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  While both of these examples are a bit outdated, they paint a perfect picture of how things happen today.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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.