erniesblog

World AIDS Day Video

World AIDS Day is December 1.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

Innocence Lost: Your Home Team, Rubbin' is Racin', War of the Worlds, and the TechCrunch YouTube Controversy

One of the first few dates I had with my wife was a hockey game in  Vancouver.  Although I never even saw snow until I was 18, I've been a Tampa Bay Lightning fan since expansion.  My wife, being from Vancouver, grew up with the Canucks.  In this particular game, I remember an opposing player drawing a penalty for something particularly nasty -- a seriously high stick, or blatant slashing -- something that almost started a brawl, but failed to.  The real reason peace prevailed (momentarily) was that the slash was a retaliation for an attempted, and almost successful,trip + slash -- courtesy of a Canucks enforcer, just a minute or so prior. I saw it happen, and maybe so did the ref, but he didn't call it.  When I pointed this out to my wife, she was aghast.  "No way," she said.  "The Canucks don't play dirty, ever."  It took a lot of conversation to get her to see that just because they were wearing the home team sweaters didn't mean they were all nice boys from Burnaby.

One of my favorite quotes from one of my least favorite movies is in Days of Thunder.  Tom Cruise's Character is complaining that another driver "just...slammed into" him.  Robert Duval's character, Harry Hogge, replies over the radio: "No, no, he didn't slam you.   He didn't bump you, he didn't nudge you... he *rubbed* you....And rubbin', son, is racin'.  Growing up near Daytona, having the dad I have, my exposure to NASCAR, dirt track, short track, and other kinds of internal-combustion-propelled competition came early and often. I was raised in a typically Southern, typically strict, Methodist household that espoused discipline, hard work, and above all, honesty.  But everybody knows NASCAR racers constantly "bend" the rules to well-past breaking.  How else you gonna' beat the other guy?  Rubbin' is racin'.

In 1938, Orson Welles directed the radio drama, War of the Worlds. During the first half hour of the 60 minute presentation, the invasion from Mars was communicated via faux news broadcasts.  It was disclaimed as a dramatization from the beginning, but not everyone heard the disclaimer.  The show caused a panic.  So much so, that the New York Times reported the story, Welles became famous, CBS had to promise never again to use, "We interrupt this program..." as a dramatic tool, and my Journalism 101 professor made me take a test about it.  Welles underestimated the innocence of his audience.  At first, it didn't go so well -- but eventually he did ok, partially because of it.

There's a HUGE discussion going on over a blog post at TechCrunch, in which  Dan Greenberg of the Commotion Group reveals some of the tactics his company uses to "force" a video to go viral on YouTube. I don't believe him when he says content doesn't matter, but other than that, it's an interesting post.  Enlightening if you don't think a lot about just how much attempted (sometimes successful) manipulation floods places like Google, and YouTube, and Digg every second.  Expected, though, if you think about these things.  (Google, YouTube, Digg, et. al. do think about it all the time, and constantly come up with new ways to combat new manipulation techniques.)  What's truly interesting to me, though, is the controversy it has spawned.  There are almost 500 comments on the post -- mostly angry comments -- and Greenberg has put up a follow up post to try to quell some of the anger.  The outrage seems to me to come from the notion that the internet is a place where users live in harmony, and everyone looks out for everyone else.  My spam box tells me different. Common sense does, too.

There are marketing tactics that are illegal.  Beyond that, there are tactics that are unethical.  On the web, there's less that's illegal, and thus, less that's considered unethical, in general.  Since everyone (including me) has his or her own definition of what's ethical, things get really fuzzy, especially on the web. My unethical might be your just fine. Whether you choose to employ techniques you or someone else might consider unethical is up to you.  But I can assure you, whatever you're doing, your competition is trying to better. Eventually, somebody crosses the line(s). Not sayin' it's right.  Not sayin' I condone it.  It just is.

Which is exactly my point.  Regardless of where you stand on the ethical issue, I'm surprised that so many people are surprised at the lengths someone would go to artificially juice a video on YouTube.  Truly shocked. Especially so many people who follow a totally tech-centric blog like TechCrunch. Reading the comments, I felt like I was watching innocence being lost -- and the people losing it were none too happy about it.

Which brings me, at long last, to the real point, as it relates to advertising.  Like it or not, the world is more transparent now.   Which means bad ideas and products get exposed more easily, and manipulations behind the marketing curtain are pretty much there for all to see.  Your prospects won't just respond to what you do anymore -- now, because they can know, and want to know -- they'll respond to how you do it.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

Misery loves company, global microbrands, shaping your message, etc.

Sunday before Thanksgiving, and the treadmill hasn't slowed one bit for me.  Though I know it has for many here in the US, so instead of some drawn-out piece to make a single point, I'm going to riff on a few things that struck me lately, and hopefully create some drawn-out piece to make several points.  Points that, by the way, at this moment anyway, are only connected because all three are in my head.

MISERY LOVES COMPANY
This is for all the creatives:

Last week, I happened in as my wife was watching the Alexandria City Council proceedings on what amounts to a local version of C-span.  They were talking about historic buildings (of which this town has many) and one in particular that's being renovated, or rather, rebuilt into a hotel.  Some guy on the Council was just ripping the architects a new one.  Not that he seemed to have all the architectural terms down right, though, but he sure knew what he liked and didn't like.  The cornices they had proposed to move one story would make the building look squat.  The windows didn't scale smaller on the way up, and that will make the building look as if it will topple, not to mention it's not in keeping with historic style, he said.  He said some other stuff, and feeling for the architects, I asked aloud, "Who is this guy?  Is he a hired expert or some architect who's just upset that he didn't get the gig?  Does he have the power to make all these changes?"  My wife didn't know.  I went into the other room to read my book.  When I came back, she was watching something else, but told me about the rest of the Council proceedings.  Turns out the architects were at the Council only to get a permit to relocate an air conditioning unit that would remain unseen from the street, because placement of the interior duct work will make it more efficient if they move that unit.  The building is near completion.  Mr. "I hate this building"  is a Councilman who hadn't been to a council meeting in four months.  This was his first time ever looking at anything from these architects, or anything to do with this building, really, because EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE BUILDING HAD BEEN APPROVED IN 2004, and thus, is already built.  The cornices, the windows -- everything he wanted to change.  Apparently, he knew this when he was commenting, yet continued to ask to hold approval for review.  In the end,  people who were paying attention prevailed.  The air conditioning unit can move, and the building goes on. 

All I could think at the time is -- we're not usually that lucky when this happens in advertising.   I once had to rebuild a set on a shoot day, because the Creative Director who approved it (several times,) and who sat for three days 20 feet away, watching it get built while we shot other stuff, decided the day of that particular shoot that she didn't like that particular set. But for all the times a client, or Creative Director, or AE, or when I was a director, almost any agency creative, has pulled the old "I know I haven't been here, or been paying attention at all, and I know the thing is completely done, but here's what I want you to change" gag, it's at least good to know that the architects have to put up with the same thing we do.

GLOBAL MICROBRANDS
I used to write more about Global Microbrands,  because Hugh used to write more about Global Microbrands, and it's his shtick, and  I like it and believe in it, so I shamelessly TrackBack.  Back when I was launching Tangelo, and promoting Use A Stick, and blogging like an insane man, I suppose I was able to build a bit of an -- if not global, then national or continental (small "c"), or maybe I'm dreaming and it's only regional, with a few stray Brits thrown in -- microbrand.  Now that I work such intense hours for somebody else, I don't blog as much.  But as I wrote last week, it's good to get some validation by learning that mainstream trade pubs are finally picking up on what I was saying two or three years ago.  Perhaps if I'd had a bigger microbrand, more people would have listened sooner, and the entire advertising world would completely understand the implications of new media and the new ways people communicate by now.  Of course that's a joke -- don't be silly.  My point today, though, is that Hugh has a new post on Global Microbrands, and it's good, and you should read it.  The deal is this -- the playing field is leveled.  Simple as that.  If you're an agency, or an advertiser, and you fail to consider a guy in a dorm room worthy competition, eventually, you're going to lose.  In the meantime, you should update your Facebook profile.

SHAPING YOUR MESSAGE
When shaping a message to motivate an audience, if at all possible, try not to completely contradict yourself, or alienate your audience, or cause audience members to want to hurt you.  One of my old examples of this is something I used to encounter frequently when I lived in Vancouver, which is a town filled with people with green blood.  I have nothing whatsoever against the environment -- I'm an outdoorsman.  What I have a problem with is a smoke-belching, questionably roadworthy, oil-leaking minibus with bumper stickers all over it admonishing me (in not always a nice way) to clean up my personal environmental act.  Put those stickers on your electric car, pal, and you're saying something. 

So, today in church (Episcopal -- I'm Methodist, my wife is Anglican, so Episcopal wins), the retired grand PooBah for finances for the Episcopal Church (not just our church -- all of them) is in the pulpit.  He used to work for Goldman Sachs, but came to the Church to help out the financial situation.  He did a great job in his job before he retired.  The pension fund for Episcopal clergy is one of the best performing pension funds of any organization, anywhere.  It went from $A couple of billion to over $10 billion in a few short years.  Nice work, dude.  Then he goes on to tell us how important our particular church is, because it's so historic (both Washington and Lee went there), and because it's used a lot to show visiting dignitaries the vibrancy of the Episcopal Church in the DC area, and in the US.  His point was, we need to support the Church (not our church, but The Church) with all we can give, because we're such a small denomination, relatively speaking, but there are so many historic places like our church that need to remain active and stay standing. In particular, he's very concerned about a seminary that's attached to Yale.

So, let's go back to that "vibrant" thing for a minute.  And, really, to the "Episcopal wins" statement, too.  The real reason we go to the church we go to is because it is vibrant.  It's amazingly active in the community, and constantly has drives and volunteer opportunities that benefit shelters, and truly worthy causes in Alexandria, in other parts of Virginia, and around the world.  That's why my wife and I completely agree that this is the particular church we'll attend.  It's a big, really dedicated congregation that has the act of helping others organized to a tee.  There are tons of opportunities to make a difference, and we take advantage of those opportunities, and so do most members of the congregation.  If you talk to anyone who goes to our church, you'll hear pretty much the same story.  But if you've ever volunteered time or money to make a difference for someone less fortunate, I'm sure you, as I have been, are struck by how much more we all could do.  No matter how much you do, there's still more need.

So I'm thinking... You want me to give money to preserve an historic (relatively) seminary supported by Yale, so you can give better tours to dignitaries -- and you've just told me you have enough for every priest in the foreseeable future to retire comfortably....and I know there are kids in my town who won't get anything at all for Christmas.  Did I get that right?  I'm thinking the retirement fund might be a good source for historic preservation.  Don't get me wrong.  I understand the importance of money to The Church, on all levels.  But when you're asking for it, it's not a great idea to tell me how flush you are. And when you're talking to a group of people who are dedicated to doing stuff for people who are less fortunate, it's not a good pitch to say, "do this to impress visiting dignitaries."  The stuff he's asking for is important.  The way he asked, though, missed the mark badly.

SUMMARY
Ok, here's the short version, for review.  Three points that struck me as worthy of riffs, so you'll have something to read during this upcoming short week:

1.  Every creative profession endures those who don't pay attention, yet hold the fate of your work in their hands.  You are not alone.

2.  From now on, your competition is, potentially, everyone. Because everyone has the tools. Talent will win sometimes, but not always.  Popularity will always win. And yes, that kid in the dorm room is more popular than you.

3. When you're creating persuasive communications, try not to shoot yourself in the foot -- either by pulling the old "do as I say, not as I do," or by lauding your own accomplishments to the point that they taint your message.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

Well, duh.

I just got back from a shoot in Vancouver.  Interactive stuff for a GSK brand's site.  Cost of production -- about a quarter (maybe less, now that I think about it) of the average :30 I used to shoot up there. 

Today AdAge has this story.  (I think a subscription is required). 

Here's the head/subhead:

How the Ad World's Dealing With the Decline of the :30

Production Houses and Agencies Are Forced to Slash Costs and Find Unique Ways to Leverage Online Video

Like I said, well, duh.  The story is nicely written. But, well, so is  "Use A Stick" IMHO. 
And I wrote that about 3 years ago.  And have been blogging as much ever since. 

The changes in the way consumers want their information are finally making agencies sit up and realize that they need to provide information in new forms -- that it's not just a passing fad, and that it has very real implications for the bottom line.  I coulda told you that.  Oh, wait....I did.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

Put the Genie Back

It struck me a few days ago just how many things I've read in various publications recently -- and I mean really recently -- bemoaning emerging web+consumer culture.  Adweek a couple of weeks ago had more than one column by more than one disgruntled person that pretty much centered around that danged internet, and how it's just messin' with the way things should be.  All this consumer control hoo-ha, etc., etc. -- one article actually argued that "we" (professionals) need to get control of the media back from consumers, because they produce nothing but second-rate crap.  (Which might be true -- the crap part, I mean, depending on your tastes -- but the idea that "we" even could even hope to get it back should we be foolish enough to try, simply befuddled me.)   Then I read  Small Agency Diary, and one of my old buds is bemoaning young creatives who surf for inspiration, instead of putting their heads down and making real ads. (Though, as I remember, said old bud and I spent plenty of time, years ago, with hard copies of CA, etc., for inspiration -- but presumably, that was ok, because it wasn't online, because there was no online then.)

It just struck me, for a moment, as weird -- that I'd notice what I perceive as a swell of backlash, especially now, especially since the web and its new rules for communicating aren't exactly what I'd call new anymore.  At least not in web time.  And that's when it hit me.  They're not living in web time.  They may never live in web time. Because just now, they're only beginning to realize that web time exists.  Those who are working now (and who have been working for some time) at moving forward had all those conversations and thoughts a long time ago.  We quickly realized that: (A) things are going to change with us, or without us;  (B) the new space and new rules are interesting places to play; and (C) if you know how to play, you can win.

The world has accelerated far beyond anyone's ability to keep up.  I keep up pretty well, I think, and I constantly think I'm way behind.  A huge part of my job is helping folks (my agency, our clients) catch up as much as anyone actually can -- and as much as is appropriate for any given project, given that no matter what, you have to create with an eye for the future, which these days, means an eye for anything.

Anything can happen now.  Anything is possible.  Consumers (people) have a say, and we as marketers aren't the first or last word.  We can't make people look or listen, we can only politely encourage it, and we have to be prepared that even if they do, they can, and will, talk back.  We can hear them or not, but it's a real sure bet that somebody (or a lot of somebodies) certainly will, so it behooves us to listen, too.  The rules have changed, and they're going to keep changing as new things come along to change them. And they will.  Fast. 

From my vantage point, there's only one thing that's for sure:  The genie's out of the bottle, and he's not going back.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this