The concept is dead on; execution notwithstanding. We’ve been talking about this for awhile now.

Build up expectations of difficulty. Magicians are really good at this. If people think what you’re doing is really difficult, they root for you.

Magicians also have the pop culture capital of, well, see for yourself. But that notwithstanding, does anyone else see the glaring problem here? Whatever it is you’re saying about yourself (whether in pursuit of doubt’s benefits or not) better actually be true. Part of what is unctuous about stage magic (no offense, Skye) is that it often maintains the illusion even after the show is over. I’ve seen companies do the same thing. It’s as if they think that because they’ve been holding forth about how innovative or smart or customer-focused they are, they must in fact be so.
For my part, I think benefit of the doubt is conferred upon those in whom we have some trust. We either trust them because we know them or we trust them by proxy: reputation, demeanor, they wear the same brand of socks that you do, etc. So my rejoinder to Seth’s advice is to have real relationships with your customers, use those relationships to honestly exhibit your philosophy and practice, and only rely on the benefit of the doubt when it is offered.

Marketing, of necessity, treats the market as an abstraction. Thus, the customer is an abstraction. I’m willing to wager that people don’t mind being abstracted, they just don’t want to feel like an abstraction. If you’re going to try to convince a friend to try a particular restaurant, you will undoubtedly recourse to an abstraction of that friend to find the right bit of persuasive suggestion. However, when you actually talk to your friend about it, the exchange will be anything but abstract. It will take account of the shared social context, your friend’s non-verbal communications, your desire to share a new flavor, and so on. Most importantly, presuming you are anything like a decent human and you call this person a friend because you mean what is generally meant by friend, you will be speaking from your center. You will be honest. You will be human. You will be you.
This is the crack in the edifice of marketing as a paradigm. It has been there since the beginning, and no efforts to ameliorate it from within the marketing paradigm have been successful. Because marketing was a successful innovation to begin, and because its culturally totalitarian nature took time to manifest, the pressure to solve the problem of its anti-social behavior has only recently become increasingly apparent. Marketing is becoming less effective as it becomes more ubiquitous and people become more cynical. Everybody probably already knows that part.
The internet has changed everything; even though the marketers are still in the dark about it. I like to say that marketers have treated the internet like a television with a keyboard and mouse. That some marketers have been experimenting with allowing customers to create content does little to sway my opinion in this regard. I think the citizen/customer generated content (CGC) thing is a whole lot of fun and illuminating, but it does not constitute the next paradigm.
The next paradigm comes when marketers stop marketing and use these new tools to help their organizations to act like humans. The paradigm within which they’ve been operating hasn’t allowed them to do this. Now they can. Make customer service, research and development, and marketing into an organic whole so that it can assimilate these new tools. Have conversations with customers at every point of contact. It’s not democratizing the market as some have suggested, anymore than you are a democracy when you are trying to persuade your friend to join you at your favorite restaurant. It is about being human. Be accountable. Say no when you have to, but explain yourself. Apologize when you have to. Know when to apologize because you’re actually engaged in a dialogue with those you may have hurt. Give praise to those who do novel and compelling things with your products. Tell incredible human stories.
This is what creative, strategic marketers have wanted to do all along, but the marketing gestalt hasn’t made the path visible. Marketers are relegated to being the veneer of the organization—out at the edge of the process—whereas every encounter with the customer should be directly informed by the center; from the human part of the organization; from its core. The new role for marketing is in facilitating the transformation of companies from distant abstractions to human institutions. It is an opportunity for big ideas; big ideas that the big ad agencies are constitutionally incapable of conceiving.
Whatever you call that role, it ain’t marketing. Maybe it’s anthropology, as the other innovation firms call it. I just call it being human.

Update 1 – One of the panelists is apparently from VH1, because he just explained to us how “The Surreal Life” saved VH1 from irrelevance. They just showed us a clip of MC Hammer convincing Vince Neil to come back to the fold and pray to God, despite Vince’s contention that the loss of his daughter demonstrated the vacuity of prayer. The smart guy says it was a moment that transcends irony, which is a device that he says has matured and needs to be pushed past.
Update 1a – I’m starting to discern the panel’s goal. They are pushing narrative in the context of marketing, and using examples from longer format entertainment to support this notion. VH1 guy showed the “Diet Coke Break” ad as an example of good use of narrative in an ad. “I’m not saying customize ads for VH1. I’m just saying think about narrative in your commercials.”
Update 1b – One of the panelists is apparently involved in American Idol, (for which I won’t bother finding a link,) and guess what; he’s bald.
Update 1c – I just asked American Idol guy about the spoiler community and the enmity that developed between that community and the producers of the show. They put it back on me to ask what, if any, impact the community may have had on the sponsors of the show. All I could think of was to suggest that the kerfuffle surrounding the ostensible vote fraud probably had a fairly negative impact upon general perception of AT&T, a sponsor and the assumptive stewards of the phone system used for voting.
Update 1d – It turned out to be a really rather good panel. Probably the best so far. Their discussion revolved around narrative and entertainment as it intersects with marketing and advertising. A recapitulation of the Madison + Vine theme that popped up occasionally yesterday.
Update 2 – Battery died on the laptop and the condescending sound engineer at the back of the room went apoplectic when I tried to plug into his circuit. Given the paucity of power outlets, I have to offer a little criticism of the organizers for not foreseeing the need. People would want to blog such an event, yes? Why not have a power bank available for those bloggers? As a result I couldn’t liveblog the technology session. But right after I eat, I will endeavor to make something up that sounds similar to what they said.
Update 2a – So the technology panel was decent. More of the same self-serving use of the stage to show the panelists’ firms’ work. The only takeaway from it is just, know what the hell you’re doing with technology. Don’t just do it because everyone else is doing it. Don’t just jump in without consulting the experts.
Update 3 – Richard Notarianni, Executive Creative Director of Media at Euro RSCG Worldwide is now speaking about “delivery.” He’s pushing the notion that brands should be more human. He’s delineating the difference between people and brands. I’ve heard that somewhere else.
Here are some of his premises:

• Brands are Rigid and Unfeeling – People Have Likes, Dislikes, Moods
• What does your brand love? – “Monstano Loves Agriculture” anyone?
• Brands are Constrained by Markets – People Connect Beyond Geography
• Brands Seek the Spotlight – People Share the Spotlight With Others
• Brands Target Influencers – People Have Influential Friends
• Brands are Greedy – People are Generous … and Do Something About It
• Brands Build Reputation – People Elaborate
  “People have a low tolerance for repetition.”
  “Add to the story. Create incremental detail. Elaborate.”
• Brands Exist on a Narrow Plane – People Live in 3 Dimensions
  “Create physical experience.”
• Brands Are Secure In Their Categories – People Are Immersed in Popular Culture … and Have a Deep Relationship with It
• Brands have Guidelines – People have Beliefs … and Live According to Them

Update 3a – This guy has been the best speaker by far. He spoke off the cuff. His message is powerful. Too bad the audience is so small; they were clearly underwhelmed by yesterday.
Update 4 – This guy, Eduardo Braniff, CEO of Imagination is doing the “Round-Up.” I’d describe his presentation, but you can click that link and look at the picture and get everything you need to know. No, really.
Update 4a – In a moment of unselfconsciousness, Eduardo suggests we may be in a new Renaissance. His ego creeping back in, but not without some perspicacity, he said, “The agencies need to be the new Medicis.”
Update 4b – “We cannot pick and choose our battles. Great champions never say, ‘I’m going to sit this one out.’”
Update 4c – “Maybe the word, ‘marketing’ will go away.” In spite of his monotonic delivery, Eduardo said some stuff that seems to me to be right on the money.
Update 5 – Some awards are being given. The recipients have been invited to describe the work that won them the award. First up is Goodby, Silverstein & Partners. They’ve started with a video containing bits from various of their interactive pieces.
Update 5a – Now they’re showing a video of some installation work they did for Saturn. Enormous holographic people. An enormous interactive video wall. Video projections mapped to an enormous skydome and onto the surface of cars. Really great stuff. I think this is the video we just watched, but I’m not sure because the bandwidth seems to be throttled and I couldn’t continue to wait for it.
Update 5b – Then they showed the collaboration between Saturn and Google that they architected. Check it out here. And followed it up with their collaboration between Saturn and Jon Bon Jovi; Have a Nice Gig.
Update 5c – Now an award to goes to Droga5 for their work with Mark Ecko. Surprise, surprise, it’s for the Air Force One stunt. The video is the first result in a Google search for “ecko stunt,” if that tells you anything. We’ve covered this one before. Ecko actually suggests in the little documentary we’re watching that it is a political act because AF1 is a symbol of our freedoms; “…it belongs to the American people.” That strikes me as a facile and disingenuous cover for a piece of marketing. One YouTube commenter sums his thoughts on the piece; “Marc Ecko is a douche.”
Update 5d – Satchi LA (I think they said LA) is getting an award for a campaign for the Toyota Yaris. The presenter from Satchi said they were trying to be, “both laser focused and dropping H-bombs.” They did some stuff for E3, some Street Fighter tournament, some TV (only Lost and Prison Break), video on mobile phones, a video-game-in-a-banner, and a comic book. It’s clever.
Update 6 – That’s all she wrote. For my part, I think I’m gonna get outta here and go see ground zero.
Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

Update 1 – Scott is telling us that a cultural focus on ideas is part and parcel of the new agency. “We’ve all heard about value pricing, but ad agencies are largely executioners.” Of course, he’s also using his keynote as an opportunity to show us some of the work his firm has done lately. We’re watching an ad for Heineken now. How unexpected.
Update 1a – He just pointed to The Department of Doing, a NZ firm that is similar to bigwidesky in many ways. They’re an idea shop that partners with agencies to develop the marketing ideas. Oh, and he just used the word, “impactful.” Ugh.
Update 1b – Scott’s thesis is basically this: Ideas, Value, Talent.
Update 1c – Now he’s talking about UGC (user generated content for those of you lucky enough to have avoided all the marketing blogs.) His prediction is user generated products. He points to this initiative for Microsoft, which I presume his firm created. Where I might like to hear some theoretical support of his user generated products conjecture, he is instead giving examples. He’s now pointing to CrowdSpirit.
Update 1d – Here’s his grand finale: Ideas will change the world. He’s pointed to Al Gore, Bono’s Red Products, and The World Council For New Thinking. It’s a very democratic utopian vision. Everyone is included. Everyone offers their ideas. He suggests this will solve many of the world’s ills; cure AIDS and cancer, end war, etc.
Update 2 – Session 1: Reality Check – a panel of industry peeps are about to discuss the question of integration. The program notes point out that integration is the unrealized holy grail. Alex Wipperfurth is on the panel. I’m most interested in his thoughts. He wrote Brand Hijack, one of the books we’ve added to Ex Libris.
Update 2a – so the upshot of that session seems to be the following:

1. Integration is important
2. Integration is a stupid, antiquated word
3. Integration is the purview of those who aren’t good at marketing
4. Integration is little more than matching luggage
5. Integration will only happen when leaders in the industry step up and, well, lead
6. Integration is not really happening
7. Integration is easier in smaller shops

So, as you can see, there was great concensus and clarity.
Update 3 – Now it’s a session on “Design.” Ostensibly some interesting cats on the panel, although they haven’t said a word yet. Waiting for the long-winded moderator to finish lionizing the panel.
Update 3a – So it’s “design” as a proxy for the discussion of integration apparently. Although more than anything it seems to be a opportunity for the panel to show off the design work their various firms have done. I wish there was something more profound I could say about it, but it’s just slide after slide of admittedly some beautiful design.
Update 3b – “I don’t think anyone cares about design. They just care about using things simply.”, “No one should know the designer’s name.”, “When the water bottle is easy to hold and use, that’s design.” Don’t know the panelist’s name. Now the panel is debating utility/usability vs. aesthetics. Finally some action!
Update 3c – One bloke is suggesting that he wants an iPhone even though he doesn’t even really know what the usability/utility/rational value is because the phone hasn’t even been released. He says it’s because he has an emotional connection to the brand.
Aside – Probably 20% of the males in attendance have shaved heads and/or intimidating specs.
Update 3d – The “one bloke” who was covetting the iPhone is Nicholas Utton, CMO of E*TRADE. They’re circling the question as to whether design is a function of engineering or aesthetics.
Update 3e – Audience questions. They’re attacking the dude from The Apartment. He’s the guy that suggested that the peeps don’t care about design. His name is Stefan Boublil. He’s being challenged by the audience as to whether people really care about design. One person says, “My wife just texted me from Sax. She’s asking me about some nuance in the design of a pair of jeans. You telling me she doesn’t really care about the design?” His response is pretty slippery – he’s now conflating delight and utility. “If I’m delighted by the design of a product, isn’t that a utility?” Which is actually a conflation I suppose I welcome. If utility and aesthetics are conflated, maybe we can move beyond the mere dichotomous description thereof.
Update 4 – Some students from the VCU Adcenter are schooling the assembled ad wonks about consumer generated marketing. While they’re not saying anything that isn’t present in the marketing blogosphere, they have been taking it to the adsters. They had a quote from an Ad Age guy about how great the super bowl ads were this year followed by quotes from some of the blogs, one of which was, “If this is the pinnacle of conventional advertising, the reconing is at hand.”
Update 5 – Just spoke with Alex Wipperfurth of Plan B. He’s the author of Brand Hijack that was in the Integration panel. He proved to be a very congenial gent. I told him about Ex Libris and he was very positive. He even made some suggestions about books to add. Unfortunatly, I didn’t have a book on me that he hasn’t read.
Update 6 – Panel on “Madison & Vine,” which is the wholly unpretentious nomenclature industry peeps use to refer to the intersection of advertising and entertainment. Mike Fischer, General Manager, USA Marketing, Xbox USA, is one of the panelists. So there’s been plenty of mention of the CGC games on Xbox live and the set of Xbox games from Burger King.
Update 6a – They’re talking YouTube. It’s a redux of the Citizen Marketing Hater discussion on Brand Autopsy. The one where David Jones, global CEO of Euro RSCG, said that most of the stuff on YouTube is rubbish. That sentiment is being advanced by the panel. One panelist said, “YouTube was cool, like, last year. But now you can’t even find what you’re looking for.” Another commented that there are 40,000 pieces of content uploaded to YouTube per day and therefore no one of them is particularly relevant. The only one who spoke well of YouTube was the Xbox guy, who was alluding to Machinima and other UGC that Xboxers upload to YouTube. He said they’re trying to work the ability to make Machinima and the like into the games.
Update 7 – Session 4 – Luanne Calvert, Creative Director at Google, and Hashim Bajwa, Digital Planning Director at Goodby, Silverstein & Partners present, “Integrating Technology and Freeing Creativity”
Update 7a – They’re talking about this “Why Use Gmail?” video on YouTube. Each “act” in this video is used as a video ad elsewhere on the web. Given that the discussion is about “freeing creativity,” I can’t say that this piece necessarily redounds to that notion. But hey, they said it worked, so who am I to criticize.
Update 7b – The upshot seems to be that the depth of knoweldge, tracking, metrics type stuff that the internet introduces is a powerful way to improve the quality of creative. They mentioned an online video campaign they did for Saturn. They noticed that a large number of people stopped watching the video right before it got to the actual sell. Voile! Make the video better by responding to this data.
Update 8 – Some VCU Adcenter students are prefacing the next panel on “Technology.” Pretty good stuff. They’re calling attention to the fact that marketers can’t seem to break themselves of the desire to insert ads into every medium they can find. Mobile phone services, to which users are attracted by merit of their speed and lack of ads are being targeted now. As these students suggest, marketers are trying to corrupt new mediums before users have a chance to appreciate their uncorrupted form.
Update 8a – So far, this panel seems to be about how much fear and loathing exists in the industry regarding technology.
Update 8b – The panel disputes the fear and loathing thing. One panelist said, “Who is afraid of their toaster?”
Update 9 – Well, the laptop battery died and all the power outlets were taken, so I couldn’t blog the last session. Suffice to say the last session was somewhat lackluster. Paul Woolmington of Naked said some good stuff about the changing landscapes, but I don’t remember exactly what. More tomorrow.

This makes sense to me strategically so that publications can stay relevant to advertisers BUT will they cut off their nose to spite their face when ad agencies lose billable work because of it. Another questions is what are they doing to stay relevant to their readers? If you give advertisers more ways to reach readers, but don’t add any value to those readers, they’ll get annoyed and go away. The key to succcess here is for the pubs to be sure and increase value to readers, ESPECIALLY if you are giving advertisers more access to them.
I think the distinctions between between media companies and ad agencies will become less and less over time. Its a game of survival as advertisers continue to have more and more choices as to how they spend their marketing dollars. It will be intersting to see how this plays out.

“The ad is consistent with what’s acceptable in the Japanese marketplace,” a spokesperson from MLB International said in the report. “We did approve it with him drinking the beer outside of his uniform. It’s a type of commercial that is really commonplace in Japan. It is not really that farfetched.”
Though the ad may adhere to the law, the Red Sox are concerned with how it will look to have shots of their hot acquisition drinking beer juxtaposed with images of him in uniform.
“It is a perception,” Blake said in the report, “and we certainly want our players to be perceived in the right light.”

Oh, really? The “right light?” This is transparent bullshit. What an exquisitely sensitive bunch of milquetoast slack wits we’ve become. Here’s my proof that Sox management is demonstrating their unprincipled perfidy.
As may be obvious, I take no issue with Daisuke’s ad, or the uptick in beer sales at Fenway. I only wish we collectively had the stomach to tell the handwringing, Calvinistic, moral scolds where to stick it.