videos. So, I dug some up to share just because.









As a bonus, here's a good performance I ran across... Gnarls covering my favorite track off Radiohead's In Rainbows, "Reckoner".

FX does it again...

Great new spots running on FX and FXnetwork.com for the upcoming season of "The Shield". I admit I am a huge fan of "The Shield", so maybe these send bigger shivers up my spine than they will for you. Nevertheless, I think this is great promotion.

Creative Constipation

I have been going through a pretty tough case of "block" lately. Writer's block, producer's block - whatever best applies, it's just been a bit rough.

I feel that I'm finally digging my way out, and not through any power of my own. What traction I'm getting now is thanks to my shamelessness about running with ideas other people offer me. A new idea, with some tweaks of my own, and, slowly but surely, I'm moving again. (Sorry, "moving" is a bad choice of word considering the title of this entry...)

This case has been useful, though, to get me to stop and consider some of the trappings of a block.

1. The "Good Will Hunting" Effect

Remember this exchange from Good Will Hunting?



OK, OK - maybe I'm making too much of it... But there's the awful sense - when you're in a block - that it's your fault. As if you're missing something... There's something you're not doing... There's a line / an image /an idea you haven't come across, and the block could be broken if you just....

The truth is, "It's not you fault"... I credit Todd Henry (who's Accidental Creative can be found in a link on this site) for pointing out, over and over, in his work that the creative process isn't like a factory. You can't just add shifts to make up for shortfalls of inventory. The creative process requires that there be "down time", periods during which your batteries are allowed to recharge through exposure to stimuli, free thinking, and, yes, rest.

Great ideas don't come automatically. If they did, there would be nothing special about them. Sometimes they allude you. On occasion, they allude you for quite some time.

And that's the rub: In a create-on-demand job, the client doesn't give a damn about "the creative process". To her, the creative is just a cog in the wheel. It's a widget. They paid for it, they want it.

So this whole thing turns into a balancing act. "How can I turn out something that accomplishes the task, even though I am short on a 'great idea'?" If you figure that part out, let me know. But either way, "It's not your fault".

2. Holding yourself up to certain standards

Have you ever come up with something so good that you end up being defined by it - FOREVER?!

Imagine the horror of being Tatum O'Neal. Or Francis Ford Coppola. Or The Go-Go's. God bless all these folks. Here they were doing their thing, and somehow they conquered the world.

Tatum wins an Academy Award at age 10, then has to spend the rest of her life living up to it.

Coppola creates the Quintessential American Movie (Sorry, Citizen Kane!) at an early stage in his career, and then gets saddled with the burden of it for the rest of his life.

The Go-Go's put out "Beauty and the Beat", and become sensations. Then, "Vacation" comes along and leads to the decline of their popularity.

Now I don't equate what we do with "The Godfather"... But sometimes, we do something that's quite good. We get proud of it. Others like to point out how good they thought it was; sometimes they even bring it up when talking to you or introducing you to others - "This is Jim, the man responsible for that wonderful campaign last year!"

When this happens, it should be considered a fortunate accident. You got lucky. You hit a homer against a pitcher with a low ERA. It happens, but not very often.

Instead, we start to treat it as our new yardstick. Everything you do from that point on has to be measured against the previous standard. "It's good, but you've done better."

At the risk of offending you, let me give you some help: It probably wasn't as good as you remember. Or, more gently, it couldn't have been so good as to derail you for life.

Maybe the other thing was, indeed, better. If you're that good, you may hit the nail that squarely on the head again. Or, you may not. Being a "creative" means you learn to make peace with ephemery. If you can't make that peace, it'll come back on you. So get it together, suck it up, and stop dwelling on your old yardsticks.

3. It's not all on you

This is a similar effect to the "Good Will Hunting" one, but slightly different. It's the terrible feeling you get that you're carrying the load all by yourself. That sense that if you don't figure it out, no one else will.

This is the worst of the bunch because it's the one that can debilitate you the most, in my opinion. We creatives aren't meant to work in silos. But if you feel the burden placed squarely on you and only you, it can be "game over". You'll retreat into that isolation, which invariably breeds fear and distrust.

When that happens, it's time to call in the cavalry. Get everybody else on the team to give you their thoughts, their insights, any ideas they've been floating (of course, this only works if you have a team that functions healthily).

It's OK to admit your well is temporarily dry. Someday, these people will come to you fill their well. And that day you will return the favor. You'd be surprised what you can run with once a fellow creative pitches you on an idea, or helps you hash out the creative from their point of view.

I lost a hero today...

The sad news of George Carlin's passing woke me this morning.

Comedians have always had a heavy influence on me, most especially as a writer. I'm one of those geeks who buys comedy albums and commits them to memory, because, if you listen closely, the best comics are incredible craftsmen of language. And no one typified that better than George.

It is impossible, in my mind, to listen to Carlin and not feel offended, shocked, and oddly enlightened all while bending over with laughter. Without him, I fear I will miss some of the nonsense of modern language, communication, politics, morality.

I will sorely miss him.

Some favorite videos from Promax

Promax was this week. For the uninformed, Promax is a yearly conference / convention of marketing and promotion professionals from the media industries, predominantly from television. I'll post a review of the conference here before the weekend's out, but I just wanted to get these up before I lose them.

First, the spot that got me from the first shot. Unfortunately, this is a YouTube version. I don't know if someone did this and a network c-opted it, or the other way around. But, watch this, and imagine after a reasonable length of time, you see a final graphic for Kung Fu HD on the Voom network. Makes for good image promotion, even if it wigs out the core demo.



Second, comes this "out of left field" sell for a pretty forgettable product. I don't know if it drove sales (I can't see how), so in that respect, it's a problem. I'm a firm believer in the old adage, "It's not creative if it doesn't sell". Nevertheless, it made me laugh harder than I had in some time, the image will stick with me, and this has probably ruined Phil Collins' music for me. (It goes on a bit too long, but go with it.)



From Justice - the French Electronica group some see as the successors to Daft Punk- comes an homage to graphic design, posing as a music video. See how many re-mixed classic logos you can count in this piece.



A spot I emulated for my local station's morning news ticker, here's a simple idea that sells a network switch while staying true to the "Characters Welcome" positioning at USA Network. These folks always do great work.



"Extraordinarily Average" shoes deserve an extraordinarily average talent. Nice attention getter. Bonus: This couldn't have cost much to produce.



One of the best sessions this year involved the relaunch of Animal Planet. Give these people a big hand. There is an amazing difference in the network's brand. Spots like these helped set the tone.







One of the highest end spots you'll ever see - this took work! Clearly, it pays off. It just makes you smile.



This one doesn't really need explanation. Although, I do have a hard time buying that the guy in line is so out of sorts with the premise.



Spike TV demonstrates it understands the visceral nature of man yet again.



Nice twist on the tired, boring, worn-out "quote" spot.



Beautiful spot from TCM for "31 Days of Oscar".



And, lastly, one of my favorite spots of the year. Simple, but strong.



This list is not complete, but it's a start. Enjoy.

What we pass on...

I have not added to this blog in several weeks for a host of different reasons, including graduation from my Master's program (which left me craving vegetative time, free from deeper thought on any issue for at least a few days); the advent of warmer weather, enticing me to go out and "smell the roses"; and my involvement with a new intern program at work.

Anyone who's worked with me knows that one of my proudest accomplishments is teaching interns the craft of promotions producing. What makes me even more proud is when they're able to go out and get hired on the strength of the knowledge I - and my enlisted colleagues - passed on.

I don't know if it's an internalization of what I learned as a minister's boy; if you read the Bible, it's got several tales of "apprenticeships", with Moses and Joshua, Eli and Samuel, Elijah and Elisha, etc. For some reason, I feel a duty to pass on what I know and make sure that the people I pass on the business to know what they're about to take on. In my mind, it's not just some biblical axiom, it's good business sense. It's a long-term orientation taken to a natural conclusion.

This program that we've established is meant to close the gap in education that most schools have in the Mass Communications / Journalism / Broadcasting Depts. Namely, these schools tend to have classes which fall into two tracks - "theory" courses, such as Journalistic Ethics, History of Media, Mass Media and the Public Interest; or "practicum" courses, such as Studio Production, Editing, News Writing. All these classes are perfectly valid. They are, in essence, the fundamentals of what careers in this field are built on. But what's overlooked in the education is the "operational" course. So, kids come out of college having the ability to write strong, balanced news prose, but think that the Traffic Dept. is responsible for the morning show's traffic report.

So, with a nod to an early mentor of mine, I wondered if there wasn't a chance for us to implement a course I took as an undergrad. At WPIX, I'd taken a course on the "Business of Television" - and this was not in some helicopter-view, theoretical-discussion sense. Literally, it was daily operations. Each week, a head of a different department from the station came in and did a one-hour seminar / walkthrough of the department's responsibilities, functions and impact on the bottom line. All top line stuff, of course. There's a level of detail you just don't need to get into at that point. But slowly and surely, the 12 of us in that class were putting together how things worked really. That foundation served me well going into this business, and, quite simply, it served my employers well. And, I'm glad to say that we're using that same model now in this program. I hope to see some real leaders emerge from all this effort.

OK, I got all long-winded there to set up this observation: God bless anyone brave enough to enter this business these days.

Over the past few weeks, as I've sat in on these sessions, I realize what a complicated state of affairs we're passing on. Complexity is nothing new, especially in business. But complexity of this magnitude is something to appreciate.

Consider:
- the effects of our turbulent economy
- the exponential increase in competition / alternatives to our product brought on by the digital age
- the ever-changing needs / wants of our parent corporations, sometimes resulting in expansion of our duties, contraction of our resources, and the constant rumors of change in ownership (at NBC, at least)
- the change in technological infrastructure, with the advent of DTV and HD
- the expanding importance, of dot-com, blurring responsibilities
- the softening of local station dominance, and the simultaneous explosion of cable / digital networks
- the unsettled measurement systems
- etc
- etc
- etc

To be honest, if I had heard this stuff when I was coming into this business, it probably would've scared me out of it. Thankfully, these "Millennials" are so optimistic about everything that some take it as an exciting challenge. As a "Gen X-er", I don't know whether to envy them or let it annoy me.

I just worry about what we're passing on to this next generation entering our business. When I got into this thing of ours, it was at the end of an era. The Big Three had given way to Fox and WB. Cable was not only here to stay, it was now becoming the place for watercooler shows, like "The Sopranos" and "Sex and the City". Sales deals worked out on cocktail napkins were now frowned upon, as corporate disciplines were enforced.

It was a sad change. I always harbored fantasies of being like those fellas on the show "Mad Men", having a martini (or two) at lunch; walking into a smoke-filled news studio; everyone having a great time crowding into one office to brainstorm some great work. But as an admittedly pessimistic X-er, I guess I was well suited to suck up the new state of affairs.

This new era, with all of its advantages for the quintessential Millennial personalities (the dot-com focii, the variation in duties), concerns me. I wonder what we're passing on, really? Is it just some jumbled pile of uncoordinated strategies to "survive" - as opposed to "move" - into the future? Can we sustain the kinds of cuts that recently rolled though our industry, and, somehow, develop new tracks for business development? Is it OK that we funnel some veteran people out of our industry, despite what valuable experience they could pass on at a time like this?

I don't despair for the future. But I do worry we're making it harder for ourselves, and for these newbies...

"You mean, TV's NOT dead?"

From MediaWeek.

While many television networks, including NBC and CBS, are approaching the upfront marketplace with sales presentations that include hefty praise and pitches for their digital platforms, Fox is concentrating its efforts on selling television as the overwhelming choice for advertisers to get their best return on investment. Fox sales and marketing executives say that while it is trendy to praise online and other emerging media for their effectiveness in targeting consumers, only a very small percentage of online opportunities offer the kind of sight-sound-motion video advertising that engages and motivates consumers on the same level as TV spots. To prove the point, Fox hired custom research firm Marketing Evolution, which compiled the results of 40 previous "Return on Marketing Objectives" studies it did for individual advertisers across major product categories such as automotive, movies, financial services, consumer electronics and packaged goods. Overall, Marketing Evolution's aggregate study found that, compared to online and print, TV advertising proved the most effective by a big margin in impacting consumers' product awareness, product familiarity and intent to purchase. Combining all those factors into one, Marketing Evolution found that TV accounts for nearly 70 percent of the impact on consumers to make purchase decisions, said David Gantman, executive vp of Marketing Evolution. Among some of the Marketing Evolution conclusions:

- TV delivers the strongest consumer awareness relative to dollars invested.
- TV influences about twice the volume of impact for purchase intent, although print is a very cost-efficient method to effect purchase intent.
- TV can even be used effectively as a targeted medium to produce more effectiveness toward consumer purchase intent.
- TV can be used successfully in either launching a brand or maintaining a brand.

The report concludes by stating, "It's clear that television should continue to be a core medium for both launching and sustaining marketing campaigns, with print, radio, out-of-home, online and cinema playing an important complimentary role in an advertiser's overall media plan."

Thanks to Graeme Newell's Marketing IdeaNet for the article.

Are you a "Fat Smoker"?

Do you know what you need to do to take your business to the next level? Sure you do.

Just like a "fat smoker", we all know what we need to do - that's the obvious part. Making it happen is where the train comes off the track.

Enter David Maister (former Harvard Business professor) with his new book, "Strategy and the Fat Smoker". I just finished it. It's a decent read - it goes off track about 60% of the way through, but it's still worth finishing. If you're not the reading type, though, Maister's kind enough to offer the book as an audiobook podcast series on his site, found here. Just download the mp3's, under the podcast heading, and enjoy.

Hilarious take on the ABC "Debate" in Philadelphia this past week

Found this on LinkedIn, had to put it up here to share.
_____________________________________________________

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (Slight Return)
by publius

Presidential candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held this debate on April 16, 1858 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

MODERATORS:
CHARLIE GIBSON, ABC NEWS
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS


MR. GIBSON: So we're going to begin with opening statements, and we had a flip of the coin, and the brief opening statement first from Mr. Lincoln.

LINCOLN: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there. I appear before you today for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind.

We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sorry to interrupt, but do you think Mr. Douglas loves America as much you do?

LINCOLN: Sure I do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But who loves America more?
____________________________________________________

Read the rest of the hilarity here

I have to say, this debate, and the resulting fallout, was a shame. It could've been a deciding moment in the campaign. Instead, it only served to put the media on trial. Not that we don't all deserve it, to some extent or other. It is ridiculous to see the extent with which the media has made a fetish of focusing on minutiae that the rest of the electorate apparently doesn't give two cents about.

Not that the other media outlets are doing any better. For all their rancor and moral indignation, all the political bloggers are doing some level of the same. Talk radio - I don't think I need to mention what that's turned into. And newspapers have followed the conga line right into focusing on nonsense, too, mostly out of necessity (it sells papers).

Now, after initially defending its take on the debate, ABC is reportedly apologizing and offering the candidates a chance, on Monday night, to have three full minutes on prime time to speak their peace and lay out their policy differences, with "limited commercial interruption." The apology I'm for. But three minutes - with commercials? Well, I think the media just offered the American public more evidence against it.

Reporting ain't easy...

Babies With Guns!

(or How the Upfront and Fall Premiere Seasons are Killing Our Business)

This week, NBC (full disclosure: my employer) has captured headlines with its new approach to the Upfront Season. The new approach, called NBC Infront, a sort-of trade show at the Javits Center. Instead of three hours of montages, celebrity appearances, and line graphs meant to spin numbers, NBC decided to treat advertisers and buyers to the ideas of synergy, new media and integrated advertising.

This is a welcome change. I think it's high time that we stopped spending tons of money on a big production that people humored us by sitting through, just so they could meet Terri Hatcher at the after-party. The show, the graphs, the whole shuck and jive doesn't sell one extra spot, in my opinion. Most buyers have a good idea what they're going to buy and which networks they're going to support even before the curtain rises on the Upfront Season.

And that's because buyers - like viewers - don't care a fig about the networks; they care about the shows.

So now, I'd just like to ask, can we stop the rest of the madness associated with the Fall Launch?

I applaud NBC for not only upsetting the traditional Upfront apple cart, but for offering a full, completely thought out plan for a year round season.

Nevertheless, come September or October, the big four will engage in the same bloodsport that we subject audiences to every year; the bloodsport of new shows, or what I call, "Babies with Guns".

Consider: Networks spend millions of dollars funding "product development", the development of new shows to fuel ratings; you know, the currency by which we live and breathe. We have entire teams of executives who incubate new show ideas with producers, writers, directors. We fund scripts. We fund design. We fund pilots - big budget pilots! These are babies that have received the very best attention we could lavish on them in the womb.

Then, come spring, we take bets on which of the shows have the best chance at survival. We decide to keep certain babies, and let others go. We commit to our babies, and we do it publicly. We invite our little world - advertisers, network and local execs, and let's not forget those competitors - to see the baby. "Come see the baby! Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it hilarious? Don't you just wanna snuggle up with it and a bag of Doritos on the couch?" And then we sit down with the invited guests to ask them to contribute to the baby...

After, it's time to introduce the baby to the world. Mind you, this baby is our future; and not in some "I believe that children are the future" way. No! These babies will either make sure we stay fed or drag us into obscurity and tough financial times. So, we spend more millions touting the arrival of the baby. "Come see the baby. You gotta see the baby. It's the 'best baby of the new season'!"

Finally, in the fall, we give birth to the baby. Our baby comes into the world, as viable as we could make it. We put all our hopes into the baby. We cross our fingers and hope that our baby grows to be big and strong and more popular than everybody else's baby. YAY BABY!

There's just one problem: Everybody else is putting out babies of their own.

Correction: We have a ton of babies, and so does everyone else. There's a glut on the baby market! And there's only so many bottles (viewers) around to keep these babies fed and healthy. In fact, it's probably a better analogy to say we (the industry) put all of our babies in the same playpen and force them to fight for the few bottles that are in there. And the only ones that survive are the babies with a little something extra - babies with guns. Because - let's face it - to survive, these babies have to kill each other off.

This system is a waste. On this I can say I agree with my company's position completely.

The question now is, When do we - all of the networks - stop playing this zero-sum game?

This Infront presentation is a start, promising to engage the network in a "year of premieres". But we all know that the Fall will be the big stage. That's where we'll put our best babies in a cage match to the death with everybody else' best babies. I shudder to think that the industry will simply play the same old game come the fall, but, being a realist, I know that old habits die hard.

I hope to God I am wrong, because it's a waste.

Allow me my soapbox for just a little longer...

It's time to take a lesson from our cable friends. The best network to learn from, in my estimation, is FX. Yes, FX! Ignore the Cops reruns all day for a second. FX has developed a true year-long season, even if its just for one night a week. At this point, Tuesday night on FX is a prime example of how to protect good babies. You don't put your best babies in the ring against bigger babies. You don't put your best babies in a crowded playpen.

FX has mastered a roster of good shows for an audience with a particular perspective; people into shows with an edge, that push the envelope of propriety in favor of interesting storytelling. And they rotate them. That's it. The Shield is on for 13 weeks, then Nip / Tuck is on for 13 weeks, then The Riches is on for 13 weeks, then Dirt is on for 13 weeks, then Damages is on for 13 weeks, and the process starts all over again. Simplicity itself. Develop an audience space, and then keep them engaged. No bloody mess, no wasted millions, very few dead babies.

If broadcasting is dead, as so many network execs are trying to convince us (and I don't believe it is, but for sake of argument...), then it is high-time to stop playing with the old broadcast model that results in dozens of dead babies, millions of wasted dollars, and thousands of wasted man-hours every season.

Further prooof that simplicity is always best

This is a hell of a spot! I don't watch the show, but this makes me care about it.

Clever way to sell beer

The folks at Diageo have done a great job at selling beer and spirits over the past few years. How many of us can't say we have a little Captain in us? Or don't think that Guinness is "BRILLIANT"?

Well, here they are, following up those fun ads with a guerilla campaign to make St. Patty's an official national holiday, and, of course, drive beer sales on what is already a heavy consumption day.

However you feel about "adult beverages", I think we can all get behind another day off work (we Americans work like dogs). So, if you are so inclined, click the link above and join the cause.

And, if we don't see each other on St. Patty's - slainte!

Come Fly With Me!

As a wrap-up to my Master's program, I'm heading to the "Middle Kingdom", China.

The last time I went on a trip, I found blogging was a nice way to keep people posted of my activities. Apart from the immediate ability to share experiences, photos and videos, there's the added benefit of having a ready archive. It also makes for an easy creative outlet. So, I've decided to try it again.

I'll try to share our group's experiences as we visit different multi-nationals that do business in China, and as we see the country and its people. We'll be in Beijing, where we'll have time to visit the Forbidden City, the Great Wall and the newly constructed Olympic Village. We'll also visit Shanghai, where we'll see the more Western-influenced side of China. We'll also visit Suzhou, a mid-sized city by China's standards, meaning it "only" has a population of 6+ million.

If you care to join the trip, you can get to the blog here.

The Art of the Apology

"Mea culpa."

"I'm sorry."

"My bad."

Here's a short article on the form and power of owning up to bad behavior. If you've ever been on the receiving side of a poor apology, this will seem familiar. But, we can always use a refresher in social graces.

Whatever Happened to "Voice"?

I'd like to ask a "big picture" question - Why are we all sounding alike?

Take a script - any script - from a local promo and, with few exceptions, it'll work just as well on someone else's air, including the competition's. "Voice", that singular product of each writer's individual substance and style, is disappearing.

What the hell are we writers doing to ourselves? Have we commoditized what we have to offer? Or has the "skill" side of our jobs (literally, the technique we employ to get the job done in a create-on-demand world) slowly crept into the creativity side so as to undercut it?

I have a few theories...

1. The "Learned Behavior" Theory
We get to the table through talent. Someone - be it a professor, a mentor, a person you interned under - discovers you have an ability to put words together. As John Adams reportedly said of Thomas Jefferson, "you possess a happy talent for composition and a remarkable felicity of expression." So, someone suggests you write for a living.

Natural talent, however, isn't going to get you through alone - on that note, I will not quibble. There are elements of style you need to be aware of, tricks that work, a certain level of vernacular and vocabulary that you have to work within, etc. To learn this stuff, you apprentice under someone, you spend time as a PA or an Associate, or, if you're lucky enough, you get sent to a few seminars. After, you start putting what you learned to practice, refining the tricks you've learned. For most of us, this period of learning can take some considerable amount of time.

What frightens me is the probability that some writers subject their "voice" - the basic talent that got them in a place to write in the first place - to the rigors of their new learned behavior.

I don't object to learning all that stuff. I did, and I was better off for it. (In fact, I share the basics techniques I learned with every intern who I mentor in writing, and it works for them, too.) The key is to know how to internalize the essentials and get back to the "voice" you naturally have. It's similar to how good Shakespearean actors treat iambic pentameter - they learn it, and then they forget it. It has its place, but getting in the way of you connecting with the work is not that place.

2. Stresses of the Create-On-Demand Culture
It sucks to crank stuff out all the time. Creative rhythm really isn't designed for all that output. When we push the limits like we do, we get very uneven in our performance and our quality.

The business isn't going to change in this regard, though, so whining about it is really pointless (and yes, I recognize I just did).

Creating as a business function is stressful, nonetheless. When you are creating as a critical function - as I believe promotion is (it drives demand, functions rarely get more important) - it is even more stressful. Under these conditions, it is easy to cut corners.

In the case of writing, cutting corners can take the shape of relying on technique. You know the right words to slip into a script. You've got some time-tested phrases you can toss in. "Aw, hell, let's find a way to work in more of the slogan."

3. Competitive Pressures
Got a strong competitor in your market? Dominant competitor at that? Well, then you have a whole set of issues to deal with in terms of protecting your voice.

In the rush to keep up or stay competitive, it's very tempting to "borrow" (read: steal) someone else's style. Lift a phrase, lift a hook - Ah, I'm repeating myself. Check the archive for "The Amen Break and Creative Work."

Or, maybe you have an uglier issue. Upper management - the people who control your paycheck - may be sending you a signal that they want you to sound like someone else. I know, for a fact, that some writers - good writers, at that - have been forced to replicate someone else's copy at the behest of managers. That's just plain sad.

In a situation like that, well - Let's just say it's easy for me to admonish you. It's another thing entirely to put your job in jeopardy.

Implications
The thing that really troubles me about all of this - apart from the impact on the creative - is the impact it has on business. A product without a distinctive "voice" attached to it is a product lacking a distinguishing feature.

Think of the advertisers / companies who have developed a definite "voice". Apple has a distinctive superiority to its "voice", across the board.



VW, although it's changed vocabulary a few times, has a pretty clear "voice".



Bud Light has a clear - admittedly juvenile - "voice".



Spike TV has a clear "voice", dripping with testosterone.



And who's giving these products "voice"? People no different than those of us who work in the broadcast field. The only, real differences are that we lack huge budgets and, in our case, the client is also the boss. Oh, right, and they spend a lot more time thinking about what they're saying and doing.

Why, then, are we missing the importance of "voice"? I'm no Chicken Little - I think the television business has a lot of years left in it. Yet, there's no denying that the industry is in a tizzy over how to move into the future.

At a time like this, "voice" is critically important. "Voice" catches people's attention. "Voice" is memorable. "Voice" is distinguishable, a lot more so than empty phrases we copy and paste together into scripts.

This is a reality we all need to understand - management included. Doing the same old thing hasn't helped, it's only accelerated the erosion of audience.

Get back to your "voice" and put it in the service of your product. All this technique has gotten out of hand.