Source: Pixabay

It is the end of the year, and that means every marketers' inbox and LinkedIn feed are full of articles promising the top marketing trends for 2017. Many of the same authors, blogs, and agencies that told you that Facebook sweepstakes, QR codes, Groupon deals, Foursquare mayor offers and Google+ were sustainable can't-miss opportunities are back with a new line of snake oil, er, I mean predictions.

Of course, predictions are an inherently risky business so we cannot fault people for getting some wrong, but we can fault them if they fail to fully test their predictions or promote them with ulterior motives. Too often, marketing trends are pitched with little understanding of the nuances and hard work required for success. They are usually hyped in the broadest of ways, as if every brand in every vertical targeting every audience has an equal opportunity to avail themselves of every hot new idea. And my greatest concern is the way so many "hot" trends are promoted with an urgency designed to infect marketers with FOMO (fear of missing out) by those who, of course, are only too happy to offer the cure.

Marketers love to be on the cutting edge, but our obsessive need to exploit the latest hype can get in the way of building strong, enduring brands if we do not strike the right balance between innovative strategies and the sensible, boring approaches that we know work. Investing in trends is sexier than relying on the tried and true, but they are also riskier bets. Snapchat may or may not be right for your brand, but email is becoming an increasingly overlooked workhorse for marketers. Social commerce may be buzzworthy, but good ol' organic search drives 800% more e-commerce transactions. And turning your brand into a publisher may be all the rage, but marketers must never forget the customer is king and customer experience is what drives loyalty and word of mouth.

To figure out what marketing trends are right for your brand, ask three questions and be sure you know the answers before you act:

• Meerkat is built on someone else's platform (or at least it was): We have seen this problem since the early days of Windows, when eager young developers created new applications, only to see Microsoft adopt the same functionality into its Windows OS. More recently, Zynga rocketed to success and then stumbled when Facebook changed its rules to discourage the flurry of annoying posts from friends wanting everyone to become virtual farmers. (As a result, Zynga lost 70% of its value since its 2011 IPO and continues to battle lawsuits from shareholders who claim they were misled.) And it happened again two weeks ago, when Twitter changed Meerkat's access to the Twitter's API. Meerkat cannot survive or thrive without Twitter, and Twitter does not want to support a product competitive with its own Periscope application, so inevitably Meerkat will lose. Building a business model on someone else's platform will always remain a risky proposition.
   
• We're not all broadcasters: One mistake that social media pros and influencers have made time (Quora) after time (G+) is that they evaluate new social platforms based on their habits and preferences rather than others'. In 2011, as social media "experts" abandoned their Facebook accounts and declared Google+ a "Facebook killer," the rest of the world shrugged and continued using the platform that already contained all of their friends and family. Normal people (i.e., those who do not know their Klout score) cannot pull their "audience" with them from one platform to another, nor do they have a burning need to broadcast their lives to the world as do digital influencers. This last point is key to explaining why digital insiders are wrong so often about new social and communications services--the vast majority of the world does not share influencers' insatiable need to transmit every thought and experience. Meerkat was perfectly suited to appeal to mass influencers while leaving others puzzled about all the fuss.
    
• SXSW isn't the real world: There is a good reason each year's "hot new SXSW" app tends to fade from view--SXSW is not the real world. Since Twitter rose out of SXSW in 2007, I cannot think of another app that used SXSW as a launching pad to the mainstream. Foursquare came closest, but today it is seeing declining usage and little buzz. Other apps like Groupme, Sonar and Hashable were all the rage in Austin for a couple of weeks but never caught on outside of the SXSW bubble. There is a lesson here for evaluating SXSW buzz: The needs of the world's most digitally connected people while attending the world's most digitally connected event are simply not a good proxy for the needs of people who have busy lives, job stresses, family demands and are mostly overwhelmed with their existing digital communication channels and apps.
    
• Streaming video isn't new and isn't growing rapidly: I cannot imagine how all the excitement over Meerkat and Periscope must look to the folks who developed platforms such as Qik, Livestream, Justin.tv and a dozen other live-streaming platforms that have been around for years. Sure, the new live-streaming apps offer great social features and terrific user interfaces, but apps with similar capabilities have long been available. Of course, you could argue the same about Facebook, which was preceded by SixDegrees, Friendster and Myspace, but the difference in that case was that each successive social network was more popular than the last. This is not the case with live-streaming video apps, which are not seeing any sort of profound growth or success. After a rapid start, Qik faded and was eventually acquired and shuttered by Skype, while Justin.tv eventually shifted out of broadcasting the real world and into the more interesting business of broadcasting gameplay via Twitch.
    
• The world has already voted, and people prefer pre-recorded video to live: One filter I use to evaluate new technology is how well it fits into existing models of human behavior. In the case of Meerkat and Periscope, one only needs to look at the early days of television, when all video was live, and compare it to the prerecorded network programming of today. The problem is that live TV is generally not polished, well paced or exciting; Jon Stewart may make moments in Congress look funny, but have you ever tried to watch C-SPAN live? The same is true outside of TV--consumers can watch live concerts by artists on Concert Window, but they still opt to stream the slick music videos on YouTube and Vimeo in much higher numbers. And Fathom Events beam live performances from The Met to theaters around the country, but far more people show up for the latest over-produced but disappointing Adam Sandler film. The entertainment industry long ago shifted out of live broadcasting and into prerecorded, edited, post-produced video that corrects the problems of live performance.
   
• The world is timshifting more than ever rather than watching live: Not only have consumers shown a preference for prerecorded entertainment, they are increasingly rejecting the tyranny of watching anything on someone else's schedule. In today's fast-paced world, ever more people are timeshifting, opting to use streaming, DVRs, Netflix and YouTube to watch video when and where they want. Meerkat and Periscope are entering a world at a time when fewer people watch video as it is broadcast than at any time since TVs entered homes in the 1950s. This should tell us something about the appeal of real-time video, which is...
      
• "Live" video brings no additional value over pre-recorded video outside of very specific use cases. Live TV is today reserved for special situations like American Idol (real-time voting), news and sporting events (real-time occurrences with broad appeal) and the rare stunt programming (real-time risk that Allison Williams' Peter Pan may trip over a prop on live TV.) If Hollywood cannot find a way to make live video appealing outside of select use cases, what does this say about the experiences you and I might broadcast? How many opportunities will you have to share urgent, timely, in-demand content? Will that beautiful sunrise or your dog's amazing tricks really be of interest to people in real time? Is posting a video to Instagram of something that occurred in the ancient era of two minutes ago really going to degrade the viewer experience? The reality is that outside of some select use cases, such as newsworthy events (the tragic explosion in NYC) and entertainment (Jimmy Fallon broadcasting a rehearsal), most of us have precious little reason to use Meerkat and Periscope to broadcast anything to others in real time.
    
• Most brands will be too risk-averse to adopt live video: While many agency bloggers are predicting (and hoping) marketers will adopt Meerkat and Periscope in large numbers (and pay agencies to develop the live content), I struggle to see how most brand brands will accept the risk of raw live video. Even in the age of Facebook and Twitter, marketers still maintain tight control over the planning and vetting of content, and in those rare situations when brands staff "newsrooms" for real-time marketing, compliance and legal personnel are on hand to approve every word and image. You think brands are now going to point a camera live at an event or person and trust everything that happens will be appropriate, on-message, legal and compliant? All it takes is one person wearing a branded T-shirt, dropping an F-bomb or having difficulties with the product on a live video, and someone's head will be on a platter.
    
• Few brands will have anything to share that people will need to see in real-time: Finally, even if brands can overcome the various practical and legal challenges associated with live video, will they have anything worthwhile to say in real-time? Today, organic reach for brand content is falling, with brand posts disappearing from Facebook news feeds and being ignored on Twitter. If most brands cannot find a way to be interesting with the luxury of time, what would they stream that might demand consumers drop everything right now to watch it live? Video is powerful, but between Instagram, YouTube, Vine and other platforms, are brands really lacking for ways to share video?

I recently gave a keynote address at the Responsys Interact 2013 conference.  My topic was social business and how social technologies and behaviors are influencing the growth of a new sharing economy. This new form of business is altering how people consume products and the way businesses must bring products and services to market.

Today, "social" generally refers to social communications, but increasingly social will influence not simply what we say and how we say it but how we think and what we want (or, at least, the way in which we want it). The growing sharing economy is already changing consumer behaviors and attitudes, and that means business models must change as well.

Below is a video of my presentation in which I address three social media and sharing economy trends:

• The future of social media is not media, it's business,
• The future is radically transparent, and 
• The future is serendipitous

 

A big thank you to Responsys for inviting me to present at its terrific event.

TheLadders.com has a marketing campaign that is worth notice, but they failed to ask "How can I improve this by making it social?" As a result, their new campaign, The $100k Experiment, will not achieve as much attention and traffic as it might have had they considered ways to leverage Social Media.

TheLadders.com, which specializes in job openings with salaries in excess of $100,000, wanted to make a point to employers about the kind of attention $100,000 can attract. So, they placed that amount of cash into a glass box in the middle of a park and left it there unguarded. Ten hidden cameras captured the reactions of passersby.

The video is great--it's funny, interesting, and worthy of attention. TheLadders gets an "A" for creating content that people will want to see (and unlike Google's "5 Friends," this video keeps it short and engaging.)

But this is 2008, and engaging content--while vital and challenging--is no longer all that is required for a successful marketing campaign. Where are the Social Media hooks in TheLadders.com campaign? Consumers cannot embed the video on their sites (which I'd consider bare minimum functionality for an online video campaign), nor can they comment on The $100k Experiment. As a result, this site is a lonely island when it could have been a bustling network of interaction.

Other than links and comments, what else might they have done to turn this lonely and isolated video into the hub of a hundred thousand conversations?

• How about a poll to determine the charity to which TheLadders.com should give the $100,000? Think that might generate some attention, links, and dialogs?
  
• Or, another charity angle might have been for TheLadders.com to allow people to select a charity, generate a custom video link, and then earn a charitable donation for the chosen charity based on how much traffic that link generates to the microsite.
  
• How about the ability for people to ask for their city or neighborhood to be the next spot where the glass box stops? Might it be fun to see friends, coworkers, and neighbors punked by the $100k experiment?

Their agency did place the video on YouTube (where it had 0 views as of this morning--was I really the first to see it?) There is no reference to TheLadders.com in the text and no links to the career site or the microsite--another lost opportunity for links, attention, and traffic.

It's hard for me to understand how in 2008 marketers could generate a great idea and execute it with care and style, but miss the importance and value of Social Media features. The $100k Experiment will generate plenty of deserved attention, but the career site could have multiplied their success by asking, "How can I improve this by making it social?"

Viral video is a tricky balancing act. The number of times a brand succeeds in creating a viral phenomenon is dwarfed by the number of times marketers fail to achieve their viral objectives. Typical problems that can prevent viral success include boring or self-centered content, experiences that take too long to provide a benefit to viewers, and heavy-handed marketing messages.

Despite the best of intentions, I fear Leonardo DiCaprio's Appian Way and Google failed in all three ways with "5 Friends," their voter registration video launched on YouTube. It has many of the right ingredients, starting with a Who's Who of Hollywood. The video features Leonardo DiCaprio, will i. am, Tobey Maguire, Forest Whitaker, Amy Adams, Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Bacon, and Halle Berry--and that's just one quarter of the stars who grace this video.

But unlike some past star turns in successful viral videos (such as "Yes We Can," which has been viewed almost 20 million times on YouTube), I'm unsure "5 Friends" will set the world on fire. For starters, it is awfully smug and preachy. Do we need Hollywood movie actors telling us not to vote for almost 90 seconds? After 15 seconds I think we all get it--you're being ironic! By the 30-second mark, it begins to insult viewers' intelligence. And by the time Forest Whitacker over-enunciates each syllable of "Do Not Vote" as if we're all too simple-minded to understand, I wanted to click off the video.

Of course, I didn't. As both an engaged voter and an interactive marketer, I wanted to see where the video would take viewers, so onward I continued. Then at the two-minute mark, the celebs start asking us if we know that we need to register. What? Who knew that, except, well, everybody? A reminder isn't such a bad idea, but when the stars begin to ask things like "You do know that, right? You do have to register first," I began to suspect that the actors all think we flyovers might be mildly mentally challenged.

The point of this video exercise is to direct viewers to http://www.Maps.Google.com/vote, but the video doesn't actually get around to sharing the URL for two-and-a-half pontificating minutes. To make matters worse, while the text associated with the video carefully lists every celebrity, it omits a link to the site! The whole point of this effort is to get people to visit Google's voter registration site, but priority was given to crediting the 27 celebrities rather than supplying a simple link--the one and only essential piece of functionality.

Once the URL is displayed, the video continues for another two minutes of sermonizing. By the time Leonardo returns to chastise us--"After all this, if you're not going to vote, I don't even know what to say to you anymore"--it made me wonder two things. First of all, how many people who begin to watch the video will have the patience to view it in its entirety? Secondly, isn't it too bad that Leo and his friends didn't run out of words three minutes sooner? A more direct, less self-congratulatory clip may easily have created more emotional engagement and action.

While I really hate to criticize a program that encourages voting--a responsibility that I take very seriously--this video seems like an unengaging, overly lengthy misfire. The names will draw many viewers and with Google's backing, the PR will spread widely; but if video viewers don't wait long enough to see the URL, what's the point?

So, what's your opinion? Is "5 Minutes" just right? Or only half right?

Although Social Media is still in its infancy, we've already seen quite a few occurrences when brands have been challenged by the explosive dissemination of adverse information through Social Media channels. There are few if any examples of best practices for Social Media Crisis Management, and some brands have appeared to stumble by relying on traditional channels to combat negative content spreading via Social Media.

One of the more famous examples of how far bad news can travel is Comcast's sleeping technician; two years ago, Brian Finkelstein uploaded video he captured of a Comcast employee who had fallen asleep in Brian's home while waiting on hold for Comcast home office support. Since then, the video of this embarrassing incident has been viewed 1.3 million times on YouTube, has become an inseparable part of Comcast's history on Wikipedia, and will live forever in tens of thousands of links on Google.

Here's another example that highlights the incredible speed of Social Media: On August 13th, a video posted by MySpace's Mr. Unstable started spreading like wildfire; the video showed the (now former) Burger King employee taking a bath in the kitchen sink of the Xenia, OH restaurant. Within a few days, the video had been viewed around 750,000 times on Break.com and YouTube, and news appeared on all major online news outlets including MSNBC.com, CNN.com, FOXNEWS.com and the Drudge Report. The number of negative impressions generated by Mr. Unstable within a couple days was equal to many months of traffic to BurgerKing.com.

Companies have long understood the need and value of crisis management, but the interconnectedness of consumers and speed at which gossip and complaints can spread give Public Relations Crisis Management renewed importance. Burger King's actions in this situation provide a good case study to consider the best and most appropriate way to respond when a Social Media disaster demands action. In this case, Burger King responded through traditional channels, talking to reporters and sending an email to news outlets that said:

"Burger King Corp. was just notified of this incident and is cooperating fully with the health department. We have sanitized the sink and have disposed of all other kitchen tools and utensils that were used during the incident. We have also taken appropriate corrective action on the employees that were involved in the video. Additionally, the remaining staff at this restaurant is being retrained in health and sanitation procedures."

Was this a sufficient response? I think it's reasonable to suggest that Burger King might have delivered their positive response to a much wider audience had they explored Social Media and not just traditional media.

Consider that those disgusting videos continue to appear and be viewed on YouTube. Consumers who see the videos won't seek out news reports, and as a result will not learn that Burger King took assertive and prompt actions to discipline employees, retrain the staff, dispose of tainted utensils and sanitize the sink. With no company-created video response on YouTube, consumers in search of information about the incident get nothing but the stomach-turning video of Mr. Unstable.

What might Burger King have done to better inform consumers who are exposed to the negative information in Social Media and not the company's positive response in traditional media? Respond in kind! With adverse and threatening content spreading via video, the best and most lasting response would have been in video.

An assertive video response strategy would have been to acknowledge the specific incident and address what was done to rectify the problems. A Social Media Video News Release might have given consumers a tour of the sparkling clean Xenia kitchen, demonstrated how the sink was sanitized multiple times, and shown the utensils that were discarded. This approach would've permitted Burger King to address the specific concerns of customers in Xenia, and in doing so would've conveyed to consumers across the country the company's commitment to safe and healthy food preparation.

Brands often have concerns about addressing problems so directly out of fear any acknowledgment will only cause the adverse information to spread even further. In this case, a less straightforward video strategy might have been executed. Instead of directly addressing the Xenia situation, Burger King might have produced a video showing all of the steps that are taken at every restaurant to ensure cleanliness and compliance with health codes. They might have included brief interviews with actual employees or franchisees who conveyed how seriously they take their responsibility for maintaining sanitary kitchen conditions.

Of course, no one believes a positive, company-sponsored video will be viewed as many times as a scandalous video that embarrasses a national brand, but by responding to a video with a video, Burger King could have increased the possibility of reaching consumers where it really mattered. By launching an informative and favorable video on YouTube with the appropriate title and tags, people searching for "Burger King sink" or "Burger King Xenia" could have come across and viewed the company's own video.

If even a fraction of the people who watched Mr. Unstable's YouTube performance also saw Burger King's response, that could have had a more lasting and meaningful impression than an email to reporters; after all, traditional news outlets were far more interesting in playing up the salacious story to grab viewers' attention than they were in conveying Burger King's spin. In this news report from WDTN, the reporter calls Mr. Unstable's video "disturbing" and "shocking" and dedicates twice as much time to interviewing an appalled consumer as to sharing the company's response and actions.

In the age of Social Media, the best response when YouTube or the blogosphere is on fire is to fight fire with fire. Press releases and emails to TV and print outlets are still necessary, but they really don't permit the company to reach consumers where they are or to combat negative PR with the speed of Social Media.

We've already seen it many times, and it will happen many, many more times in the future. The sweep of the Internet combined with the power of Social Media is amplifying brand missteps and furnishing mass media-like reach to consumers. Situations that a couple years ago would have been small and contained today are making an impression upon thousands and even millions of customers, prospects, and investors.

Here's a recent example: A wine critic perpetrated a hoax upon Wine Spectator magazine. He created a Web site for a fake restaurant, then submitted the restaurant for the magazine's award of excellence. Despite the fact the wine list was "well-stocked with dogs" likened to "paint thinner and nail varnish," the imaginary restaurant won the award. The critic, Robin Goldstein, believes his prank proves that Wine Spectator is more interested in the award entrance fee than with maintaining minimum standards.

Goldstein posted his story to his Wine Economics blog and to the fake restaurant's blog. From there it was picked up by the Chicago Tribune and LA Times. The story has been carried further on beverage-related blogs such as Daily Blender and Scotch Talk. A Google search on the faux restaurant's name results in more than 70 news article hits from around the globe and almost 3,000 Web hits. In the last several days, dozens of Twitter users have Tweeted the news and links to thousands of followers. Wine Spectator's Wikipedia entry has already been updated with the incident, ensuring the magazine will be associated with the award embarrassment for years to come. The publicity has put Wine Spectator on the defensive; they posted a response, including accusations Goldstein isn't telling the entire story, within their online forum.

The interesting aspect of this is that Goldstein presented details of his hoax at a meeting of the American Association of Wine Economists, a group that I'm guessing doesn't even number in the thousands. Not so many years ago, Goldstein's story would've been an amusing tale passed among a small group of elite wine professionals, but today the story is being heard by hundreds of thousands. In less than two weeks and with a budget that I suspect is $0, Goldstein has reached an audience that is much greater than Wine Spectator's circulation of 350,000.

Remember the good old days when we used to be concerned that a consumer who experienced a bad customer service situation would tell 10 or 20 people? How does 1.3 million sound? The reach, power, and economy of Social Media can perhaps best be demonstrated by one of the most often repeated stories of Social Media embarrassment: the sleeping Comcast service tech. To date, the famous video shot by a disgruntled customer has been viewed almost 1.3 million times.

Just a decade ago, getting DVDs into the hands of 1.3M people would've required an investment of millions of dollars for replication, packaging, and postage (even assuming you already had a list of 1.3M addresses). But in 2007 , a "regular Joe" with no special marketing contacts or media acumen was able to get his video in front of that many people for a budget of absolutely nothing.

There was a time not long ago that brands and media partners controlled every means of mass communication; today, a guy who bathes in a Burger King sink has practically the same reach as the $3.5 billion fast food chain. Sure, Burger King has the power to blast messages across network television and reach every person who watches "Dancing With the Stars," but the advertising message doesn't hold interest, create buzz, or stick in the mind like one gross kid in a sink.

We can't be sure, but it seems likely that Wine Spectator, Burger King, and Comcast have collectively suffered financial losses that total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in reduced sales, damaged reputation, and PR crisis management. And all it took was three people clicking "Submit" buttons.

In the future, you will hear a lot about how Social Media shifts power away from brands and towards consumers. The Wine Spectator, Burger King, and Comcast examples plainly demonstrate what this means.

We've seen this a dozen times already: A consumer uses a YouTube video to complain about a service or product, and soon thousands or even millions of people are watching it. Comcast had its sleeping tech, Taco Bell its rats, and Burger King its sink-bathing employee. While this approach obviously isn't available in every situation (nor is responding to every complaint a smart or even possible approach), EA SPORTS has shown how Social Media can turn a consumer's concern into a terrific marketing opportunity.

A consumer posted a YouTube video demonstrating a "glitch" in the game "Tiger Woods PGA TOUR 08." It seems a setting in the game permits the virtual Tiger to make a "Jesus shot"--he walks on water, chips the ball off the surface, and puts it in the cup. The consumer is less complaining (since he clearly loves the game) than he is using YouTube to point out a game issue.

Certainly no one was going to avoid purchasing the game because of this one video, but EA SPORTS posted a response. Their motivation had nothing to do with proving the consumer incorrect or defending the game but instead promoted the game with an excellent, entertaining viral video.

Who knows--maybe EA SPORTS was behind the initial "consumer" video and this entire YouTube dialog is nothing but a carefully orchestrated viral campaign. While this sort of manipulation can often backfire on a brand, in this case I don't think their consumer base would care; the tone is lighthearted and the response video so funny and so perfectly suited to both Tiger's and the game's brands that it wouldn't matter whether or not Levinator25 is a real consumer.

Both videos are below. Enjoy this terrific example of how a brand can leverage Social Media for an unexpected brand-driving engagement with consumers. (Thanks to Patrick for sharing this.)

Hollywood meets flyover country with a Navistar International-funded documentary about trucking and drivers. The company invested $2 million in the 45-minute documentary and will spend another $3 million promoting the movie, called "Drive and Deliver." The movie will get a red carpet premiere at the Great American Trucking Show in Dallas this week. You can see the trailer and learn about the "stars" of the documentary on the International Trucks site.

According to the New York Times, the documentary includes both candid discussions with truckers as well as beauty shots of the LoneStar. The soundtrack includes music by Merle Haggard, Lynyrd Skynyrd, the Marshall Tucker Band and Hank Williams. The movie was directed by Brett Morgen, whose credits include “The Kid Stays in the Picture,” a documentary about Hollywood producer Robert Evans.

Is Navistar International Corporation getting into the film business? No, but they are looking to raise awareness of their $120,000+ LoneStar truck and to make a statement to their target audience of hard-working, long-hauling truckers.

Why finance an expensive documentary--an effort that will require a third of Navistar International's annual marketing budget? “This is about generating word of mouth, positive word of mouth” says a company exec. Added an exec from Fathom Communications, the agency that produced "Drive and Deliver," "The film is a platform to create indelible interactions between the long-haul trucking community and the brand and elevate the conversation beyond products and product specs."

Is this a smart strategy? Time will tell, but already Navistar International and LoneStar are getting more media attention than a truck company and its new model typically receive. And their plan to roll out the documentary to their core audience is right on target: Following the premiere at the truck show, the movie will be screened at more than 50 truck stops around the country and will then be released on DVD.

The biggest challenge may be to prevent this marketing program from seeming like a marketing program. Like all branded entertainment programs, the key is make sure the content and execution is focused on the needs of the audience and not on the needs of the brand.

Already, it seems "Drive and Deliver" may be falling on the wrong side of this gray line: The trailer features many glorious shots of a sparkling clean LoneStar. While one can't blame the brand for wanting some beauty shots of the product, even the hint of spin or hype will destroy the authenticity of the documentary and thus ruin the intended connection with the grounded audience. Spending $5 million to connect with your trucker audience and then leaving them shaking their heads and laughing over the unrealistically antiseptic trucks could reduce the brand's return on their marketing investment.

Navistar International seems to recognize this. The Times notes that a rough cut of “Drive and Deliver” contained "perhaps a few too many shots of the behemoth LoneStars, their chrome and oversize grilles gleaming brightly." Fathom reports that "some of those shots will probably be edited out before next week."

That "probably" worries me--if the brand is looking at the movie and questions if there's too many beauty shots of immaculate trucks, then I'm sure the intended audience will feel there's far too many of those shots. With brandertainment, an ounce of restraint is worth a pound of embarrassment, ridicule, and diminished results.

This is not a post about marketing. This is about how one man can touch so many lives with nothing more than his passion and compassion, a video, and the power of the Internet. (And if you think meaninful emotional experiences only happen in the real world, then read on and view the video below.)

I am sure you've all seen Randy Pausch's "Last Lecture." If so, then you'll share my sadness at his passing.

If not, you'll first want to know the story before viewing the movie below. Randy became famous when he participated in a Carnegie Mellon lecture series called The Last Lecture. Speakers in this series have the chance to convey the wisdom they'd impart if their lecture was, in fact, the last one before they died.

In Randy's case, it was really his last lecture. Dying from pancreatic cancer, he gave his "last lecture" in front of colleagues and family. His moving talk, "Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams," can be viewed below. Although you may have seen Randy on Oprah and other shows, if you have not yet seen the original video of his Carnegie Mellon presentation, you'll find it time well spent.

I never met Randy, but I feel the world is a lesser place without him. Then again, he enriched the world far more than most, so I guess we can all be glad for the gifts he's left behind. My condolences and best wishes are with his spouse, children, family, friends, and colleagues.

Sometimes a press release can say one thing but mean another. Such is the case with this week's PR from CBS Interactive, which struggles mightily to persuade readers that online video is really, really good for traditional TV. It failed to convince me, but tucked discreetly at the end of the press release is a nugget of wisdom worth noting.

CBS Interactive very much wants to prove that the online streaming of television shows does not hurt but rather enhances the network's broadcast viewership. Says an executive of Magid Media Labs, the company that produced the study, "The results are clear: by making their programming available through the CBS Audience Network, CBS has expanded the reach and audience for its content without impacting their traditional television viewership." After reviewing the data summarized in the press release, I don't believe this conclusion is clear at all.

For example, the press release proclaims that "35% of the online video-watching audience say(s) they are now more likely to watch CBS programming on television because they connected with the shows online." Doesn't this mean that the vast majority--the remaining 65%--indicated they are no more likely and perhaps even less likely to watch CBS as a result of online programming?

Even if the survey found what Magid Media Labs says it found, what does this mean for the future? If the online distribution of television shows doesn't impact broadcast viewership in 2008, can we assume this will be the case in 2009 and beyond? I believe that would be an incorrect conclusion to make.

The impact of online TV upon traditional TV is limited by two factors at the current time. The first is broadband penetration; according to a Magna Global USA study, the average age of CBS viewers is 54, and the 2008 Pew Internet and American Life Project Survey indicates that just 23% of this age group has broadband access. This means that high-speed Internet access will grow rapidly for CBS viewers in the coming years and as it does, the corresponding increase in online viewing will have a significant impact on traditional TV viewing habits.

The second factor that today prevents online shows from sapping broadcast viewership is the limited selection of programming CBS makes available on the Internet. Currently, CBS.com has no full episodes of hit sitcom "Two and a Half Men," one full episode of "Rules of Engagement," and just two full episodes of "CSI," the network's top-rated TV show. As CBS increases their online selection and offers more complete seasons of programming, consumers will be drawn away from broadcast television and toward the always-on, always-available benefits of online television.

The discussion about whether or not online programming impacts traditional viewership is not the most interesting part of the CBS Interactive press release. Hidden in the final paragraph is this: "68 percent of respondents said that the CBS Audience Network had the 'right amount' of advertising on the site. Overall, 50 percent of respondents correctly recalled the brand of an ad they saw during their viewing experience."

This study shows that decreasing the number of ads (as is done on CBS.com and every other TV network site) improves the value of the brand impression, but this message seems to be falling on deaf ears. Network television has continued to increase ad time and decrease content time in an effort to improve revenues, which are derived from brands seeking to reach and gain affinity with viewers. But the growth in ad time hasn't produced improved brand opportunities; it's increased the clutter and caused consumers to flock to ad-zapping DVRs.

It's easy to see why consumers weary of CBS's advertising overload would express appreciation for CBS Interactive's online ad approach. An episode of "How I Met Your Mother" runs 30 minutes on network television, of which eight minutes is advertising; over 25% of the sitcom's 30-minute running time consists of ads. This same episode lasts just 23:50 if viewed online, which means that a mere 6% of the consumers' time is dedicated to viewing ads.

That fact that over two-thirds of consumers find online TV's less intrusive advertising appropriate is no surprise at all. Nor is it really a surprise that fewer ads means more attention and better recall of the brands advertised. The real surprise is why--when faced with the potential for a shrinking audience, shifts in consumer's leisure habits, growing discontent about ad saturation, and diminished ad reach due to DVRs--networks don't take a page from online TV's success and decrease ad time. Fewer ads can mean more consumer attention, happier consumers, increased ratings, and just possibly improved ad rates.

MediaPost shares a study from Ipsos MediaCT that shouldn't surprise us. It demonstrates that the share of video consumed on TV is decreasing and on computers it is rising.

Considering that as recently as five years ago, the percentage of video viewed on either the television or the movie theater screen was probably 99%, the current stats are pretty striking. Among those who have streamed or downloaded video content, which is 52% of Americans age 12 and older, the share of video viewed online has grown from 11% to 19% in just one year.

And of course, the portion of video viewed on a computer monitor increases as age decreases--consumers age 12 to 17 view just 55% of their video on TV and 24% on a computer. While this isn't particularly unexpected, what I found surprising is how much online video is being consumed by older Americans. If you think those 55 and older are glued to their TVs and only use their PCs to check email, you'll be surprised to learn that among this cohort, almost one of every five hours of video viewing occurs on a computer.

This is just further evidence that marketers are going to need to shift more of their marketing dollars online. This will take some creativity and a willingness to experiment, since online video advertising is not yet standardized.

As discussed here last week, online video advertising is not likely to take the form of 30- and 60-second spots, an ad format that is being rejected by consumers on television and won't be any more welcome online. ABC.com and Hulu are experimenting with movies and TV shows that are interrupted just as frequently as on television, but with substantially fewer and shorter ads. If this ad approach catches on--and I think it will--this could mean that video advertising inventory (both TV and online combined) could shrink in the coming years.

This sounds like a problem for marketers, but there is a trade off--consumers seem to be accepting of ads they cannot skip provided those ads are kept brief. And unlike on TV, online video ads can entice consumers to click through to learn more, so the right ad can create immediate and deeper engagement than is possible on TV.

If you care to learn more about the percentage of video consumers view on TV and PCs (not to mention portable DVD players, cell phones, and DVD players) visit MediaPost's Research Brief.

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

• Video Viewing Surges: This week's least surprising interactive news story comes from Mediapost, which reports that online video viewing continues to rise. According to comScore's Video Metrix service, U.S. Internet users viewed 11.5 billion online videos during March, 2008, representing a 13% gain versus February and a 64% gain versus March 2007. Continuing the unsurprising news is that Google sites (primarily YouTube) are the most popular video sites, accounting for 38% of all video viewing, up 2.6 points from the prior month. With so many consumers surfing for video entertainment, you'd have to figure somebody (probably Google) will eventually figure out how to make advertising in or around video clips relevant, welcome, effective, and profitable, wouldn't you?
  


• Yahoo On Top; Google Nowhere in Sight: It's not often you can see a category list of top online destinations and not find Google in or near the #1 spot, but in this case they're not even on the list. MediaPost published a list of the top sites for financial news and information; Yahoo leads the list, and Google is notably absent. The search giant has a decent finance site, but for some reason it's never gained traction unlike just about everything else Google touches.
  
  Another unusual thing about the financial site data is the demographics. How often do you see a demographic breakdown of online users and find less than 10% under the age of 25? This group is older (with a mean around 40 years old) and wealthier (with mean HH income between $75k and $100k). On this blog, I've shared information about how affluent Web users feel (and are) ignored to some extent by online advertisers, so if you're seeking the affluent online, all you need to do is follow the money news.
  
  
• Viacom Threatens the Internet: I normally have little patience for hyperbole, but this time it seems warranted. Google filed court documents that claim Viacom's suit against Google's YouTube, "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information," and they're right. Viacom is suing the video sharing service for its inability to keep copyrighted material off its site.
  
  While any owner of Intellectual Property can sympathize with Viacom as it combats the tidal wave of consumers posting its content to YouTube and other video-sharing sites, there seems little chance Viacom can win this suit. According to MediaPost, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides "safe harbor" that protects YouTube from liability for copyrighted material posted by users, and Groklaw notes, "Viacom is essentially asking the court to rewrite the DMCA safe harbor provision, and rewriting the law is exactly what courts are not supposed to do."
  
  Google has vowed to fight to the Supreme Court if necessary, and with implications that could impact some of the most popular sites and online activities, this case is worth watching.
  
  
• What Makes an Agency "Up and Coming"? According to this interesting article from Mediaweek, the agencies to watch are getting noticed with a focus on search, online experiences, viral content, and social media. Given those are the hottest marketing trends, I guess that should come as no surprise. Check out the brief but informative profiles of five up and coming interactive agencies: 360i, Big Spaceship, Deep Focus, EVB, and Schematic.
  
  What is interesting is how often in this brief article it is mentioned that an agency leader doesn't think in terms of advertising. Quotes include, "I think the interactive space is moving from media buying...", "When (he) thinks of the model he wants his agency to follow, he talks about architecture, not advertising," "(He) is rethinking the primacy of the ad campaign, which social media is rendering irrelevant," and "(He) has never considered himself an adman." Advertising is dead; long live advertising!
  
  
• Experiential Billboard: Periodically, I run across an Out Of Home execution that really rises above the clutter of ignorable billboards. From Adland comes this Saatchi & Saatchi campaign for Kill Bill featuring a blood-drenched billboard, street, and cars. You may love this or hate it, but you have to admit it's tough to ignore. If a consumer is grossed out by the OOH campaign, they probably weren't a good target for the bloody film in the first place.
  
  
  

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

• Is UCG Dead? AdRants is always an interesting read. Most of the time I agree, but this time I don't. AdRants takes Red Bull to task for using a YouTube strategy that involves consumers uploading their own videos. Blogger Steve Hall declares User Generated Content (UCG) old and boring: "Memo to marketers: this idea is dead." He is incorrect; marketing tactics rarely die, but they can get boring when nothing new is brought to them. While tech early adopters may feel branded YouTube UCG campaigns are stale, they should remember how many consumers are still in the process of growing more comfortable with shooting and editing their own video. There's still room for these sorts of campaigns, provided the strategy is unique and creative, is focused on the right audience, and fits the brand. (Steve is right about one thing: "You STILL have to have broad-reaching awareness tactics like TV behind it if you're going to get anyone to participate.")
  
  
• Email Still Works: As if reinforce the point that tactics don't die merely because they've been around awhile, a new eMarketer report announces that email is alive and well. Half of US adult e-mail users surveyed said they had made an online purchase in the previous year as a result of permission-based marketing. In addition, e-mail was second only to customer reviews on Web sites for influencing online purchases. eMarketer's report also has words of caution to email marketers: "Consumers are increasingly willing to revoke permission that they have previously granted and that the bar for relevance remains high. About one-third of respondents... said they had stopped doing business with at least one company as a result of poor e-mail marketing practices." I don't know why any of us in the marketing field would need a reminder to stay relevant, but there you have it.
  
  
• Caress Puts Words in Spokesperson's Mouth: Brandweek features an article about Unilever's new campaign for the Caress brand, featuring Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls. She's created a "Brazilian inspired" cover of Duran Duran's hit "Rio," which the brand is making available for download on CaressBrazilian.com. Jon Cohen, co-president of agency Cornerstone, says "It's not just enough for brands, in today's crazy media landscape, to talk about the product. We had to leverage the music and talent to really bring this brand to life." I agree, but his thoughts don't square with the overly-scripted "interview" video on the site. Nicole says, "I teamed up with Caress Brazilian Exotic Oil Infusions Body Wash to encourage women all over the world to unleash the sensual spirit and charm of Brazil on their own skin. I am so excited to be here to remake my own Brazilian version of Duran Duran's Rio for the launch of the Caress Brazilian Exotic Oil Infusions Body Wash." No one talks like that and the singer looks uncomfortable trying to string all those brand terms together. This detracts from an otherwise strong brandertainment strategy.
  
  
  
  
• Tour Earth the Twitter Way: This is more of a time waster than it is a pertinent marketing link, but you still may enjoy a visit to TwittEarth. The site presents an image of the planet, and every few seconds it shares a random Tweet, geo-located on the globe. In addition to being voyeuristic fun, TwittEarth is also an excellent reminder of how quickly social media tools such as Twitter can go global.
  

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

• An Absolut World is global! I've enjoyed the "In an Absolut World" campaign, which has featured some eye- and attention-catching concepts, such as protesters and police attacking each other with pillows. Their campaign has been creative and inclusive--but a Mexican ad agency missed the inclusive part, which highlights the challenges of branding and advertising in a global world. Time was a brand could say one thing in one country and a different thing somewhere else, but no more. The new ad, which shows a map with a third of the US annexed to Mexico "In an Absolut World," is causing a stir. Politics and national identity aside, the ad is stupid and inconsistent with the Absolut campaign--instead of portraying a world without divisions, it creates them. (BTW, for a terrific view in an Absolut world and a great microsite, check out http://www.absolut.com/iaaw.)
  
  
• Dot-Bomb all over again: If you've been involved with digital media since the 90s, I am sure you have fond memories of the dot-bomb era of 1999 to 2001. Is it about to happen all over again? Red Envelope, among the most well known of e-commerce site, is rumored to be shutting down shortly. The upscale online retailer lost their line of credit and is seeking buyers, but their SEC filing says they don't know if one can be found in time. It's hard to know what to make of this; certainly ecommerce is huge with many sites making money. What was Red Envelope's problem? Was it cost containment? Leadership? Brand? As the chips fall, I'll be watching for news and insights on how a once mighty online retailer failed.
  
  

• Media Fracturing a Little More: Remember how simple TV was back in the day? You had your fuzzy local UHF and your three to five VHF channels. (And if you even know what those acronyms are, you're as old as I am.) But today, everyone's a content producer online and even big companies are getting into the came. According to Adweek, Microsoft is going all Hollywood, having unveiled an ambitious slate of original programming created for its multiple Web platforms, including the MSN portal, MSNBC.com and Xbox Live. Their hope is to begin to draw more viewers and more media dollars way from TV. Toward this end, the software giant is producing new shows such as In Need of Repair, a male-aimed home improvement show featuring a pair of sophomoric, mostly inept hosts; Seven Secrets About..., a light look at the secrets of pop culture icons such as Justin Timberlake; and What on Earth Is Going On?, a channel/series aimed at raising social consciousness. Will Redmond be the next Hollywood? (Probably not, but it is fun to ask.)
  
  
• Can Social Media Go Too Far? I was bothered by the new My Starbucks Idea site for reasons I couldn't quite put my finger on. An article from Harvard Business Online helped me figure it out. Starbucks doesn't just ask for ideas but permits visitors to see and vote on the ideas. The top ideas on Starbucks' idea site all involve discounts, which begs the question if it's asking too much for customers to think about the brand and not themselves. For instance, some years ago, Starbucks started featuring music by indie artists and offering their CDs for sale. It was a great match of brand and a new revenue stream, but I suspect if the company had asked for customer input, they might not have gotten much support. (I can imagine the feedback running along the lines of "Give me more discounts; don't try to sell me stuff I can get on iTunes.") Asking customers for ideas and feedback is the mark of a great brand, but asking them for business ideas and then turning this into a form of transparent social media could actually backfire. What happens if Starbucks customers vote for discounts but the company decides not to act on that idea?
  
  
• Parties as Marketing: I am undecided on this technique to build Word of Mouth (WOM). Brands are turning to House Party, a company that helps to encourage brand-themed parties in homes across the nation. The New York Times has an article about one such party program, Ford's Big Drive. The idea is to encourage Ford owners to throw parties where guests can experience the brand in some way. Are people really going to walk their guests to their garages, ask them to sit in their cars, and give them test drives? That seems unlikely, but this much is clear, the combination of Oprah's Big Give with the Ford Big Drive House Party promotion is capturing some hearts. Ten parties will win the opportunity to give away a Ford to the needy, and people are stoked. Says one poster to the site, "I could never afford to give on this scale! I just want to cry when I think of the opportunity that we've been given!" Still, the bottom line is whether sponsoring branded house parties actually works to create WOM or achieve other marketing goals; the House Party site makes promises but cites no research or results.
  

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

• Hot teen trend--or April Fool's joke? eMarketer had me going for a second. They report on a study that found teens are turning away from their PCs, game consoles, and cell phones to seek more quality time with parents. I believed it for a bit, but when they reported parents declining their children's friend invitations on MySpace, I got suspicious. The last straw was the finding that 98% of teens surveyed said they would respond to a marketing promotion involving "A Long Bus Ride With Your Parents." Nice try.
  

• The Non-Traditional Advertising Blog has an informative article about RedBullSurfing.com. The site makes use of Immersive Media's 360-degree technology to give visitors a sense of riding a surfboard into a break. The tiny video window rather undermines the experience, but the ability to control the video in all directions provides an excellent online experience. The sport, the site, and the technology work well in combination for the brand.
  
  
• No matter how good a concept, someone's going to find a way to twist it to no good. Take social media. Marketers are taking flack for flogs (fake blogs), MySpace corporate profiles, and PR Twitters, but at least they're not criminals. A couple of enterprising thieves found a way to turn social media into social crime. To cover a robbery, they posted a fake Craigslist post giving an address and announcing the belongings were free for the taking. The victim returned home to find people making off with his possessions. The couple responsible for the theft and the post are now behind bars (where they hopefully will not be given access to the Internet.)
  
  
• One way to go viral is to piggyback on something else that has gone viral. A rather brilliant if somewhat offensive viral video comes from LoveMe.com, a site where lonely men find beautiful Russian mail order brides (if the video is to be believed). Taking off on the famous Dove Evolution campaign, this video claims Russian mail order brides start beautiful and thus don't need the retouching seen in the Dove's viral video campaign. If you're the kind of man who would consider a mail order bride, you may just believe it.
  
  
• If you thought the social media space couldn't get more crowded or that the world doesn't need yet another social networking site, here's one that make sense: weplay, a social network for youth athletes and their parents and coaches. Kids can set up profiles, brag about their stats, link with friends, talk to coaches, check schedules, and interact with pro athletes. Making sure parents aren't left out, the site offers a forum to manage car pools, find out about equipment, get up-to-date scheduling information, and communicate with other athletes' families. weplay is doing social media by the book: focusing on the needs of a defined group and giving them the tools they want and need. We'll be watching this site.
  
  
• Old media is finding a way to make digital media work for them, rather than against them. The Wall Street Journal features an article about magazines that are buying and partnering with digital properties to keep readers involved and advertisers happy. One interesting use of social media is Condé Nast's collaboration with Dillard's. A promotion launching next week will use tools from news-aggregation site Reddit, which Condé Nast bought in 2006, to let visitors to Dillard's Web site vote on merchandise to be featured in online ads. I'm not sure if online shoppers will find this a worthwhile interaction, but I respect Condé Nast for trying something innovative and interesting.
  
  
• Here's a recent TV ad that made me stop and take notice. Even in a bar with the sound off, I could immediately recognize the brand and the message (which is one way to identify a great ad). The ad is for Travelers Insurance, and the use of striking visuals with the protective umbrella that is their logo made this one stand out. Would you agree?

For some brands, the brand attribute of edginess isn't right, but for condom and adult product company, Durex, edginess if perfectly appropriate. And in this ad, they mine inappropriate humor to maximum result.

This ad would never be run in the US, but more likely the spot was created for the internet and not for broadcast. In this case, being edgy was not only was appropriate for the brand but also vital for driving viral buzz and traffic online. The ad was launched a month ago and already has tens of thousands of hits on Google and over a third of a million views on YouTube. According to Alexa, the traffic rank for Durex.co.uk has risen by 50% in the last three months.