Ignoring Sarah Marshall: When Viral Isn't Viral

We've mentioned on this blog how many successful viral campaigns have an element of risk to them. One the most common risks an advertiser will take with a viral campaign is to try to hide the product or brand--at least for a while. Done appropriately (meaning you are providing an engaging experience to consumers and not merely tricking them), this can be a way of overcoming aversion to advertising. The trick is in how and when you handle the "reveal;" Too soon or too late, and a viral campaign can fall flat or worse.

Many bloggers feel the campaign for upcoming film "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is failing due to an immediate "reveal." Billboards and bus stop ads have been popping up with faux magic marker graffiti that reads "I'm so over you Sarah Marshall" and "You do look fat in those jeans Sarah Marshall." The ads are intended to spark curiosity that will encourage consumers to visit a fake blog (or "flog"), which will pique their interest in the flick.

The problem is that MPAA rules require all movie ads contain the rating symbol. The campaign tries to make it appear some guy who has been dumped is getting revenge on his ex, but the easily recognizable movie rating symbol immediately destroys the concept. The poster immediately reveals the product, thus this becomes a viral campaign without the viral.

Stripped of the intrigue, consumers are focusing on the words and many don't like what the see. Some bloggers simply have a problem with the nasty tone or the way the ads find humor in human insecurity. (Others sense a Judd Apatow backlash may be in the making; there's a suspicion his many raunchy films are beginning to feel the same. Apatow, who is the producer of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," was behind hits like "Superbad," "Knocked Up," and "The 40 Year Old Virgin", but recent releases "Drillbit Taylor" and "Walk Hard" didn't catch on with audiences.)

The posters aren't the only thing undermining this viral marketing campaign. The flog at IHateSarahMarshall.com continues the mistake of revealing the product too soon, and this time Universal can't blame the MPAA. I suspect the studio thought that Kristen Bell would help open the film, so a good campaign would make use of her well-known face. Unfortunately, that traditional movie marketing thinking is the antithesis of a viral campaign. People arriving at the blog see the star, know the blog is fake, and aren't encouraged to read a word. They immediately believe they know everything the marketer has to say (or everything the consumer cares to know), and they leave.

How might this have worked? Start with posters that contain the rants but not the MPAA rating or URL. People--even those who suspected a marketing objective--would have wondered what Sarah Marshall did to deserve this treatment. They would've searched online and, due to a well-executed Search Engine campaign, would've found a link to the flog.

Upon arriving at the flog, consumers would've found content that extends the movie, not markets it. Peter's "flog" would've been as well written as any scene from a Judd Apatow movie--it would've been funny, engaging, heartbreaking, sexy, edgy, and real. Photos on the blog wouldn't look like actor face shots and movie stills but would've had the quality of photos taken by you and me. Kristen's famous face could have been obscured by badly photoshopped devil or dog faces, as if done by a jilted lover with minimal design skills.

Perhaps a second flog might've popped up. Sarah Marshall could've launched her own blog, bragging about her new relationship and the great sex. She might've told Peter to get a life. Both blogs would have been written to drop enticing hints about the movie, encouraging web surfers to become moviegoers.

Done right, by the time the "reveal" happened (or even if visitors knew from the start), the blog experience would've been so funny and engaging that people would not have felt tricked but entertained. In short, as with any viral campaign that works, consumers would feel they've had an experience rather than been marketed to.

Do you think this campaign works? You can see some of the OOH ads here and here. You can also check out the "red band" trailer here (which is appropriate only for "restricted audiences"). We'll see if the viral campaign works or if people are tiring of Judd Apatow once the movie opens in two weeks.

Short Takes: 3.31.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• Ian Schafer is CEO of Deep Focus, an agency that has launched its own social media division. He has some insightful things to say on the subject of social media. He defines it as, "Involvement. Passion. Influence. Connectivity. Collaboration." He notes, "Social media is a difficult-to-control participatory media, which makes it an environment that makes advertisers uncomfortable. And you know what? Good. Advertisers that can accept that they are in an uncomfortable relationship with their customers (and want to improve those relationships) are the ones that are most ready for a foray into Social Media.” And finally, Ian notes, "But they have to stop thinking about Social Media efforts as ‘campaigns’. Campaigns have a beginning and an end. Relationships can go on forever if you respect and cultivate them." Check out more of Ian's perceptions and ideas on Agency Spy.
  
  
• How do you make a billboard experiential? Some OOH companies seem to think that going digital makes billboards more attention-getting. I think the sharp, glowing billboards will attract eyes a bit more than printed billboards for a short while, but soon they'll fade into background noise. But here's some creativity out of Idaho: Billboards for Paramount, a home builder, not only attract attention but communicate something a bit more personal through the use of mannequins.
  
  
• You've learned what Deep Focus thinks of Social Media; now hear what Strawberry Frog has to say. (They're the folks behind the ScionSpeak site that we wrote about last week.) AdPulp has a worthwhile White Paper from the agency that includes thoughts such as, "Social Media Marketing... (is) a failed concept because brands are limited in their approach to social media marketing; they engage in practices that are alienating to users, and do not provide useful services for consumers. Marketing + Communications is no longer a 'broadcast' or 'mass media' model. Consumers expect a dialogue with marketers, and reward those companies that subscribe to this philosophy." Strawberry Frog shares dos and don'ts for social media and predicts the future of Facebook--check it out.
  
  
• Wikipedia recently hit a milestone--10 million articles. A little over two million of those articles are in English, with a total of 253 languages represented on the site. The 10 millionth article was a Hungarian biography of 16th century painter Nicholas Hilliard. Wikipedia can seem like such a natural use of the Internet that one forgets what a revolutionary experiment in social media it is. Founded in 2001, the site offered a way for Internet users to help build and maintain a public encyclopedia. It took three and a half years for Wikipedia to hit one million articles, and three and a half years after that the site crossed the 10 million mark. It's future is never quite clear, and the Wikimedia foundation is turning into the 21st Century version of PBS with frequent pledge drives; it is now considering how advertising might finance future growth without compromising the site's integrity.
  

Short Takes: 3.30.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• Movie theaters are going to new lengths to try to stay relevant. For example, so-called "Red Band" trailers, which feature R-rated scenes from mature movies, have long been banned from most movie theaters, but now Regal Entertainment, the nation's largest chain, will be permitting the edgier previews. It's all part of an attempt by movie theaters to provide customers with a better experience. This article from BrandWeek also shares info on the growth of 3D movies, pre-movie trivia contests entered by text message, and National Cinemedia's technology that turns moviegoers into "human joysticks" to play an on-screen game. With consumer video technology creating better movie experiences at home, theaters have to remember they are in the entertainment experience business, not merely the movie-showing business.
  
  
• Old media is taking a page or two from the new media playbook. Last month, NBC tried to take an internet phenomenon and turn it into a TV show. quarterlife was a popular scripted net-only show consisting of 8-minute segments. As a 30-minute show on broadcast TV, quarterlife failed in a spectacular fashion, providing the lowest ratings the network had seen in 17 years. Some felt this called into question the strategy of moving content from the Internet to TV, but I believe differently. I think the problem was that 8-minute segments was what young audiences wanted for this kind of content. Now MTV is trying alternative-length programming on its network. Learning from the success of Robot Chicken, the net is airing original series with run times of just two to six minutes. For some types of entertainment, brief content is the experience that matches the brief attention spans for Internet-weaned youth.
  
  
• Wine is an experience unto itself, but what about ordering wine? That process hadn't changed in years, until Adour, a restaurant in New York's St. Regis Hotel, opened. Looking to differentiate itself by making selecting wine an experience, Adour has a new touch-sensitive, interactive wine experience. Wired calls it, "Minority Report meets Sideways." I find this an interesting way for a restaurant to create an experience that customers will remember!
  
  
• The "Got Milk?" campaign, introduced back in 1994, is rolling out the 2008 iteration, and this time it's going social. Aiming for teens, the campaign will use a MySpace profile to introduce milk-enhanced rock star, "White Gold," who sings about his love for milk. I'm not sure how this will work--first of all, the 70s-era hair band approach seems more likely to appeal to folks older than their teens. Also, the song lyrics are funny but heavy handed. Gauge for yourself with the music video below.
  
  (It's funny: the creative director at San Francisco-based Goodby, Silverstein & Partners brags about 100,000 people having seen the YouTube video in the past month; meanwhile, this inane video for HotRoast.com has been seen almost half a million times in two days! In viral marketing, everything is relative.)
  

Twutter: Twitter Clutter (Or Has Twitter Rewritten Rules of Communication?)

Most of my peers complain about being overwhelmed with communication. Voice mails go unanswered. Social and professional obligations go unmet. Email "in" boxes are overflowing; and keep in mind, we're not talking about one "in" box but many.

Americans already spend more time--two hours per day--with email than virtually any other country on earth . And, 48 percent of Americans feel their lives have become more stressful in the past five years, at least in part due to the constant flow of communications.

So clearly what is needed today is yet another new form of communications, right? Enter Twitter.

If you're reading this, you probably know what Twitter is, but I find most of my less-connected friends in the real world have never heard of it. Twitter is a micro-blogging tool. What that means is that Twitter allows one to create brief 140-character-long text messages that immediately get shared with anyone who has chosen to "follow" you. Followers will see your messages, or "tweets," along with the tweets of every one else they follow, on their Twitter home page or, if they choose, on their mobile phone via SMS message. People may send tweets from Twitter.com or from their cell phone.

You will find my Twitter home page here. If you visit, you will see what I've twittered and what the people I'm following have twittered. Here's what you'll find out about me (if you visit shortly after I post this): I recently had a debate with a friend about smoking. I worked on Saturday, but don't mind because I'm happier being busy than the opposite. On Friday night I heard Kiss singing "Beth" while shopping at Walgreens. And at KMart I purchased a 64mb USB drive for just $1.

If you click the "With Others" tab, here's what you'll find out about those I follow: "Ingrid Michaelson is covering Creep." " OH: its like money but monetized." " I like guitar players who don't use picks." And, "guy from my son's old preschool just bought us a round of Guinness."

If you're a sane person, after reading the last two paragraphs you should be thinking, "Who the hell cares?" In fact, I use Twitter and that's what I think! And herein lies the problem with Twitter--what worked when Twitter was small is going to fail as Twitter grows. According to TwitDir, there are just shy of one million public profiles on Twitter, and Twitter Facts claims that the number of Twitterers has increased close to 50% in just four months.

As more and more people use Twitter, Twitter will be increasingly threatened with Twutter, a term I coined to mean Twitter Clutter. (Yes, I said I hate buzzwords, so sue me--it's one word that is easier to type and shorter than two words.)

As I add friends who are new to Twitter to my follow list, or as more strangers have followed me and I've reciprocated, the flow of random, inane, meaningless information is adding to my communication overflow rather than aiding it. I am getting more Twutter than I am relevant communications, and this is a problem. One of my mottoes (which you'll actually find among the thoughts I twittered recently) is: Communication without relevance is noise. I don't know about you, but my life was plenty noisy already before adding a new flow of Twutter!

I've spoken with some of my Twitter friends about Twutter and shared some ideas for how we can reduce Twutter, but I've received a surprisingly assertive counter-response. I think early adopters come to feel each new tool is "theirs;" Hence, the way they use it is correct and everyone else simply doesn't "get it." One friend accused me of thinking I "can dictate how others use Twitter." (Geez, it was only a suggestion!)

The response from the early Twitter adopters can be paraphrased as such: "I am not going to change how I use Twitter, so you can simply decide whether to follow me or not." They are, in fact, quite correct; they can say whatever they want and I can follow them or not. But isn't the idea of communication to be heard and understood? Is it up to our followers/listeners to find relevance in everything we say? Or is it up to us to Twitter/communicate in a way that will be relevant and encourage followers to stay followers?

In short, does Twitter absolve the age-old responsibility of the communicator to make sure the message is valued and understood by the listener? I don't think so. I believe Twitter will continue to grow for a period as its newness attracts people, but eventually the constant flow of vapid thoughts will overwhelm users, and they'll do that listeners have always done in every medium whenever relevance is lacking: They'll tune out.

Just look at how we "follow" (to use the lingo of Twitter) in other media: No one tries to listen to every radio program or watch every TV show; instead, we seek out the things that are relevant and interesting. Everything else is noise and is ignored. And this puts the onus on those TV shows and radio programs to be relevant; they don't ignore the wants of listeners and viewers but are constantly seeking to make their content every more relevant to keep and attract an audience.

We Twitterers have an opportunity to create or destroy a new form of communications, but we cannot change the rules of human communication. If we insist what our followers think isn't important and that it is up to them to see relevance, we'll be like TV shows that are canceled. Our followers will "cancel" us in one of two ways--they'll either stop following or, in the worst-case scenario, they'll decide Twitter is all useless Twutter and simply stop using it.

There is certainly plenty of precedent for people abandoning once popular online communication tools. Over ten years ago, SixDegrees.com was one of the first social networking sites to be successful on the Internet. It had one million users (hmm, the same size as Twitter is now) before crashing and burning in 2001. People moved on to other social networking sites they found more useful and relevant, and in fact this chase from one tool to the next has never stopped: People went from SixDegrees to Friendster to MySpace and now to Facebook. But today, Facebook is looking noisier and less relevant, and I suspect within two years we'll see yet another social networking tool--one that provides more usable features and relevant info--overtake Facebook.

The future of Twitter is in the hands of we Twitterers. We can continue to share whatever random thoughts pop into our heads and hope people find it interesting. (For example, according to TweetScan, a Twitter search engine, a dozen people in the last hour have posted about using, cleaning, or decorating their bathrooms. Interested? Didn't think so.) Or, we can take lessons from centuries of human communication experience.

Much like bloggers have, Twitterers must find a way to be relevant to others, or we'll encourage people to tune out from us or from all of Twitter. I'd suggest we look to TV for the kind of models that will work in a broadcast medium like Twitter. For example:

• Comedies: Twitterers who consistently share funny things will find many followers. But, it better be darn funny. You have to Steven Wright or Mitch Hedberg, not the embarrassing amateur down at open mic night.
  
  
• News Opinion Programs: People crave interesting insights on the news, which has made Meet the Press the longest-running show on TV. (Sixty years and counting!) Those who share pertinent and insightful thoughts will provide tweets worth following.
  
  
• Breaking News: I think it's important to note that Twitter first got buzz during the 2007 South by Southwest festival when people who couldn't attend found they could be kept informed via the tweets sent from Austin. This use of Twitter as an instantaneous news tool for amateur reporters is interesting, but only when there's interesting news to report.
  
  
• Personality: There is a precedent for sharing one's personality, but this is a bit of a trap. How many personality shows have come and gone? Arsenio Hall? Leeza? The Martin Short Show? Simply put, you (and I) aren't as interesting as we think we are--at least not all the time. We're not David Letterman, Ellen DeGeneres or Oprah. And even they don't share everything they do or each random thought as it comes into their heads--they plan and write carefully in order to hold viewers' attention. Is this what you're doing with your Tweets?
  

Some would argue there's room for a category of Tweets not based on a broadcast medium: personal tweets to keep friends up to date. They may be right, but I'd suggest we already have ways of keeping our close friends informed--we talk to them, see them, and email them.

Our communication with friends is one-to-one and personal, not broadcast and impersonal. Just think of how seldom you send a single email message to your entire address database, and you'll see what I mean. For a decade you've had the tools to say the same thing to everyone you know simultaneously. If you never or almost never took that opportunity, what makes you think Twitter changes anything?

I happen to believe Marshall McLuhan's famous saying that "The medium is the message." You may think you're keeping friends informed and reinforcing relationships, but personal relationships cannot be created and fostered using a broadcast medium. Our friends are our friends, in part, because we care enough to speak to them one to one.

Twitter, I am confident, will find a place, but I believe this will happen not because communication-obsessed early adopters create Twutter by puking every and any thought into Twitter but because we use this communication tool to communicate effectively. Starting today, I am going to strive to be more cognizant of how I can add value to those who follow me on Twitter and not assume every thought I have has value.

Social Networks Will Fail (At Advertising)

Picture this: You're walking down the street, run into a friend, and start a conversation. A salesguy sees you stop and takes the opportunity to interrupt your discussion to try to sell you something. Annoying, right?

What about if the salesguy overhears you talking about your frustrations dating and jumps in to sell you a subscription to a dating service? Slightly less annoying, but still annoying.

Okay, what if the salesguy instead just dances around your conversation waving a poster-sized print ad? Okay, you get the idea.

These are exaggerated but not inaccurate analogies of what is happening on social networking sites these days. Storming out of nowhere just a few years ago, sites like Facebook and MySpace have become two of the most popular Internet spots. But there's a problem: All this popularity, buzz, and traffic isn't equating into profits for these sites.

These sites are acting as a mechanism for interaction between people. In the minds of participants, the sites are about them and not about the site owners or advertisers (which, I'd suggest, is in fact the mark of a pretty good site). But, just like like email or the watercooler, the fact people use Facebook and MySpace for discourse doesn't guarantee they'll be appropriate and effective places for advertising. Social Networks will need to find other ways to earn a profit.

We Americans like to act like the Internet is ours, but there's a social networking site that's bigger than Facebook and MySpace combined: China's QQ has as many subscribers as there are people living in the US (although this may be inflated by folks with multiple accounts). And get this--while U.S. social networks struggle to find profit, QQ made an operating profit of $224M last year; in contrast, the hottest site of 2007, Facebook, lost $50M last year.

You might think QQ has this social network advertising nut cracked, but their profit doesn't come from advertising (for the most part). Just 13% of their revenue comes from advertising; the rest comes from the sale of digital goods, games, and mobile services.

Back here in the states, the latest feeling is that widgets will provide social sites with a substantial source of revenue and profits. But, as an article on IHT points out, "the widgets currently in fashion are very 'lightweight' and do not command the loyalty of their audiences." In other words, widgets have to move beyond simple fun and games and begin to provide visitors to these sites something they'll value--something that will enhance the social experience rather than detract from it.

So, let's return to our analogy. There you are standing out in the heat and sun having a conversation with your friend. A smart entrepreneur sees this and thinks he can provide a nice venue for your future conversations. So, he builds a building and invites everyone to stop to have a fun time with friends. To make money, he plasters the walls with advertising.

It works--to a point. People enjoy the venue and he has lines out the door, but our enterprising entrepreneur finds he cannot make enough money off advertising. So, he hits on an idea--he can sell all these people glasses of Miller Lite! The idea is a twofer--not only does the owner make cash hand over fist, but his customers find that beer enhances their social interactions. He calls his idea Beer Activated Rap Session (or BARS, for short).

Sorry for the awkward analogy, but the idea here is a sound one. Social Network sites are lacking in creativity; they think they can advertise their way to profitability, but that's because they think of their users as users rather than social interactors and their traffic as traffic rather than discussions. With more creativity and focus on providing tools that enhance users' lives and social interactions, the increasingly crowded and confusing Facebook and MySpace could improve online dialogs rather than adding more and more noise to those communications.

Short Takes: 3.28.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• iMedia and Peanut Labs demonstrate a classic example of sampling bias with their Gen Y survey. Asked, "What one key media platform could you not live without?", 56% replied the Internet. Care to guess what medium was used to collect this data? You guessed it--they asked online surfers visiting social networking sites. I don't doubt the Internet is the number one medium for the under-30 set, but I wonder if they'd get different percentages if they asked kids hanging out in malls or reading newspapers (the media an astonishing 2% said they couldn't live without).
  
  
• Speaking of survey bias, one problem inherent with every survey, no matter how scrupulously compiled, is that participants can only give answers based on what they think they know. Euro RSCG Worldwide turned to hypnotists to get past this bias to gather information for Volvo. Volvo was consciously associated with safety by every focus group, but when hypnotized, some deeper and less positive associations were uncovered: Many revealed that Volvo also equals being middle-aged, an idea that "for some people was suffocating." Read more about this fascinating data-gathering technique on BrandWeek.
  
  
• Best Buy is entering the brandertainment business with "Making Your Kitchen Cook With Sara Moulton," featuring Gourmet magazine's executive chef. The series will be syndicated across StudioOne's 190 partner sites, including AOL and several local CBS and Fox TV station sites. While no costs were discussed in the press release, it seems likely Best Buy will reach highly-receptive consumers with interesting branded content for a fraction of the cost of a traditional ad and television media buy. Check out MediaWeek for more details.
  

"How much does viral cost?"

True story from this week: A peer of mine received a call from a client. He was working on his FY09 marketing budget. One of his brand managers was interested in experimenting with viral marketing, so he asked, "What should I budget for this?"

I understand the interest in testing viral techniques, but asking how much "viral" costs is like asking how much a car will cost. You could buy a 22-year-old Ford Bronco with 171,000 miles for $450, or you could purchase the Bugatti Veyron for $1.7 million. Both vehicles will get you from point A to point B, but the two satisfy very different emotional and logical needs.

The cost of a marketing program that is intended to achieve extended reach by being passed from consumer to consumer depends on a variety of variables. These include: Your current brand strength and positioning, your target audience, the reach you wish to achieve, the message you want to deliver, and the risks you're willing to take.

Two of my favorite viral marketing examples use video and demonstrate the range of investment that viral campaigns can entail:

• BMW Films made a splash in 2001 with a series of custom mini-movies directed by A-level directors, all featuring BMW vehicles as integral to the plot. The first year the films were produced, 2001 sales numbers increased 12% and the movies were viewed over 11 million times in four months. The exciting films, which reportedly cost more than $10 million to produce, went viral and received a huge amount of publicity. Below are two of my favorite movies: the delightfully nasty "Star," directed by Guy Ritchie and featuring his wife, Madonna; and the supremely exciting yet surprisingly somber "Ticker," directed by Joe Carnahan and featuring Don Cheadle with cameos by Ray Liotta, F. Murray Abraham, and Dennis Haysbert.
  
  
• On the other end of the spectrum is a simple series of online videos that promote a seemingly unexciting product: A blender. Blendtec produces the world's most powerful blender, and to prove it, they've produced a series of humorous videos putting the product to the challenge. I've not seen any data on the cost of this viral program, but my guess is that they've spent in the low-to mid-six figures for a campaign that's been viewed and shared tens of millions of times. The single video below, featuring an iPod, has been seen over 5 million times on YouTube. The campaign led to appearances on The Tonight Show and other programs, and revenue streams now include branded merchandise such as T-shirts.
  

I mentioned that one of the factors that impact the budget and success of a viral marketing campaign is the amount of risk a brand wishes to accept. Looking at the videos below, you can't help but note the risks. BMW shows its cars being driven in very dangerous manners, with the product beaten until nearly destroyed; one sequence shows a car's gas tank leaking and the pool of gas set ablaze. Think you'd ever see that in a traditional ad campaign? And Blendtec's attorney's must have had a field day with their concept--What if people try this at home and get inured? What if people take the challenge and find the blender doesn't performance as advertised on ridiculously impervious items?

Not all viral campaigns involve a high degree of risk, but smart risks can pay off. The point of any viral campaign is to create an unexpected experience--something so unusual, exciting, sexy, or funny that people will want to share and talk about it. If you create no experience, there can be no viral effect.

Of course, viral programs can also be launched for less than Blendtec's, but these two very successful campaigns demonstrate how a viral brandertainment program can take vastly different forms, approaches, and budgets.

What Is a Brand Worth?

A brand is intangible. You can't see it (although you can see components of it). You can't touch it (but you can feel it). And it doesn't appear on a company's balance sheet or income statement (although it can substantially impact financials).

Despite that, you can put a price on it.

That's what Interbrand has been doing for years. Each year, they gauge the value of the world's strongest brands and release a report. Check out the 2007 report to see the top brands (Coca-Cola in on top with an estimated brand value of $65 billion). The list is informative, but what interests me more is the methodology Interbrand uses to ascertain a brand's value. For everyone who thinks branding is an exercise in managing the invisible for imaginary gain, the rigor will be surprising and informative.

Interbrand starts by estimating current and future revenue from the brand, and then they subtract operating costs and other intangibles, such as management strength and patents. What is left is the revenue flow derived directly from the brand itself. They then apply a proprietary measure of how the brand influences customer demand at the point of purchase compared to industry benchmarks. Finally, a discount rate for the future earnings is applied to determine a current brand value; this discount rate varies based on the brand’s ability to secure ongoing customer demand (loyalty, re-purchase and retention) and thus sustain future earnings.

Not to minimize the time and effort that goes into it or the unique processes and evaluations Interbrand uses, but the brand valuation process is pretty straight forward: What will the brand earn? Remove costs and other intangibles. Figure out the role played by the brand in the category. And then discount that flow of net income to a Net Present Value based on the future opportunities and threats it faces.

The 2007 report is lengthy and interesting, containing many analyses of particular brands. For example, Interbrand compliments Google's Brand Management for "maintain(ing) a sincere and consistent feel to everything that it does," despite rapid growth and frequent brand extensions. Also noted is something I believe to be vitally important, even with brands not built on person-to-person interactions: "Google has revolutionized the way it screens employees to ensure that everyone who comes through its door is ‘Google-worthy’. Inevitably, it’s become bigger and more complex, but this has done nothing to dilute the recognition and desire that the business is still held together by Google ‘glue’."

Last year's report also compliments Starbucks (although the brand has fallen on some harder times recently). Recognizing that "every single experience counts," Interbrand says that Starbucks has such an "embedded role in people’s lives that any evolution of the brand can be truly wrapped around its customers, rather than simply broadcast in 30 seconds and the Sunday circular."

Both Google and Starbucks are brands built with Experiential Marketing (XM) concepts, and they demonstrate how different XM can be for different brands. Both obsessively focus on the customer experience, making sure every touchpoint communicates the same set of brand values. The experience of one is simple, almost spartan, but totally functional and focused on the consumer. The experience of the other is rich, warm, and engaging--but equally focused on the consumer.

I highly recommend you peruse the lessons and insights from Interbrand.

Short Takes: 3.27.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• Is this the dumbest political ad idea ever? A company called Spot Runner has an interesting ad model. They offer a library of ready-to-use TV spots from which small businesses may select; paste in a logo, tweak the voiceover, and viola--a professional-looking ad ready to be placed on local TV. What seems like a fine idea for a small clothing store or pet boutique strikes me as a lousy idea for the unique world of politics, but Spot Runner is now offering stock TV ads for politicians. Given the highly personal nature of politician's records and stands--not to mention the importance of transparency and trust in candidate selection--this strikes me as a bad and potentially fatal idea for a candidate. If I were running for office, I'd rather my constituency see an awkward but genuine spot of me talking rather than get caught with a cut-and-paste tough-on-crime-in-anytown ad like this.
  
  
• We couldn't agree more! ChiefMarketer.com has an interesting article entitled, "Digital Media Issues: What to Watch in 2008." Dave Friedman of Razorfish says, "The digital media business is no longer simply about buying ad space. It's about distributing experiences through social networks, videos, widgets and applications; branded content; and ad placements." He has other insightful forecasts about the online world in 2008, so check out the article. (I like the article, but isn't it cheating to wait until the year is a quarter completed before making your predictions? Here's one of my '08 predictions: Bear Stearns is going to collapse!)
  
  
• The New York Times has an article about a cool little viral campaign for Scion. Launched by Strawberry Frog, ScionSpeak.com gives users the opportunity to create their own coat of arms, using hundreds of cool designer components. The campaign engages their target audience's love for customizing their rides. You can download your artwork, or arrange to pay to have the shield painted on your car. That's my Scion coat of arms at right.
  

We Don't Need New Buzzwords, We Need Better Ideas

I'm a hypocrite. In one part of my brain I hate marketing buzzwords, and in another part of my brain I use them.

On this blog I use terms like Experiential Marketing (XM), Advergaming, and Brandertainment. When I use these terms, it isn't to try to convince you these concepts are something so bold and new that no previously known words could possibly describe them. In fact, I've already shared my opinion that XM has existed for centuries and that blogging isn't a trend but a normal extension of the human desire to be heard.

The reason I use these terms is to try to describe a particular marketing concept in as few words or letters as possible. I could say "Brand-sponsored gaming," but instead I say Advergaming. I would never try to claim that using games for marketing purposes is a pioneering trend; if you've seen "A Christmas Story," you know that Ovaltine was using games to market to kids before the advent of television.

But some people use buzzwords for a different reason. They believe they've discovered something brand new, as if some wholly original marketing concept escaped our attention for millennia. Each new buzzword is seen as being distinct from every previous buzzword (and from traditional marketing strategies). This is the thinking that sells books with catchy titles and gives stodgy magazines the opportunity to sell newsstand copies with snooze-and-you-loose cover stories that drive fear into the hearts of CEOs.

But when buzzwords are used as if the concepts are distinct and completely novel, they get in the way of good marketing. The trendy labels cause us to forget that we must base our concepts on solid marketing foundations. If this new concept doesn't adhere to old rules, we reason, why should we bother subjecting our ideas to rigorous and careful consideration?

Too much focus on buzzwords can cause meaningless arguments about what separates one buzzword from another. On an online forum in which I participate, marketing professionals engaged in a debate about the difference between viral marketing, buzz marketing, and Word-of-Mouth marketing. My thought is: Who cares? Does defining and codifying these terms help us to create better marketing ideas? (That was a rhetorical question--the answer is "no.")

And this is where I found my inspiration for my new motto:

We don't need new buzzwords,
We need better ideas.

I created a poster to remind myself of this, and I thought you might want one yourself. Feel free to click on the image below to download a PDF suitable for printing.

I will use buzzwords on this blog, but if you ever catch me trying to claim that something is so bold and innovative that it has rewritten the rules of marketing as we know them, please call "bullshit" on me!

Short Takes: 3.25.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• Just yesterday I noted how the concept of email benchmarks are rather farcical because email metrics vary greatly based on many factors, including the method of collecting subscribers. Today, my close personal friend and email diva, Melinda Krueger, shares some thoughts on email opt-in approaches and dissuades readers from gathering subscribers in unethical ways. The diva says if you make the wrong decision, "Plan on a huge percentage of false email addresses... a lot of spam complaints that will damage (your) reputation with ISPs (and) severely impact (your) ability to get any email delivered... (and) low response rates." (In other words, don't make the wrong decision!)
  
• In case we need to be reminded of the power of social media when combined with one disgruntled customer, here's a reminder from Microsoft. Nathaniel sent his broken Xbox 360 to Microsoft for repairs and it was returned in working order. Problem is, when he sent it, the game console was covered with one-of-a-kind artwork and special signatures from developers and others in the gaming community, but it was returned scrubbed clean. He (of course) complained on gaming sites, his story was reposted from one site to another, and the situation (deservedly) turned into a PR nightmare for Microsoft. Some companies might've been so concerned that taking special action would encourage other gripers that they might have simply let it blow over. To Microsoft's credit, they stepped up to the plate and did their best to make things right with Nathaniel. Microsoft only hit a triple, not a home run, because they never addressed Nathaniel's primary concern--what they'll do to ensure something like this won't happen again. (A simple promise to examine and improve service procedures--an effort that is probably constantly underway anyway--would've been sufficient for Nathaniel.)
  
• Need any more proof that the Internet is putting more power in the hands of consumers? Check out ServiceGuy.org. If you need a plumber, realtor, or painter and live in one of ten select cities, this site could save you hours. Rather than calling service providers and waiting for them to get back to you, this site provides you with a number to call. Once you do, their automated service simultaneously rings a number of potential service providers and you are connected to the one who answer most quickly. Will this destroy the brands of service providers in these cities? I suspect not--the company that answers quickly, does the job right, and provides the best experience will earn the consumer's trust and repeat business. What do you think?

The Only Email Benchmarks That Matter Are Your Own

iMedia has a worthwhile article about the dangers of "keeping up with the Joneses" when it comes to email benchmarks. Spencer Kollas makes some interesting observations about how email marketers should be more focused on improving their own metrics rather than trying to ascertain and achieve industry benchmarks. As he says, "Say your industry average is at 88 percent, but you have a delivery rate of 92 percent. Does that mean that you shouldn't keep working to possibly get to 95 percent?"

While I agree with Kollas' observations, he doesn't really touch on the most troubling and confounding aspects of email benchmarks: There is no such thing as an objective benchmark. There are simply too many variables that impact email metrics to make it worthwhile to evaluate an email program against a single number that represents an industry benchmark or average.

For example, open rates can be significantly affected by whether list hygiene is managed well or not. I once worked with a client contact whose boss evaluated his performance based on the size of the company's email list. With the goal of growing the list to the largest possible number, no list hygiene activities (such as deleting email addresses that are unresponsive or bounced) were performed. This company's open rate was poor and delivery became difficult due to spam complaints, but they succeeding in building a mammoth list.

Another factor that can have considerable impact on open rates is the method used to collect subscribers. Email marketers who collect opt-ins carefully, gathering permission only from people who visit or purchase from the brand site, will find recipients more interested and more inclined to read email messages received from the brand. But email marketers who pursue more aggressive methods for collecting subscribers such as sweepstakes and contests (or who use foolish methods such as harvesting or buying email addresses) will generally add people to their database who are less interested in brand messaging and thus are less likely to open emails received from the brand.

Open rates--one of the most sought after benchmarks--can be impacted to a substantial degree by the decisions and management of the email marketer. For example, sending an email campaign that can achieve an amazing open rate is really quite simple; simply cull your list of anyone who hasn't opened your most recent two or three email messages. This strategy will result in your list being reduced by 90% and it won't increase the total number of emails opened, but the open rate you can achieve would be phenomenal.

Another factor that impacts open rate is the content and offers sent to the email database. If Brand A always sends offers of 50% off and Brand B instead sends messages extolling the virtues of their products, it is likely Brand A will have a higher open rate. This doesn't mean Brand A has a better email marketing program--in fact, constant deep discounting tends to hurt a brand and adversely impact profit--but if we only look at a single open rate benchmark, it is easy to see how Brand B might feel their email efforts were falling short.

Finally, there's the common bugaboo of any sort of benchmarking--are the companies against which you're benchmarking really in the same business? Take the travel industry: one might find an email open rate benchmark for the industry, but all travel companies are not the same. A company or agency that specializes in expensive adventure tours, which their customers may take only once every several years, will likely see a much lower open rate than a company who specializes in discount, last-minute packages to Vegas.

Ultimately, Mr. Kollas' iMedia article is correct--the only benchmarks that really matter are your own. A steady program of testing different email attributes and creative in a way that delivers incremental improvements based on your own brand and your own list is far more worthwhile than chasing nebulous benchmarks.

Games: They're Not Just For Kids (or Guys) Anymore

If you're like most people, you hear "computer gaming" and you immediately picture a certain type of teen boy clutching a gamepad and staring at a monitor. For the sake of marketers everywhere, I would like to join with those who are trying to dispel that musty stereotype.

Branded gaming, or advergaming, provides an excellent mechanism for creating deeper engagement with consumers. Perhaps the most publicized example of advergaming right now is CandyStand, a collection of "Casual Games" sponsored by Wrigley that receives 4.4M uniques a month (according to Quantcast). ("Casual Games" are defined as simple games that are easy to learn, feature simple rules, and don't require a long time commitment to complete.)

One of the keys to successful advergaming is to match the game to the intended audience. Not every audience is suited for an advergaming strategy, but before you leap to any conclusions, you should know that online games appeal to just about every demographic category. The stereotype that games are only for a younger male demographic is not supported by recent data, and this bias can cause marketers to overlook an Experiential Marketing (XM) strategy that is relevant to a wide audience.

A glance at the Quantcast data for CandyStand may surprise you. Female visitors comprise 59% of CandyStand's visitors, and a majority of traffic comes from those 25 and older.

The feminine and older bent of CandyStand visitors is not unique among game sites, according to several studies of advergaming:

• ClickZ reports that one-third of adults spend 10 hours or more playing games each week, compared with 11 percent of teens.


• ClickZ also shares that video game players break into nearly equal thirds of under 18 year olds, 18-49 year olds, and 50-plus year olds.


• Playing games is a more popular online activity in the U.S. than watching short video clips or visiting social networking websites, according to a report from Parks Associates. Thirty-four percent of U.S. adult Internet users play online games on a weekly basis, compared with 29% who watch short online videos and 19% who visit social networking sites with the same frequency.


• According to Big Research, gamers come from all ethnic groups with Hispanics and African Americans making up almost 30% (29.9%) of the gamer market.


• The Entertainment Software Association says that online games continue to grow in popularity. 51% of most frequent game players say they play games onl