We agree with AdWeek's David Gianatasio 100% percent on this one. Which, of course, isn't like us agreeing with Bob Garfield back in the day because, of course, we rarely did. We used to pick stupid little fights with the man over his ad reviews because, well, that's what Adrants was all about; poking holes in the media and advertising establishments.
My how times have changed. Back in the day, Adrants was a single voice of over-sized balls and horse-hung swinging man meat. Today, well, everyone's in on the game of snark. So much so that it really doesn't mean anything anymore. Just take a look at Business Insider headlines or BuzzFeed or headlines from just about any other publication which now scream extremisms to announce the fact an ant has crossed the street. Anything for a pageview.
Recently, a colleague asked me, "What was the most rewarding mistake you ever made in business?"
It's a great question, and I quickly had an answer for him because it was an incredibly painful mistake. However, it proved to be an invaluable lesson that has served me well in the years since. I'm sharing so perhaps you can learn it the easy way.
The lesson: Don't ever stop marketing because you think you've reached the point where you don't need to. And, secondarily, believe the old adage that warns, "Don't put all your eggs into one basket."
There's a story, of course...
When Oreo placed its Dunk in the Dark ad in social media channels immediately following the power outage during the Super Bowl, real-time marketing was brought to the forefront of the marketing community. David Berkowitz, then-director of emerging media at Oreo agency 360i (and now CMO at MRY), stressed that care must be taken to properly collaborate with key decision makers in order for real-time marketing efforts such as Dunk in the Dark to be successful.
To move at the speeds required by real-time marketing, you need fast-moving teams powered by key decision makers and you need collaboration processes firmly in place. There is no time for lengthy approval processes.
Apple's "Designed by Apple in California" dubbed a flop by many, is getting plenty of publicity. But not in the way Apple likely intended. The ad received a viewer score of 489 out of 900 based on the Ace Metric scale. This low-scoring commercial, compared to Apple's 26 other ads this year, has created quite the buzz on Bloomberg, LA Times, Ad Age and various other sites.
Sharing, sharing, sharing. It's all the rage right now among brands that have discovered the power of social media and what it can do for them. But is there such a thing as oversharing? Can a brand become too active in social media channels for its own good? Can this harm any bond that has been made between consumer and brand?
Author, speaker and social media consultant C.C. Chapman weighs in on that dilemma: "Everyone assumes there is a magic formula to answer this question and the truth is that there isn't. I have years of experience developing award-winning content for clients and for myself and the one thing I know is that if it is one piece of content or a million, it doesn't matter if it does not create an emotional response from your hoped-for audience. If what is created doesn't educate, entertain or inspire them, then nothing else matters."
And so it would seem, oversharing is relative and to be determined based on a individual situations in which the brand participates - as well as how that content connects with a brand's audience. A slippery slope of sorts.
Written in March following SXSW in Austin
While we knew this was the case for several years now, SXSW Interactive has become a huge event generating conversation the world over. This year's event generated 1.1 million tweets in 5 five days across 200 countries and 19 languages.
Social media monitoring company Synthesio created an infographic summarizing global social media conversation about the Austin, Texas event. Without surprise, the U.S generated the most (71%) conversation followed by the UK (4.6%) and Canada (4.4%).
Some say SXSW is the new Cannes. In some respects, it is. As the advertising industry moves more towards technology and content solutions versus Super Bowl-style creative solutions, this shift in mentality may make sense. But it will be a very long while before the advertising industry gives up its Rose-filled afternoons on the Carlton Terrace or the massive beach parties that occur every night which, by the way, put even the best parties at SXSW to shame.
So yesterday -- actually Sunday night -- some witty soul (and I use that phrase ever so graciously) decided it would be fun to hack Adrants on the eve of Cannes Lions making it impossible for us to share with you all the event's goodness. Well. we're back.
But does it really matter? Does anyone really care? When we have AdWeek's Tim Nudd and Gabriel Beltrone killing it in Cannes, an entire army of reporters from Ad Age, stellar tweets from Ogilvy, a One Question video series from Advertising Week, live coverage from Campaign and PR Week and the #canneslions Twitter hashtag which -- if you allowed yourself -- you could stare at 24/7...do we really need Adrants?
For the past several years or so, it's become fashionable for advertising agencies to dedicate a portion of their time to product development. Some do it for clients. Others do it all on their own. The poster child in this space is Nike FuelBand, a fitness product co-created with the brand's advertising agency RG/A. It was, and is, a runaway success.
Other agencies have dabbled with product creation. Crispin Porter + Bogusky developed a line of premium rum, Papa's Pilar. Deutsch LA, which has a program dedicated to entrepreneurial pursuits, created a floral delivery service, Bouqs, and an independent film entitled Between Us. Boston-based MMB launched a line of environmentally friendly children's clothing that donated proceeds to animal shelter charities. And Anomaly worked with outside consultant The Kind Group to create a line of skin-care products, Eos, currently being sold at Target.
All well and good - but why would an agency dedicate resources usually reserved for serving client business to product development?
In an effort to tout Samsung's new Evolution Kit, some kind of device that makes your tired, old TV awesome and new, the brand has dipped its toe into the anti-objectification of women waters with Evolutionary Husband.
In the ad, a wife, tired of her slovenly husband's burping, farting, Neanderthal ways, plugs the Samsung Evolution Kit into his back and, poof, he instantly becomes...a stereotypically 1950's housewife who effortlessly cooks, cleans, babysits and generally serves his wife's every need...much like the stereotypical 1950's housewife did for her husband.
Last Friday, the brilliantly insightful Corey Eridon of HubSpot castigated P&G for calling their "Facebook experiment" a failure and for the brand's complete misunderstanding of digital strategy.
In response to the assumption it's somehow Facebook's fault P&G fell on its face and had to lay off 6,250 employees, Eridon wrote, "Yes, it's Facebook's fault. It's not P&G's fault for failing to stay on top of digital trends like learning what EdgeRank is and how it works. It's not P&G's fault for relying on third-party assets to build their brand, instead of investing in assets they can control, like their own website and blog. It's not P&G's fault for failing to create remarkable content that -- and if you know how EdgeRank works you'd know this -- gets you more visibility on Facebook due to reader engagement. It's not P&G's fault for failing to realize no audience is guaranteed, paid or otherwise, and that audiences are actually earned on a daily basis. And it's certainly not P&G's fault for expecting a "new" platform like Facebook to work by slapping on the same old-school ad tactics they've been using (and, based on their rampant layoffs, not using well) for decades."
Whoo! It's like you can visualize Eridon in a cage match schooling an army of P&G mascots on how shit gets done in today's world of digital marketing.