Is data destroying the advertising industry or are marketers focusing too much on measurement? I think this is one of those rare arguments where there really isn’t a right answer.  Or at least there isn’t a large enough group of people ready to come forth with a confident response. It’s kind of like asking for fitness advice.  If there are five people in the room, it’s pretty probable that they’ll all have different perspectives on the right way to lose weight.

A lot of what we hear from digital and traditional agencies alike involves things like mastering speed, innovation, and engagement.  Take for instance, one of the most easily indefinable brands, Burger King, and the brand work they did with Crispin (ie. Subservient Chicken/Meat Perfume).  While both of these examples are a bit outdated, they paint a perfect picture of how things happen today. The goal is to get thousands of people tweeting to a hashtag, hundreds of comments on a Facebook page, blog coverage on top news aggregators, and insane amount of web traffic to a customized web landing page.  Sure this is great, and a lot can be said about building brand awareness, recognition, and cultural relevance.  But at the end of the day, Burger King was spending a ton of money on programs that weren’t creating measurable sales results.

Anyone that’s ever had anything to do with advertising knows that a lot of things have to happen in order for an ad to be effective.  The messaging, the medium, the frequency, the audience- all of these factors have to be exactly right for something to click with a consumer.  In the past, it was enough for advertisers to say three million people saw your television spot.  More recently, it was enough to say 3,000 people clicked on your banner ad.  Then came social measurements- your brand has one hell of a Twitter presence.  I’m not sure what the next iteration of data is going to be, but I’ve got to imagine it’s going to have to be something to do with sales impact.

Don't get my wrong, I'm by no means an advertising cynic. I love the Old Spice campaign just as much as the next guy.  What I'm skeptical on right now is measured media, and I'm not the only one.  Marketers from Coke, AT&T and others are out to reinvent web measurement.  And no, I'm not asking that a banner ad click be tied directly to a measureable milestone. I'm simply asking for something more substantial than two million national media impressions.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Well, it’s official, I’ve jumped out of the ad game and into an online marketing role at Charter Business.  No, it wasn’t a bad break up. In fact, I had a really great run for the first two years of my career.  In the end, it comes down to the area in which I see myself succeeding, an area that is consistently growing, and an area where I myself I have an unending love affair- digital, social, interactive, and everything that happens online.

So I’m one week in at Charter and I’ve learned more than I could imagine.  While my past experience does extend to national, I’ve never worked on a brand with such massive size and scope.  A competitor in innovation in an area in which I’m super interested (see my recent post on The Future of Digital/Streamable Media) I’m really excited about the opportunity in front of me at Charter.

As for my blog, I still plan on keeping current with new posts on the future of media and marketing.  But more importantly, you might want to bookmark Popcorn Jury as I’ll have a full premium cable package with unlimited access to On-Demand.  Coming from someone who’s been cut off from cable for the past two years, this could be quite scary. 

Thanks for following.  Stay tuned.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I've been busy blogging, just not for myself. I plan on posting some new stuff here soon, but in the meantime, take a minute to check out some of the new entries on the Schupp Company blog.  All of the links below are worth reading. It's been a great collaboration excercise with all the employees and the interns at Schupp. Head over there and add them to your RSS.

The Bottom Rung Presents: Harder, Better, Faster, Schupper

The Bottom Rung Presents: Oh Snap!

Schupp Company Volunteers in Joplin, MO

Instagram

5 Tips to Landing Your Dream Internship

The Bottom Rung Presents: Schupp Company and the Trolls of the Second Floor

Controlled Agression: The Art of Getting a Drink at the Bar

Beer Today. Gone Tomorrow?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I get Google+, I really do. But I also think it's unimportant, unneccesary, and a little bit inconvenient. Trust me, I love Google. Their search engine, Maps, and Places features are applications that I literally couldn't live without. Their social networking features from Buzz to Wave, to Groups just haven't caught on with me. In fact, I'm actually utilizing Groups for a freelance gig with a local designer and it's almost unusable as a source to share work, inspirations or ideas. I think Google+ is going to fall down by the wayside too. Why? Because the experience isn't friendly, the design isn't pretty, and the idea isn't innovative. In fact, I'd argue it's taking Facebook and Twitter backwards, using "privacy" and "circles" as excuses to jump into the social business sphere one additional time.

Now that I've got that out of way, I'll touch on the technology. Google is by far one of the smartest companies in the world.  If anyone brings us into the "Minority Report" millenium, it will be the minions at Google.  I agree with the ideas inside Google+.  I'll also agree that they have one hell of a marketing team. If the actual experience matched up to the point-of-views portrayed in the videos below, we would all be interacting in ways only seen in Steven Speilberg movies. But we're not there yet. 

My mom is the master of Facebook. She's not quite into Twitter. She wouldn't go near Google+.

That, therein, lies the problem.

Well Google...will you prove me wrong?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I've seen two of these in the past two months.  The first, for Shock Top Belgian-Style Wheat Ale, and now another for Gillette.  Aside from getting some word-of-mouth online, what are these stunts doing for the brand.  No one would even know they exist if you didn't spend thousands of dollars to fly by and shoot it from above.  A dying tactic, I'm over the field ad.

Is this not a giant waste of money?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Here lately, all I see is spam on my Facebook wall. The most popular? Probably "See a girl have an orgasm while riding a rollercoaster". I have a hard time believing that 20-30 of my friends clicked the link, but then again, you never know. Either way, I think the most important word in advertising today is relevancy. It's ditching the production model of the past- having an idea, and executing it as soon as possible to capture a relevant audience at a relevant time. This is especially true in digital.

Ed Relf, CCO of Mind Candy says it best:

"I have worked in places where it takes as long to sign off the bugdget as it does to create the campaign. It's a broken model that doesn't work. If I have an idea in the morning, we execute it by the afternoon. It's the only way it can work in the online space."

For all I know, Webroot could've been working on this for months.  Regardless, it's simple, relevant, and smart. 

Still, my advice for not getting a virus?  Go buy a Mac.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I’m consistently amazed at the ways in which we consume media.  For me, it’s a mixture of online and on-demand.  I very rarely catch something on TV as it’s happening live.  But then again, who does.  Almost everything online happens in real-time.  On television, even when something is live, it’s often way behind.  Take the Bachelorette, or other similar shows as an example.  Sure, we think we’re witnessing something live, but in reality, there’s a bunch of people online already chatting about the outcome. 

That’s not to say that media can exist solely in an online environment.  Nowadays blogs serve as the initial point of contact, while traditional news sources often confirm a fact.  I read movie blogs to get a feel for a movie, but I turn to the pros for validation from afar.  Then again, one could argue that even for expert reviews and opinions, I don’t turn towards a traditional news source.  While Roger Ebert works for the Chicago Sun Times, no one ever said you had to be a subscriber to access his review archive online. 

For me, traditional media doesn’t always work.  I don’t want products to be sold on me; I want to be sold on them.  If you put a Brooks Brothers ad in front of me, oftentimes, I’ll flip right through it.  On the other hand, if the editor at GQ hails it as a hot summer item, you better believe I’m taking two looks.  For other people, it’s less of a science; they simply want exposure to a brand.  A print ad in a magazine, a Web banner on favorite site, or a billboard on the highway is enough to build that brand.  I suppose an integrated effort on behalf of the brand is becoming more and more crucial so that every member of the audience is impacted.

At the end of the day, I don’t know whether the way we consume media is shifting or the way media wants to be consumed has changed.  You might be reading this from an iPhone today, an iPad tomorrow, or an RSS feed months after that.  Or, you may be a traditional type, someone who won’t ever read this at all. 

Whatever the fact, as long as people are reading and watching, the art of writing will forever live on.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

If I worked for Lego, I'd immediately bring this guy on board. Why? He embodies everything that the brand stands for- creativity, culture, construction, and collaboration. Sponsor his work in a traveling art gallery, feature him in a behind-the-scenes web series as he pieces together his next project, or profile his work on a micro site devoted to customers living the Lego legacy.

Sometimes, the things people do with products are more interesting and more descriptive than the products themselves. 

The Create or Else program, crafted by Oglivy highlights inspirational movers and shakers.

Brands- maybe it's time you take note.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I wanted to see what the weather was like in surrounding areas throughout Missouri after hearing about possible tornados.  With that, I googled "Rolla."  Here's what I got.

Traditional Google search for "Rolla" (2:15pm- 5/25/11)

Note: The most up-to-date news article is roughly 12 days old.  It has nothing to do with weather.

"Realtime" Google search for "Rolla" (2:15pm- 5/25/11)

The digital world moves much faster than the traditional media environment.  Are you up to speed?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

An interesting, short and relevant animation from Barkley that illustrates the most basic idea behind influence. While some customers continue to use older channels of communication, others are using new channels like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Foursquare to broadcast and publicize their relationship with brands. Are you ready to respond?

*video courtesy of Barkley

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Originally posted on schuppco.com.

I think advertising professionals have been proclaiming every year for the past five years as the year of mobile. I guess it was just safe to assume that at some point, technology would catch up with itself, and there would finally be a platform to reach consumers on the go. It’s probably not much different than the traditional television and radio days when advertisers looked onward towards the Internet as the newest way to connect and communicate with consumers.

I think it might be safe to assume that we’ve finally reached a point when marketing through a mobile platform could really make a difference. I still don’t think this is the year of mobile, but I think it’s kind of like the advent of mobile, an assurance that there’s major activity to come. My main reason for this assumption is Apple. With the iPod, the iPhone, and now the iPad 1 and 2, I think it’s safe to say the industry is becoming less and less early adopter and more and more casual consumer. Everyone has or wants one of these products, and those that don’t will want one in the next one or two years.

It’s been reported that brands spent 80% more on mobile ads in 2010 than in 2009. I’d imagine that this stat was similar in previous years. Most likely this change is due to new ad networks that offer more interactive ad buys like Apple’s iAd and Google’s AdMob. I’d imagine another reason might be the growth of smartphone usage over the past few years and the forecasts from Morgan Stanley stating that in 2012, smartphones will outsell personal computers.*

I think one barrier to entry in the mobile space is what type of content a brand should create. Should they create a replica of their Web site optimized for mobile, a geo-location platform to identify the nearest branch, or create a custom app that makes the product or service fun to play with? Then, there’s always the option of traditional banner ads that appear on mobile-friendly sites. The important thing to note is that anything and everything can now be optimized for mobile. Not only that, it can be optimized per platform, per user, per device to create an experience that will extend the reach of any integrated campaign into the hands of core consumers on the go.

I think Whole Foods provides a perfect example of a brand exploring the mobile space. Take their Market Missions iPhone app for instance. It’s an app that challenges shoppers to expand their palates by exploring a range of nutrient-dense foods. It allows users to earn badges through interactive, in-store missions and get simple, practical advice on shopping and cooking. Also, they’ve got the Market Recipes app, which allows users to build grocery lists, filter foods by category, or even create a dinner menu with the one or two ingredients you have at your disposal. They could’ve opted for a mobile couponing system, mobile banner ads, or a Foursquare-based promotion (they have in the past), but they went with specific apps for specific platforms for specific people and have seen success in both.

As the world gets more and more mobile, it’s important to start asking the question- could consumers do more with my brand in their hands? Chances are, the answers yes. The tough part is deciding what to provide and when to provide it. If I were you, I’d get in at the ground level. It may not be the year of mobile, but I don’t think we’ve ever been closer than we are now.

* Data taken from the 2011 Engauge Digital Report.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Monetary incentive for checking in.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In reading Ad Age's recent interview with Carolyn Everson, the new Sales Chief at Facebook, one quote stood out to me. 

"The threshold at Facebook is that marketing should be as valuable and useful to the consumer as the rest of the Facebook experience." 

This is the mentality that drives the most innovative thinkers in today's communications industry. It brings me back to the Boulder Digital Works Conference held last week where Edward Boches of Mullen, tweeted (something along the lines of) "Why Didn't Bank of America come up with Mint.com? Why didn't Poloroid invent Flickr or Instagram?"  I wrote about this a long time ago in a post about "Creating Useful Things That Advertise" and I think it rings even more true today.  If we want to stay relevant in the age of the Internet and social sharing, we've got to start creating ads that are just as useful as the product they're advertising.

In her interview, Everson goes on to state, "In general, our industry suffers from the emphasis on click-thru-rates.To us, what's more important than click-thrus is "Are people paying attention to the message and remembering it?"  She concludes her argument by stating, "I'm not sure the marketing community understands Facebook's story just yet."

To her, I'd say this isn't just about Facebook.  The bigger issue is getting the marketing community to understand how to sell a story, start a relationship, and get people to come back to it.  A utility is one thing.  Ads are a whole different story.  Facebook is close, but it's just one tool in the marketing mix. This is an issue that needs to be attacked from the outside in. In my opinion, it's not just Madison Avenue- no one understands it just yet.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

There's something intrinsically wonderful about receiving a magazine in the mail. Oftentimes it's a status symbol. If you read Wired, you're on the edge of innovation. If you read Elle, you're on the forefront of fashion. It's also sort of enchanting. You have to wait for it, it only comes once a month, and there's weeks of anticipation between every issue. Every other form of content is instant, immediate, or delivered daily. In my own opinion, the digital editions of Men's Health, Wired, or GQ don't hold a candle to their print counterparts. Then again, I see why advertisers are ready to move past print. It's interactive, allows for links, videos, and social networking/sharing functionalities. More importantly, it eliminates the unnecessary step of reading the magazine, opening up a computer, and typing in a url. It's instant, therefore, to advertisers, it's immaculate.

I like separating my forms of media and in some cases, digital does win out. I read the USA Today on my iPad every morning, but haven't once considered subscribing to print. Books are another form that I prefer to read digitally. It's a new medium, much more entertaining, and much more convenient. It's strange how much I appreciate the digital bookshelf, but steer clear of the digital mag rack. I think the rich content of magazines make it harder to appreciate online.

Time will only tell if technology surpasses the magazine. There will be more engagement, but the line between professional editorial that's worthy of a subscription and online content that can be accessed with the click of a button will blur and blur into a period of publication panic. For all of us in advertising, this could get exciting. For the publishers out there, let's reaccess the value of print before we turn immediately to digital. The latter, while in its infancy, still leaves much to be desired.

Check out AdWeek's column on this subject titled, "Reading Ads" for a great video from Michael Wolff, two-time National Magazine Award winner and contributing editor at Vanity Fair.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Recently I joined the leadership team at REBUS, the young professional arm of the St. Louis Advertising Club in an effort to improve the content and visibility of their blog.  For the past year or so, I've been a contributing writer offering up insights on "How to Land an Ad Gig", "The Importance of Social Media in the Workplace", and "Deadlines- The Ultimate Inspiration" as well as some recaps for local events that took place at agencies like Rivet and Hoffman Lewis.  It's been a fun excercise that's allowed me to appeal to a wider audience as well as a more targeted audience- young advertising professionals looking for advice from people within the industry.

I think REBUS is an advertising network with a lot of potential, and although it's getting more mature (the group just celebrated it's 5th birthday in March), it feels as though it's still in its infancy.  I originally got involved in an effort to land a job at an agency.  The reason I stick around is because in the advertising industry, it can't hurt to continue to be in the know.  Each REBUS event takes place at a different agency, with presenters who showcase new and innovative thinking year after year.  Yes, there have been some roadblocks (an opinion from an outsider looking in), but I think the group has a leadership team with a vision for a successful now and a successful future, and I'm excited to be a part of it.

I encourage you to keep an eye on the content over at the REBUS blog.  It's not all my writing (in fact most of the articles are submitted by REBUS members and contributing writers) but I think the content is really compelling, educational, and most importantly- original and specific to our intended audience.  It will be growing throughout the year, and I look forward to sharing the vision with you as we move forward.

For those who aren't familiar with REBUS and want to know more, shoot me an email or check out thier page on the St. Louis Ad Club site.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

At last, there's incentive. 

I've written articles calling foursqure a "Social Media Playground for Internet Addicts."  I've accumultaed 215 checkins at a variety of different venues.  I've recieved foursquare promotions from resturants like Robust Wine Bar.  Hell, I've even written about what the brand needs to do to stay relevant in the always changing industry.  What do I have to show for it?  Nothing.  In fact, I'd now refer to Foursquare as one of two things: a.) a budding community for the laggard tech crowd or b.) the occasional app for social discoveries.  I think in a few years, it will simply be a graveyard of wasted potential (aka MySpace).  I really hope that I'm wrong.

So there's a not so new app (new to me) called "Get Glue" that allows you to check in to TV shows and movies (among other things). It's fun and movie studios, television studios, and advertisers are getting in on the game by allowing you to recieve stickers with every twenty checkins. The idea is a little cheesy, and I don't think it's destined for suceess, but I'd be lying if I said  I haven't been checking in relentlessy in an effort to get my "Your Highness" sticker set by Friday.  (P.S.- the stickers are real, physical stickers, not to be confused with fake foursquare badges).

Below is a video.  If you have an iPad, I suggest you check this out.  For those that have...thoughts?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

-Posted from my iPad.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

There's something about new product launches at Apple that really drive me nuts.  It's strange to think that a company as smart, innovative, and data-driven can't figure out a way to successfully predict the demand of a new product.  Even worse, I think they are completely capable of forecasting demand, they simply decide to throw aside the data in attempt to create a massive amount of word-of-mouth about the (un)availability of the product.  To make matters worse, I think that every single employee that works for Apple is in on the trick.

I find it frustrating when a new product isn't available.  Even worse, I find it frustrating to be forced to wait in a line at 6:00am only get turned down at the door for no available devices.  Adding to the fact are the employees who state, "We get new shipments every day, yet we can't guarantee you there will be any available."  I find it pretty contradictory quite frankly.  What's inspiring this rant?  My recent trip to the Apple store at the Saint Louis Galleria.  One of the more frustrating, yet totally not surprising shopping experiences I've ever had.  

Here's the deal.

I really want an iPad 2.  At the stage in the game, you wouldn't think availablitliy would be too limited.  Sure, on launch day, your going to have to wait in line for 5-6 hours, I get it.  Hell, even the following week.  But seriously, two weeks into the product launch and you still can't meet demand?  I find it strange.  So I call the Apple store Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday, each day, the employee on the other end of the line telling me the same thing, "We get shipments every day, you have to come wait in line (we recommend at 6:00am), and we give out tickets for all available devices."

So, along comes Saturday, and I make the trek to the mall around 5:30am.  Eyes pretty much glued shut, I sit in line, shopper #4, anxiously awaiting my iPad.  Considering I'm at the largest in-mall Apple store in the United States, on a Saturday, I figure I'm pretty much locked in for at least a 16GB or 32.  Next thing you know, two-and-a-half hours later, an Apple employee comes out to state, "We have two devices, both $899 64GB models for Verizon.  You know what this tells me?  They definitely didn't get a shipment.

So here's the biggest issue: Apple apparently didn't make enough product.  Here's the second biggest issue: Apple employees apparently lie.  I'm sure they knew (or at least had some inclination) that they wouldn't be receiving a shipment on Saturday morning. I worked in retail, and all our shipments came the night/day before. Even if the shipment was late, the employees should know the night before and alert customers accordingly.  As a company, they should be transparent about it.  If you make me get up at 5:30am to pay $600 for your product, I'll gladly do so.  But if you continually lie to me about shipments, about availability of the product, I'm eventually going to get pissed.

Or, there's always the possibility that employees literally do not have any idea about what's coming in and out of the store and when.  I think in that case, there's an even bigger problem at play.

I think all of this leads to a much bigger issue.  I've grown up in the "iWant It Now" generation.  I've never had to wait for anything.  Even something unique or rare can be bought off Amazon or Craigslist and shipped in 2-3 days tops.  We no longer have to go to the movie store.  Everything we could ever want to watch is available On Demand.  We don't have to go to a record store, a music shop, etc.  It's available instantly on iTunes.  Sites like Alice.com even make it possible to have basic household toiletry items delivered to your house on the same day every month.  The only thing I've ever had to wait for is an iPad.  And quite frankly, it's really pissing me off.

So maybe it's a business issue, a human resource error on employee training, or maybe I'm just a drama queen.  Hell, there's always the tsunami that could be causing an issue as well.  I think it all points to a larger flaw in my generation as a whole.  We have instant access to everything, and no longer is there such a thing as anticipation.  Still, I can't help but get angry when I can't give a company $600 for a product.  In the end, I guess Apple is the one laughing, because regardless of my rantings and rumblings, you'll still find me doing anything and everything I can to give them my money.

In the end, it's Apple. They own the market and their products own me.  Wish me luck.  Getting this thing ain't going to be easy.

And for those living under a rock, here's why I want one...

<p>The New iPad 2 from Jorge Luis on Vimeo.</p>

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The Ad Contraian (aka Bob Hoffman) represents what I would call "the Old Guard" of advertising. I don't want to write negatively about his thoughts, ideas, or opinions, but his blog posts are consistantly upsetting and controversial.  Then again, judging by the name he's selected for himself and his blog, I would imagine controversy may be the method behind his madness.

In a recent post titled, "Social Media's Massive Failure", Bob jumps on a recent case study that's caused some buzz within the industry- the battle of Pepsi vs. Coke and the less than successful (if you want to call it that) Pepsi Refresh campaign that ended last year. 

In his post Bob states, "The Refresh Project accomplished everything a social media program is expected to: Over 80 million votes were registered; almost 3.5 million "likes" on the Pepsi Facebook page; almost 60,000 Twitter followers. The only thing it failed to do was sell Pepsi.  It achieved all the false goals and failed to achieve the only legitimate one."

Here's my biased opinion as a believer in Pepsi's campaign and an avid Diet Coke drinker:

It's the product, not the media platforms that led Pepsi to the number three slot on the soda supply chain.

Sure, Pepsi could've ran a Super Bowl spot rather than taking part in a massive social media campaign.  Would that have increased it's marketshare?  I seriously doubt it.  There's something to be said about Coke as the market leader with 17% of the soda marketshare.  That's almost double Pepsi's share of 9.5%.  Now, think about the health push, and the focus on low-calorie, low-carb soda selections.  It's obvious to me that Diet Coke would be the number one alternative to the real thing.

Also, what Bob fails to note is that Coke launched a huge social media campaign themselves.  With the Expedition 206 campaign, Coke used social media to select “Happiness Ambassadors” who traveled to 206 countries to take photos, make videos, send out updates on Twitter and Facebook and connect with individuals around the world.  While the results may not be public yet, this was a project that was just as ambitious as the Pepsi Refresh campaign and just as focused on social media.  Couldn't this have contributed to Coke's overall success as well?

I think he's chosen an extremely easy case study to comment on and critique.  I think regardless of advertising/marketing, Coke is a better brand with a better product with a better following.  I guess the Old Guard just isn't ready to stand down on this one.

What do you think?  Do you blame Pepsi's decrease in market share on thier lack of traditional advertising?  I just blame the flavor.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »