Sometimes you see an ad and all you think is "what were they thinking?" I saw one of those yesterday while riding the Metro. When I got off the train at Metro Center, I noticed that Macy's had purchased all the ad placements in the station. All the ads were similar: Macy's items, red background,  with the copy: Be ______, ie Be beautiful....Be thankful...you get the picture.

Not the most groundbreaking ad campaign, but that's for another day. There was one that caught my attention. "Be unique" the copy read.

Macy's wants me and you, and everyone else, to be unique...by buying their mass-produced goods after viewing their mass-produced ad. In other words, Macy's is telling us that we should be unique, just like everyone else. What forward thinking.

I was on the Metro the other day when I saw a series of ads for different retailers that all incorporated social media icons into the artwork. Genius idea, right? I can just hear it now: "We're geniuses! We are so forward thinking...can't wait till the 18-27s come Fan us on our Fan page and buy our products!"

Nice try.

Here's the deal: Despite the rise of social media and its (necessary) integration into every facet of a company's marketing communications, said companies still struggle with integrating social media into traditional outlets.

There's no question that depending on the strategy, it most likely makes sense to incorporate social media tools into print. But here's the problem: So many advertisers simply put the Twitter, Facebook or other social media on their print ads, without a URL or any other identifier. It's like they think their job is done because a.) they actually have social media tools and b.) they incorporated social media icons into the work.

Here's the problem with that: Simply having social media icons on an ad isn't enough. In fact, having just the icons on there is pretty pointless. Here's why: most people aren't going to a.) even remember your ad in the first place,  b.) if they do, won't search you on Facebook just because you have that logo there and c.) there's no guarantee that even if a and b actually happen, that your business/product will show up first (or even at all) on the search result. This means wasted impressions, and money. Facebook/Twitter/YouTube could change their search algorithms tomorrow, and you'd be out of luck.

But I've always thought that including the entire URL is also too clunky...it's too much text and would be a distraction from the message of the ad. So what's the solution?

I discovered it the other day looking at ads on the Metro. Check it out:

Now take a closer look at the lower right hand corner, and notice how they successfully integrated the Facebook logo and the URL, while ensuring that it didn't take up too much real estate or detract from the ad's message.

_Problem solved.

And, yes, before you ask: I am now a Fan of the Salvation Army on Facebook.

Sometimes you see an ad that gets exactly the right message across, but for whatever reason, it just doesn't work. I saw one of these today right near the McPherson Square Metro Station (and right across the street from the OccupyDC "protests").

See, to stand out for the crowd, TD Bank has been pushing the convenience message. Hard. And I'm not just talking about those annoying Regis and Kelly TV ads.

Two of their biggest selling points are that they are open seven days a week and that they have longer hours than most traditional banks. Pretty cool, but I'm still not sure that's enough for consumers to switch banks, although the recent fee increases by Bank of America and Citi may offer an opportunity. But that's besides the point.

Back to McPherson Square and the convenience thing. As I was walking to the Metro, I saw this:

But instead of thinking that was a bank I would want to switch to, all I could think of was The Truman Show. And this.

Sure, you could argue that that is the purpose of the sign. After all, TD Bank provides service all times of day and week, while Truman is watched all times of day. And the target of the larger campaign is those consumers aged 18 to their mid-20s, meaning most of this target presumably has watched or at the very least, heard about, this movie. So maybe that's what they were going for?

But even then, it doesn't really work. Don't get me wrong -- I find the concept of The Truman Show fascinating. But at the same time, it's kinda creepy...after all, this guy's life is being recorded 24 hours a day/7 days a week for broadcast to the greater world.

In an age of ever-increasing controversy over government intrusion into the lives of its citizens, is that really the message you want to be leaving potential customers with when they think about your product or service? Probably not.

There's been a lot of stories written on the debt ceiling, and I'm sure there will be more to come as Congress inches ever-closer to something resembling a deal. There's been some good stories, some intriguing stories, some frustrating stories, and some ridiculous stories. For the purposes of this blog post, I'm going to focus on two ridiculous stories.

This CNN clip is just utterly ridiculous. Almost funny, really. But seriously, I don't want to see Papa John's commercials, err, segments, during a news clip. He even got the full slogan in! I'll let the clip speak for itself.

The second article was one that focuses on Obama losing thousands of followers on his @BarackObama Twitter handle after he (meaning his campaign) tweeted the names and contact information of every Republican legislator in an effort to encourage the public to contact their member or Senators in regards to the debt deal. The story, and every other subsequent article, focused on one thing, and on one thing only: that he lost the Twitter followers, as if that is the most important thing out there.

First thing's first - the premise of the article is correct -- they did lose thousands of Twitter followers. But if you use the number cited by the New York Post - 37,000 (although that's probably never a good idea, but here goes), that means the account lost 0.004 percent of its more than 9 million followers -- a drop in the bucket. But even given that, the news coverage is still missing the point. This only matters if Obama's (team's) long-term goal is to gain a maximum number of Twitter followers.

But why should that be the only metric that is measured? Who's to say their long-term goal isn't awareness of not only the debt issue, but the fact that the Obama campaign is still at the forefront of new and innovative ways to use the Internet that allow ordinary citizens to engage with their government? They may have lost a lot (actually, only a relative few) of their followers, but how many of their followers actually contacted their representatives? While we don't know, I would presume it was at least some. Even the NY Post acknowledges that point -- from a previous version of the story:

"The campaign appears to have served its purpose: Republican Twitter accounts were flooded with pleas for compromise."

Obama doesn't seem to be hurting for Twitter followers...

"While his follower number appears to have taken its biggest dive in recent memory, Obama’s Twitter account still had a whopping 9,362,880 followers at 7:30pm Friday night, down from 9,402,898 Friday morning - and he's still the third-most followed person on the planet."

Even if they didn't contact their representatives, it allows the Obama team to continue the narrative that they're using technology to give ordinary citizens a voice. And ultimately, that's more important than the actual number of Twitter followers you have at the end of the day. Twitter followers don't get you votes. Why? Because I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people following @BarackObama already have an opinion on him that Tweets won't changes. You're already following the account for a reason -- Tweets probably won't change your opinion on the President; rather, they may help influence what your thinking on particular issues or help shape your exposure to certain issues.

The perception that the President is engaging with ordinary citizens through nontraditional means plays a part in getting you votes. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters. Oh, and raising the debt ceiling.

That brings up a whole different issue, one that goes beyond politics and even journalism. In today's horse-race driven media culture, numbers are the only thing that matters in politics. Whether it's money or social media, if you have the "most," you're the automatic frontrunner. While that's true in a lot of cases, few journalists dig deeper to analyze the impact of those numbers, especially with social media. Just because you have a lot of "fans," what are you doing to mobilize them? Are you just pushing out talking points, or are is there two-way communication? Journalists don't take it one step further and analyze the overall strategy and impact of these social media tools. Just as journalists don't know how to cover social media as part of the larger campaign narrative, many brands still don't know how to effectively use social media to get their message out. They make the same mistake the media makes -- that it's only about the numbers rather than the quality of the fans and the quality of the communication you are having with them. There's an ongoing debate in the advertising world about how much a Facebook "like" or a Twitter follower is actually worth, a debate that won't end any time soon, I'm sure.

Let's hope the debt debate ends sooner...

Considering the spectacle that has become the 2012 presidential campaign, it's only natural that Hollywood and politics mix. No, I'm not talking about Barack Obama and the Democrats raising millions from Hollywood -- not this time at least. I'm talking about the ads.

My friend recently sent me the new Ron Paul ad and wanted my thoughts on it. His mind was already made up -- he loved it. But let's be fair -- to Ron Paul fans, Ron Paul can do nothing wrong. Anyway, that's a conversation for another day. Here's the commercial:

I think for the audience it is targeting, it is a pretty effective ad. It's timely, relevant and gets at the conservative anger over a (hopefully potential?) debt limit compromise. I especially like the "The 90s brought more compromises...more broken promises" voiceover that happens at the same time the video shows George H.W. Bush, famous for breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.

But what was really interesting to me was the concept of the spot: The movie preview. Sure, it's not necessarily an original idea (see other examples below). But it just worked here. It's a showdown between essentially two options: raise the limit, or don't raise the limit. It's clear where Paul stands on the issue, and this concept allows the viewer to see what Paul argues are the dire consequences if politicians don't listen to what he is saying. I am also a big fan of the "leader shots," the shots that make it look like you're looking up at Paul, in the positive section. While I'm generally not a fan of political contrast ads, this one did a good job laying out the differences. Let's be honest, though -- Ron Paul doesn't actually have a chance, but at least he has good ads, right?

Here are some other political commercials that incorporate the movie preview concept, some kind of effective, and some, well, not so effective. See for yourself below.

Despite the fact that I grew up falling asleep  to Jim Hunter and Fred Manfra calling Orioles games on the radio every night, I haven't really followed sports journalism over the past few years. Over the weekend, though, I found a really intriguing New York Times profile of ESPN columnist Bill Simmons that brings up points that can be applied to other areas of the media industry.  I have never read one of Simmons' columns (I may start reading him now), but a few things things stuck out at me while reading this seven-page profile.

First, it's that Simmons doesn't even pretend to be unbiased -- that's why people love him. He writes as a true sports fan and doesn't even attempt objectivity. In this day and age, it's refreshing for any journalist actually admit this fact.

    "For Simmons, this distinction — between fan and columnist — doesn’t really exist. Unlike         many sportswriters, for whom detachment is a point of professional pride, Simmons makes         no pretense of neutrality."

In today's 24-hour news cycle, the line between opinion and news has become extremely blurred, yet most journalists aren't willing to admit this fact, especially when it comes to politics.

But for me, the larger takeway was the profile's commentary on the sports conglomerate that has become the Entertainment Sports Programming Network (that's right -- as a matter of fact, I do feel cool for knowing the full ESPN acronym). Simmons acknowledges that ESPN overexposes its anchors and commentators on a regular basis, and that he is, in fact, very protective of his appearances so that this doesn't happen to him. But at the same time, he's launching a new website. But as you'll see in the below excerpt, Simmons basically argues that ESPN is overexposing its employees by shifting them away from writing to on-air appearances and commentary -- immediate response situations rather than writing columns that can take days to research and write.

    During halftime at the Lakers game, Simmons spotted Stephen A. Smith, an ESPN                 colleague and a walking cautionary tale of the pitfalls of 24-hour sports. ESPN’s myriad             outlets generate an insatiable demand for content that has an unfortunate tendency to             transform sports writers into yammering caricatures. “Screaming A. Smith,” as he has been     called, may be the most widely mocked of the bunch. “We have to do a better job                     protecting our talent,” Simmons said as Smith passed by, not noticing Simmons. “He’s a guy     who should be writing more. We let him become too big a yakker.”

The most interesting point raised in the article is the fact that ESPN has become so big -- and such a pervasive part of the sports landscape in the United States -- that it does not only report the news, it creates and/or encourages the storylines and narratives that attract more viewers and give it even more influence. To some extent, this is the media's job: find the interesting angle and get the story out there. But ESPN takes it a step further: they create the storyline. The profile uses the perfect example of ESPN hyping the Lebron James decision, then bashing him for causing all of the hoopla after the fact. This type of thing is not new by any means, but in a way, ESPN pioneered this type of "journalism." This is, in a sense, what many news outlets have become, even outside of the sports world (Fox News, Politico, to name a couple).

Nothing about what I wrote is new. But to me, it's refreshing to hear a member of the media acknowledge it and even try to fight it and stay true to his passion -- writing -- even if he does work for the machine that makes it all go round and round.


Other articles that caught my eye:

Offshore-Drilling Giant Transocean Launches PR-Agency Review; Ad Age, June 3, 2011.
    There's not really much that can be said about this one...

Facebook party spins out of control; Associated Press, June 5, 2011
    Besides the inaccurate headline, there is a lot unexplained by this article. How did the party     become viral? The article implies the reason so many people came was because the event         was marked public on Facebook. Last time I checked, many events are marked public on         Facebook, and not nearly that many people end up attending.

Anthony Weiner's talkathon isn't saying much; Politico, June 2, 2011
    You know it's bad when the media becomes your PR advisor.

And finally, we'll end with an article that demonstrates the easiest way to lose your next reelection campaign. Really, it's very simple: Cut veterans benefits.

Ever since the day she was shot, the media has been trying to paint a positive story of Gabrielle Gifford's recovery. But at the end of the day, not that much is known about her actual condition. While she continues to make progress, the media reports the story like she will fully recover and everything will get back to normal. But we don't know that, and her people have done a great job of keeping her condition private. This article is a really intriguing analysis of Gabrielle Giffords: her reality vs. the media reality. Perhaps either way you look at it, it's a miracle.

Gabrielle Giffords's remarkable recovery, The Guardian, April 27, 2011


On a totally unrelated note, I recently came across this early-'90s United Airlines ad created by Leo Burnett, courtesy of the New York Times.

Considering how airlines have become the prototype for how to run an impersonal, penny-pinching business, this message would most certainly not work for the airline in today's day and age. But I feel like other industries out there could use this same general concept. Not only would it be interesting to see how it would be executed today (it would more than likely be much easier), but at the same time, executed correctly, the message would resonate even more today.

I've decided (starting right now) that I will occasionally post some of (what I think) are some of the most fascinating news stories/media from the past few weeks/months/years. Here goes:


All the many parts: After a tragedy, can anything save Nichols Hardware? Washington Post Magazine, April 24, 2011

Excerpt:
    For generations, Nichols Hardware has been a seemingly immortal sanctuary, staying much     the same as it was when it opened 97 years ago. Many residents of Purcellville were aware         that there was no apparent fourth-generation heir who intended to take over the store, and this     was understood to be a sensitive topic that was best not to think about. But now, in the             aftermath of the accident, there was the unwelcome realization that Nichols Hardware might     already be running out of time.

 My Two Thoughts:
    1.    Despite its ever-decreasing size, the Washington Post Magazine still produces                          must-read long-form stories every single week.
    2.    I hope the Post runs a follow-up story on this in a year or two. I'm interested, as I'm sure           a lot of people are, to see what happens to the store moving forward.


On School Buses, Ad Space for Rent, The New York Times, April 15, 2011

Excerpt:
    Cash-hungry states and municipalities, in pursuit of even the smallest amounts of revenue,         have begun to exploit one market that they have exclusive control over: their own property.
    With the help of a few eager marketing consultants, many governments are peddling the             rights to place advertisements in public school cafeterias, on the sides of yellow school             buses, in prison holding areas and in the waiting rooms of welfare offices and the Department     of Motor Vehicles.

My Two Thoughts:
    1.    If you were in charge of a brand, why would you ever want to advertise on a school bus?            Sure, you might hit your target market, but the negative backlash you are sure to get will            more than wipe out any benefit you would receive from the placement.
    2.    I'm all for generating new revenue streams and new sources of advertising, but this goes            too far. From both a policy perspective and a ethical perspective, there has to be a line.


Slam and Jam, The Atlantic, October, 1997 (h/t Longform.org)

Excerpt:
THE real problem lies not in hardware but in human relations. To understand this one has to move beyond the public myth, and beyond even the operational reality of the business, into a murky inner world of pride and collective memory.

My One Thought:
    1.    I don't really know enough about the situation to comment, but I thought it was a                        fascinating article, especially considering the recent sleeping-on-the-job incidents.


In a Data-Heavy Society, Being Defined by the Numbers, New York Times, April 22, 2011

Excerpt:
    The trouble, though, is when we mindlessly and blindly rely on those numbers to tell us             everything, said Sherry Turkle, a professor of social studies of science and technology and         director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Initiative on Technology and Self.
    Numbers become not just part of the way we judge and assess, but the only way.

My Two Thoughts:
  1.    Fascinating article, but it doesn't really offer any solutions. Numbers and data serve as             easy heuristics for people to make decisions, and in today's fast-paced world, most people         don't have time to factor in other considerations. Part of this may be media driven, but I'd             be interested to learn more about how to change this mentality, besides applications in the         human resources arena.
  2.    I'd be interested to hear about the author's opinions on the polling industry and the media         narratives created from there.



Morgan Spurlock: The greatest TED Talk ever sold, Filmed March, 2011

I'll reserve comment until I see the movie.

And for good measure, check out the ad we launched starting last week for my Client. (Also check it out on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, FOX Business Channel, History, Travel, ESPN, ESPN2, and HGTV).

Ever since having worked at Target in high school, I've been in awe of their advertising and how they have positioned themselves in the marketplace. They've become the anti-Walmart, all while selling a lot of the same stuff for 10 cents more while treating their employees exactly the same. But during the recession, this strategy has backfired to an extent. As the economy went south, and stayed there, consumers shifted to Walmart for the essentials because of their reputation for having the lowest prices. Walmart shifted its strategy back to what it was known for: the basics. It cut its product line, and concentrated on lowering prices on everyday items.

In return, Target expanded its food offerings over the past few years in an effort to better compete in this category. Now Target has come out with an advertising campaign to reinforce this message. While not all of them were executed as well as they could have been, the concept is a great one -- one that is sure to grab the attention of consumers in this recovering market.

I've always had a love-hate relationship with store loyalty cards and marketing that tracks consumers' spending habits. It really all started back in the day when I used to go to Weis with my Mom. Besides the thrill of standing on the back of the cart as we perused the aisles (that ended the day the cart flipped), I got to play with the ultimate toy: The self checkout machine. But not just because it was an awesome machine. It really bothered me that you had to scan your Club Card to get certain savings, because then they could track your purchases. It bothered me then and it still bothers me today. So I figured out the default card number that would get you the savings, but would make your purchases untrackable. (If you care to know, it's 40110 000 00 00 -- kinda sad that I still remember that). That was that.

I still haven't really figured out why this practice bothers me so much. Maybe some sort of invasion of privacy? Maybe because it's not really about the savings at all -- After all, next time you go into CVS, tell them you don't have an ExtraCare card and you don't want to get one. They'll scan one for you...which means that every single person gets the deal. But despite this, I understand its value in marketing, and why firms use it -- to tailor deals and coupons to your purchasing habits.  (For full transparency, I use Google Analytics on this blog). Let's be honest, though, it's not like most consumers even realize it's happening, just like if I didn't tell you, you wouldn't have realized that I was tracking your visit.

All of this is why I was so intrigued by an article in today's Washington Post. The article discusses the fact that banks are placing very targeted ads on customers' online statements. But the clever part is that once the customer clicks on the coupon, they don't have to print anything out or give any code to the business. The next time they frequent that business (say, McDonald's), the discount automatically gets applied. Not only does this remove a barrier for the customer (no need to clip a coupon), it saves banks money because in one sense, it's a rewards program that outside businesses pay for.

From the article: "As banks test new ways to make money and attract customers, they are tucking ads onto the list of recent purchases on consumers' online bank statements. The charge for your breakfast at McDonald's, for example, might be followed with an offer for 10 percent cash back on your next meal at the Golden Arches. There's no need to print a coupon - just click the link, and the chain will recognize your debit card the next time it is swiped."

But it also brings up a larger issue. Some industries (banks) have exclusive access to loads of consumers' personal information. Sure, wholesale clubs like Costco and Sam's Club, based on their business model, track every purchase you make in their stores and target their marketing efforts based on those purchases. But banks go beyond that. They can see virtually everything you spend your money on, and use that to their advantage.

How far should banks be able to go with your information? Should they be able to tailor marketing to your spending habits, when they know your spending habits to the cent? Is this an unfair business practice? How far do businesses go in using your information for marketing purposes? I don't know the answer to this...just something to consider the next time the cashier tells you she can look up your loyalty card number with your phone number...