chaos2clarity

Playing with Type

2011-08-29T08:17:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not talking about fonts. I'm talking about taking well-known personalities and letting them play with their image. There are basically two ways to go if you want to entertain: Have them play against type, or have them poke fun at their existing type. I did the latter with Joe Mauer, and this is the new spot for Anytime Fitness that was just released on YouTube today.

Self-Congratulatory Marketing

2011-04-11T07:57:00.000-07:00

I tend to pick on certain brands, but it's only because they're ones that I actually "use," so call it flattery by criticism.

Lately, I've observed a trend that I'm calling "self-congratulatory marketing." I walk into Chipotle (as I do, let's face it, at least once a week) and see that the popular quick-serve restaurant is temporarily wrapping its burritos in gold to celebrate its 18th anniversary and promote its mantra of "food with integrity." As part of the effort, you can also pick up a fake, semi-Onion-style newspaper at checkout called The Gold Burrito Digest.

Walk down the corner to Starbucks, and you'll see what that often-ridiculed-yet-still-popular brand is doing to celebrate its 40th anniversary: a refined logo, a Tribute Blend coffee, and CEO Howard Schultz's new book, Onward.

Don't get me wrong: It's smart marketing to use a company anniversary as an opportunity to do something different, attract some earned media attention and generally shake it up for loyal customers.

But there's something about these two promotions that strikes me funny. There's just a little too much "me" in them, and not enough "you." Chipotle is merely drawing attention to its ingredients, but not offering customers anything more (maybe every 100th golden burrito is free?). Starbucks probably thinks that it's rewarding customers by giving them some new product offerings, but there's not a clear sense of, "Thank you for making us who we are." It's all about them.

It's a little like saying to your spouse, "In honor of our 10th anniversary, I'm going to remind you of all the reasons you married me." Really? Is that all?

The Competitive Catch-22

2011-04-04T12:30:00.000-07:00

Rather than write a traditional post on this topic, I thought I'd represent the point a bit more dramatically.

[A cold corner office. A CEO turns his computer monitor to face a marketing director, taps the screen.]

CEO: Why aren't we doing this?

Marketing Director: Doing what, exactly?

[The CEO frowns, folds his arms.]

CEO: I explained this when you were hired. When it comes to marketing, I want us to be different, to do things no one else is doing. We need to be pioneers, outside-the-box thinkers. First adopters, not copy cats. Creative. That kind of thing.

Marketing Director: And you think what this competitor is doing is ground-breaking and creative?

CEO: Take a look for yourself.

[The marketing director leans in, examines the work.]

CEO: Well?

Marketing Director: You're right. It's very good.

CEO: Then why aren't we doing it?

Marketing Director: Actually, we talked about it.

CEO: When?

Marketing Director: Ten months ago.

CEO: We did not.

Marketing Director: I brought it to you personally, almost this exact idea. And it had a lot of support. Sales loved it. But then one person derailed it.

CEO: Who?

Marketing Director: You.

CEO: Me? That's impossible. Why would I shoot down an idea that everybody's talking about?

Marketing Director: No one was talking about it back then. You said it was too risky. I think you also said it was, quote, weird.

CEO: Business is founded on risk!

Marketing Director: You said it was unproven. Our policy was "Appropriate Risk," which meant waiting for tangible "proof of concept" in the marketplace before engaging resources.

CEO: Exactly. That's smart policy.

[The marketing director turns the computer screen back toward the CEO.]

Marketing Director: Well, I guess we have our "proof of concept."

[The CEO stammers.]

CEO: You've made your point. Now go and do something just like this.

Marketing: Only different, right?

CEO: Exactly. And then think of the next idea before somebody else does.

Thank You, Part III

2011-01-31T08:04:00.000-08:00

About three and a half years ago, while still working at an agency, I did a small side project for a friend. When the project was done, I had to put together an invoice. And this forced me to pretend, just for the briefest of moments, that I was self-employed.

Mind you, this was something I had never actually considered possible or realistic. Aside from "being a lawyer" and "visiting Branson, Missouri, "owning my own business" was, in fact, the one thing I knew I never would do. I was far too risk-intolerant, not to mention pathologically under-confident.

The next thing I remember is typing "Conk Creative" in the upper left-hand corner of the blank word processing document. I did it without really thinking. And then a strange and magical thing happened. You know that movie-like feeling when you meet someone and instantly feel as though you've known him or her your entire life? It was like that.

"Conk Creative." Just like any story or character, it now existed simply because I typed it.

Six months later, I turned in my resignation letter at the agency. Two weeks after that, I woke up with no clients, no income and no clue. It's difficult to describe how terrifying and liberating that felt. And it's almost disturbing to realize how closely related "fear" and "freedom" are on an emotional level. I felt as though a cliche had been proven correct: There's nothing more terrifying and liberating than walking a tightrope with no net.

But here's the thing: Doors have flung open in the last three years that would have remained shut had I stayed ... let's see, what's the real opposite of self-employed? ... "other-employed." What you realize is that you do have a net below you. It's called "family." It's called "friends." It's called "colleagues." Sometimes it's called "complete strangers" and "people you never thought you'd meet."

I haven't negotiated that rope perfectly, and indeed, the real challenge will always be learning how to maintain balance. Today, I'd just like to say thank you to everyone who has broken my fall and gotten me right back on the rope.

3 New Spots for Anytime Fitness

2011-01-14T11:06:00.000-08:00

How to Dilute a Brand in One Tag Line

2011-01-05T13:16:00.000-08:00

I'm sometimes amazed at the number of times I've encountered a brand that seems to want to work against itself. It often goes back to the element of any brand that is most fundamental to its audience, yet most ignored by its owners: the name.

As a hypothetical example, imagine a company called All Things Gardening. You're called in because the company feels like it needs an image facelift, and one of the first things uttered by the sales director is, "We need people to know that we're about more than gardening."

"But you're called 'All Things Gardening,'" you reply.

"Yeah, but nobody thinks about our name anyway, and we don't want to change it."

If you think this sounds extreme, you're right. But you'd be surprised how close to reality it comes. In fact, every morning when I listen to the radio, I hear the most current version of it ... and not from some regional or Mom and Pop company, but from one of the best-known brands in the world: General Motors.

You know the burgeoning world of hybrid and electric cars? Well, you may be aware that GM is in the process of launching its long-awaited, much-vaunted Chevy Volt. The advantage of the Volt is that it's a plug-in electric hybrid vehicle that delivers the petroleum-based equivalency of 93 miles per gallon. Yet every morning on the radio, I hear the words, "sponsored by the new Chevy Volt: it's more car than electric."

Um, what?

It's pretty easy to connect the dots on this. Some market research group or department presented Chevrolet with focus group data showing that people are skeptical about electric cars, because they assume they can't go as fast, don't offer the same amenities and raise more risk of breaking down on the highway than their catalytic cousins. Therefore, the logic goes, we need to "downplay" the electric aspects of the car. Sure, it's called the Volt, but we need to reassure fearful consumers that this car is okay for them to drive.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you're presented with credible data that says exactly that, you don't take a "but" approach, you take an "and" approach. The Volt isn't "an electric car, but seriously, it still performs well"; it's "the most powerful electric car on the planet," "the electric car that packs a punch," "the electric car that gives all the power to you."

People know when you're hiding something; don't make it easier for them. I will soon be in the market for a new car, and you can bet that I'm going to give a lot more attention to the Nissan Leaf (because Nissan is embracing its leadership in electric cars) than to the tentative and under-confident Volt.

A Creative Way to Communicate Brand Position

2010-12-08T09:19:00.000-08:00

Proudly releasing the newest Conk Creative production for Anytime Fitness. This one may appear to be about the coolness of the illustration and editing technique. It's actually a deeper effort that starts with serious thought about brand positioning and goes from there.

See what you think and let me know.

Distracting or Enhancing?

2010-10-18T10:58:00.000-07:00

I recently came across this very interesting technique for literally animating somewhat dry (though to my mind, very interesting) material.

What do you think ... does the drawing enhance your understanding of the information, or detract from it?

The Customization Catch-22

2010-10-07T07:02:00.001-07:00

Once in a while, I encounter one of those "feedback loops" in the marketing/advertising process. These are the little memes of thought that sound good and rational in a meeting, yet in actual execution lead to small inefficiencies at best and huge problems at worst.

The latest is something I call the Customization Catch-22.

The scenario is this: Your company needs to produce some piece of marketing. It could be a trade show booth. It could be a good old-fashioned "sell sheet." It could be a brand-spanking-new website. In the pre-development process, the subject of "customization" comes up. This is usually, but not exclusively, centered on attracting vertical markets. "Let's do something for the financial services types." "Let's show health care companies that we have experience in their space."

That's almost always a good idea. But here's the rub: Often, once you start going down this road, you fall into one of those "focus vs. inclusion" traps that I so love to write about. If you're going to call out technology companies, then why not your higher education experience? Your public sector experience? Retail? Agribusiness?

So you have to call out everything lest you alienate one industry or lose one opportunity. The result: You risk creating the impression that you specialize in everything, which is a logical impossibility. Or you have to create so many separate Powerpoint slides, brochures, etc., that it becomes impossible (and expensive) to manage them all.

I wish I had an easy solution to the Customization Catch-22, but I don't. I think it's more useful to look at it as a symptom rather than a problem. Is it a red flag that your company (and your brand) isn't focused enough? Is it a sign that focusing on vertical markets isn't your best sales strategy in the first place? Is it a wake-up call that you really do need to pick just 3-4 verticals that present the greatest opportunity and not worry about the rest?

Chances are, it's at least one of these. And addressing the bigger picture is the only way to pull yourself out of the Catch-22.

SOUVENIRS Behind the Scenes

2010-10-04T13:41:00.001-07:00

Just for fun ... this is a recently produced video showing some making-of footage of my script, Souvenirs (hopefully coming to a theater near you next year).

Focus vs. Inclusion in One Photo

2010-09-15T07:40:00.000-07:00

Actually, if you call your business "Pizza and Pasta," you don't deliver variety. You named your business "Pizza and Pasta." By its very nature, your name precludes variety. That's the point. Can I get a pint of Egg Foo Young? No. Can I get three soft-shell tacos? No. Can I get a pizza or some pasta? Yes. Because that's what you sell. It's right in your name.

Introducing the Coalition of Angry Kids

2010-08-30T10:28:00.000-07:00

Here's an idea: Find out that September is Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, have a client that's willing to go a little bit against the grain, and produce some TV and radio spots (supported by print ads in People magazine, USA Today and Delta's SkyMiles inflight magazine) all in an effort to attract earned media stories by saying something unexpected and controversial.

It worked. On the national level, Conk Creative's COAK campaign was covered by papers like The San Francisco Examiner. More important, on the local level it led to dozens of local TV stations interviewing Anytime Fitness franchise owners. Still more important, the offer attached to the campaign has so far drawn more than 26,000 takers. That's nearly 30,000 qualified leads with a high potential of becoming members.

Sure, a handful of people were a little miffed by the message. But if you're not offending someone, you're simply not saying anything interesting.

Handshake Watch: Concur

2010-06-10T12:02:00.000-07:00

Concur, Inc., you're on notice.

Really, Caribou? Really?

2010-05-07T08:48:00.001-07:00

I hate to keep picking on Caribou, but when I see this while standing at the counter, it's hard to resist.

Don't Be Afraid of Specificity, Part II

2010-05-06T13:47:00.000-07:00

With apologies to my readers, I'm finding that I can't let go of the "specificity" idea. Ever since I wrote about it last month, I feel as though I've been bombarded by additional examples of the necessity for specificity (say that three times really fast).

The example I've even started to use in meetings ... whether we're talking about products, services or story ideas ... is "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." We all remember the movie, right? It was a huge, global, overnight cinematic sensation. Yes, even I (a movie snob) saw it. Yes, I laughed all the way through. No, I never watched a minute of the spin-off TV series. Now imagine if this conversation had taken place with a studio development executive when Nia Vardalos was pitching the idea:

"It's called 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding.'"
"Greek, huh?"
"Yes, Greek."
"Not many Greeks in this country."
"There are millions, but that's not the point ... "
"Kind of alienating to only focus on Greeks, don't you think?"
"The point is, the movie can apply to any number of cultures."
"Not sure what you mean."
"Italians, Mexicans, maybe even Irish ... they'd all identify with these characters."
"Then why say 'Greek'?"
"Because I'm Greek. I know Greeks."
"But we need to be inclusive. No Irish person is going to see a movie with 'Greek' in the title."
"Sure they will, once the word of mouth spreads."
"Either we take out the 'Greek' or we consider doing different versions for each ethnic group. And that would be expensive."
"You don't have to do either. Trust me, these characters are universal."
"If they're universal, then why make them Greek?"
"Because I know Greeks, like I said ... "
"If Greeks are universal, then why is there anything to 'get to know'?"
"Have you even read the script?"
"Pass. Got anything else?"
"I've got a buddy flick about cops where one guy is super straight and the other one is totally crazy."
"Tell me more ... "

This Is What Brand Confusion Looks Like

2010-04-22T08:14:00.001-07:00

It may appear as though I only comment on branding as it relates to coffee companies. Understandable, since it is a passion of mine. The moral of the story here is, if you're going to change your logo, flip a switch. Don't say "we'll do it gradually" or "we'll do cup sleeves in a phase one, and cups themselves in a phase two."

Are You a Philosopher or an Economist?

2010-04-19T07:55:00.000-07:00

When I started my personal blog, my fourth post (dated May 1, 2007) was called "Philosophy & Economics." Sounds riveting, doesn't it? Apparently I had been on an audiobook bender, and I had filled my head with, among other things, a history of the great Greek philosophers, and "Freakonomics" by economist Stephen Leavitt. As esoteric as the topic may sound, I still hold to the fundamental idea: Philosophy is about how the world should be; economics is about how the world is.

The question is, are you a philosopher or an economist?

Most people, including entrepreneurs and marketing professionals, vacillate between the two, and this was never more clearly expressed than in a book I recently finished: "Pour Your Heart Into It: How Starbucks Built a Company One Cup at a Time," by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. Starbucks started with a philosopher's mindset; it was out to introduce good coffee to the United States--specifically dark-roasted Arabica beans. It's easy to forget now, but before Starbucks, America lived on Brim. (Without Starbucks starting the movement, I wouldn't have the luxury of drinking coffee at superior local haunts like Kopplins.) Starbucks established the coffee bean and roast it thought superior, then, like any evangelist, set out to educate and convert the masses. And it worked. The product was radical at the time. It aroused curiosity and spread by word of mouth, one person at a time. And remember, Starbucks originally only sold beans and coffee-makers. It didn't serve actual brewed coffee or espresso.

Then Schultz went to Italy and experienced the espresso bar. He decided that serving espresso was the logical next step for Starbucks. He faced massive resistance from the company's founders. It was anything but a smooth transition. In fact, Schultz had to resign from Starbucks, start his own company, and then buy Starbucks back. But it happened. Still thinking like philosophers, Starbucks sought to educate the public. It maintained strict parameters on how it served espresso. And it worked, as people flocked to the then-new drink in droves.

But then things got interesting. Competitors started popping up and were more willing to think like economists. They might not have had the same quality of bean, but they were open to doing some things its customers wanted that Starbucks was not willing to do. For example, they served lattes with skim milk vs. whole. Starbucks refused to do so because skim milk affects the quality and taste of the drink. Starbucks customers started to complain. And more important, walk across the street to competitors. Starbucks was caught in the middle between philosophy and economics. It had build a customer base (but not achieved profitability) based on strict quality, but its business plan required massive growth to be profitable. At what point did it need to stop preaching and starting listening? And at what point would that mean selling its soul?

Schultz decided to think like an economist, and Starbucks began allowing skim milk to be used in its espresso drinks. Some people would say this was the beginning of the end for Starbucks; many others would argue that it was the beginning of the beginning.

Much as it's fun to rip Starbucks for all kinds of things (the greatest Onion headline of all time was "Starbucks Opens in Rest Room of Existing Starbucks"), Schultz has by and large managed to navigate the philosopher/economist tempest pretty damn well. He's never compromised on the bean or the brewing, so by being a philosopher, he's managed to beat lower-quality competitors like Gloria Jeans. But by also being an economist, he's profitably introduced frappucinos, Starbucks ice cream and even music into the mix (all the result of customer suggestions or employees' ideas). He sums it up by pointing out that Starbucks will add hazelnut syrup to a drink if a customer requests it, but it will never sell a bag of hazelnut-flavored beans. Believe it or not, that actually makes sense when you read the book.

I do think Starbucks officially lost its way with the introduction of VIA instant coffee ... a case I made in a previous visual post. And of course they've had to scale back in recent years. The company is certainly not perfect. Its reputation has always been more corporate than it views itself, but it has also been a rather exemplary corporate citizen when it comes to employee ownership and health benefits.

It's easy to be a rigid philosopher, but philosophers end up frustrated and bitter because few people think exactly like them. It's also easy to be a free-wheeling economist, but pure economic thinkers ultimately stand for nothing other than making money. What's terribly, terribly difficult is to walk that tightrope and make good decisions that lean one way or the other ... to listen to your audience without compromising your integrity. It's not a terribly sexy idea, and there's no public award for it. But in my book, it's actually the key to real success.

The "We Get It" Movement

2010-04-14T15:04:00.000-07:00

A marketing movement that's been building for a few years now has finally reached the mainstream. I call it the "we get it" movement. Sure, it's probably geared mostly for the so-called Digital Native consumer population, but it actually has a much wider appeal. It goes like this:

For decades, advertising has lived in the Patronizing Age. This is the time when advertisers surely must have thought you were stupid. They assumed that you would buy whatever they were selling without realizing what's actually going in their ads. And the ads were, in retrospect, ridiculous.

The We Get It Movement says, "Listen, you and I get it. We see through all the B.S. the other people fall into. We're smarter than they are. (Wink.)"

The first ad that I can remember with this tone came from the Target Market anti-tobacco campaign. A series of kids looked into the camera and delivered blisteringly sarcastic lines to the tobacco industry. I can't recall the specifics, but I picture a kid looking into the camera and saying (with all the mock sincerity in the world), "If you show me a cartoon camel smoking a cigarette, I'll think it's cool." The campaign was shocking for its absolute rejection of the "Just-Say-No" marketing that dominated the airwaves at that time. The strategy was completely different: Instead of talking AT people and trying to demonize an entire industry, the idea was to let the "victims" speak, thus emasculating an industry by showing how the target market sees through its infantile tactics.

Now the idea is officially mainstream, because Kotex is running its high-buzz UbyKotex campaign not only on YouTube, but during American Idol. If you haven't seen the spots, they're quite hilarious. They achieve the "we get it" factor by basically making fun of the entire history of feminine hygiene product advertising. But the strategy is more than satirical; it's really about complimenting the audience and ushering in a whole new inside-joke vibe with the super-marketing-savvy consumer. I'm not exactly the target market for Kotex, but I'd be surprised if the strategy (and its resulting tactics) aren't paying huge dividends in the aisle I usually avoid.

Don't Be Afraid of Specificity

2010-03-18T12:31:00.000-07:00

Since I just covered the issue of "Fear of the Negative," I might as well address a similar fear that tends to work against marketing goals: Speciphobia, the fear of being specific.

This is an understandable language issue in marketing. From a legal standpoint, you often can't be too specific without opening up some level of exposure and risk. The problem is, from a pure communication standpoint, people love specificity. As consumers, we want to know exactly what we're getting, exactly what we're saving, exactly what you can do for me, and exactly what you want me to do.

In fact, I would argue that in the media-saturated chaos that now engulfs us, we're positively lost without specificity. Three examples come to mind (a specific number, see?):

1. Twitter, as we all know by now, lets you say anything you want to say, but only in 140 characters. Why 140? No reason, other than it's a restriction that forces you to act within it, and thus makes the entire platform more usable and interesting.

2. The idea of "buying local" has been around for decades, but why has it suddenly gained traction? Because an enterprising local consultant named Cinda Baxter started The 3/50 Project. The idea: Think of three local businesses you'd miss if they went away; and commit to spending $50 a month at those and other independent, locally owned businesses. "Buy local" is an empty platitude. "Support three businesses at $50/month" is a call to action.

3. Everyone wants to make a movie. Everyone imagines writing the great American novel. Now, with projects like the 48 Hour Film Project and NaNoWriMo, millions are getting into the act. You mean I only have 48 hours to make a movie? (Some contests have shortened it to 24). I only have a month write a novel? That's crazy. Okay, I'll do it.

Specificity sounds risky. We too often assume that it will alienate people. In fact, it usually has the exact opposite effect. Specificity eases understanding and incites action. So the next time you think it's good enough to say that your product or service "drives performance" or "leverages core assets," think again. Give me a number.

Telling the Story

2010-02-17T09:36:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to share this video produced by Conk Creative with 185 Media (sorry for the chopped aspect ratio; this is the smallest YouTube will allow, and the right side still gets cut off).

This is going to be an ongoing series that tells the story of HealthPartners, which is really the story of prepaid medical insurance itself (something we take for granted).

I did a lot of similar work back in the day at West Publishing, and you'd be surprised how effective pieces like this are, especially for new and existing employees. People want to know more than what you do and how you do it. They really crave an understanding of WHY you do it.

Don't Be Afraid of Negative Language

2010-02-10T09:24:00.001-08:00

Much has been written about the importance of being positive all the time. Rubbish.

Not to get too scientific about a largely subjective industry, but basically our brains are huge prediction machines. We have big brains so that we can recognize patterns (such as people's expressions) and be able to predict how things are likely to affect us. To see patterns, we need contrast. To see black, we need white, and vice versa. Studies have shown that people who strike a purely positive or negative attitude regardless of the actual circumstances are doomed to make bad decisions.

Yet when it comes to marketing language, I've seen my own pattern for over 10 years: "We can't be negative." Don't get me wrong. If that's a response to someone proposing a tagline of "We're not as bad as our competitors," I understand. But it's gotten to the point where people are unwilling to even use the word "don't" in their copy or taglines. This is not helpful.

I did a little research and found some of the more famous taglines that incorporate so-called "negative" language. See if you can remember the company represented by each tagline:

We don't make a lot of the products you buy. We make a lot of the products you buy better.
It's not just shipping. It's ________.
Don't leave home without it.
It's not just for breakfast anymore.
Never let 'em see you sweat.
Don't get mad. Get ____.
The uncola.

Do these taglines strike you as negative, or do they provide clarity? Obviously, I think the latter. (Although I've never understood the first tagline. If you don't make products I buy, then why do I need to know who you are?)

Go back to a fundamental truism of marketing: People are busy. You can't waste their time. That means you need to tell them what you do. And to do that, you sometimes also need to tell them what you don't do. In fact, you can almost feel the relief in the air when someone says, "No, we don't do that." I've reached a point where I don't trust anyone who can't tell me what they don't do, or what they're not good at. Kudos to Domino's Pizza for using real negative consumer feedback in their newest ad campaign. It made me trust them, and it made we want to try their pizza again for the first time in years.

If contrast is your friend, then "negative language" is at least your drinking buddy. If you want the yin, you have to have the yang, because "positive" and "negative" can't be defined except in contrast to each other. In considering what you or your company does, start with what you don't do, as well as what "negative" problem you solve. After all, you can't have a Band-aid without an owy. You can't have a firefighter without fire. And you can't have a pain reliever without pain.

Don't you not disagree?

Mauer to the Mound

2010-01-22T08:45:00.001-08:00

Introducing the Conk Creative written and produced TV spot for Anytime Fitness, starring Mr. Joe Mauer:

Souvenirs

2010-01-07T15:09:00.001-08:00

What did I do this summer and fall? I was locked in my basement writing the script for this film as a Marine stood over my shoulder. Shooting begins in March. Would you see this movie?

The Wonderful World of Keynote

2010-01-05T18:50:00.000-08:00

Here's the situation: We live in a world where there's more and more to explain, and people have less and less time to have things explained to them. (As a writer, I occasionally have to admit that people often don't even have time to read anymore. How depressing.)

But fear not, the tools for communicating quickly and visually are getting more and more accessible. All you need is a tight script, a USB microphone, some audio editing software and a wonderful little program called Keynote, and you can accomplish in days what used to take weeks (and cost a small fortune).

Did I say "you"? I meant "me." Anytime Fitness agreed to let me share this animated presentation with the world (while promoting their incredible new website for members, Anytime Health). I'm telling you that these presentations really work, and I'm hoping that you'll find a need for your business to have one just like it.

Thank You, Part II.

2010-01-05T17:49:00.000-08:00

Two years ago, I decided to write myself in as a character in a book called "Where the Self-Employed Things Are." Last year, I wrote my first corporate thank-you note, humbled by the incredible startup support I received from friends and former colleagues. I can't really top the drama of describing waking up one morning with a mortgage, a family and no source of income, and I won't even try. But I will say that, while Chapter One in this strange book might be titled, "What the Hell Are You Doing?", Chapter Two's header reads more like "What Took You So Long?"

A friend of mine once told me that in agrarian times, it used to be considered normal, more stable and even less risky to be your own boss. (The alternative was "having to go work for someone else.") I found that hard to believe at the time, and I still do. But I'm beginning to think that the Digital Age might have something in common with the Agrarian Age.

I'm not crazy enough to say that self-employment is for everyone. Yes, health insurance is insanely expensive. And even when you feel somewhat established, you still live every day not knowing what projects lie 30 days ahead. But I've come to listen closely when people describe an experience as "difficult" and "stressful," but something they "couldn't imagine living without." These are usually the most meaningful experiences. And for me, they include working abroad, having a child and starting my own business.

I won't bore you with tales of walking door-to-door on Dublin's Grafton Street looking for a job in the summer of 1990. And my tales of fatherhood are well-documented on my non-professional blog. But I will say how amazed I am at what I experienced during the past year. There were the sexy projects, like writing a feature film related to World War II and shooting a commercial with Joe Mauer. There were the "didn't see that coming" projects, like creating an animated presentation for the 50th anniversary of a couple I'd never met, or hastily creating a T-shirt designed to encourage the firing of Notre Dame's football coach. And there continue to be the simple, day-to-day pleasures of working with appreciative clients and fellow creative entrepreneurs--the people I absolutely could not live without.

We live in an age when the barriers to self-employment are lower than they've ever been. If you have a cell phone, a laptop and a WiFi connection, you can be an entrepreneur. If not knowing what the next chapter of your life is going to be doesn't scare you to death, I say enter the story. And start writing.

Handshake Watch: CRI

2009-12-29T07:56:00.001-08:00

Cutting Edge Recruiters International, you're on notice.

The <$10K Website

2009-11-19T12:15:00.000-08:00

If you're a small company or nonprofit, here's the good news about websites: Many elements of a solid site are becoming increasingly commoditized and are getting cheaper. Cases in point:

- Most every site should be built on a content management platform (in other words, allow you to update it easily without paying an agency $200/hr. to add a comma). CMS platforms abound, ranging from "free and limited" to "expensive and robust." But the pressure is downward. Costs are going to come down as more and more elements of content management are packaged and commoditized.

- E-commerce functionality has also fallen to earth. Especially if you're a nonprofit, merchant accounts have also gotten more and more commoditized. In other words: Need to take credit cards? Not a big deal.

- Design should never be considered a commodity. I say this as the originator of Handshake Watch and as fervent opponent of using stock photography. But again, if the budget is extremely tight, the thousands of free WordPress themes out there can provide a decent design groundwork (although the integration from blogging themes to a "normal" website is not as easy as it looks).

This is all a long way of promoting one of my projects ... a website that took full advantage of this growing world of web commoditicization to give a nonprofit organization a good-quality site, with no handshakes or stock photography, linking to full e-commerce functionality and including some audio/visual bells and whistles--all for well under $10,000.

I mention this client because this client also represents a great cause: raising money to provide free legal services to people with disabilities and low-income families. So check out The Fund for the Legal Aid Society (and while you're at it, view their e-commerce section and send a few dollars their way). Thanks.

The Sorry State of Conference Room Communication

2009-11-19T12:14:00.000-08:00

This has been a growing observation/pet peeve of mine for about three years now, and it has now reached epidemic proportions.

People don't communicate.

I'm serious. Everybody talks. Nobody listens. And the more people who are involved in any given communication, the less effective it is.

The first problem is the organizational setting. Some organizations are healthy and based on respect; others are clearly fearful and dysfunctional. You can tell immediately. My rule of thumb is that the people who claim to have "thick skin" and be "brutally honest" are actually the most over-sensitive and passive-aggressive. In the faux honest setting, people appear to confront each other without really doing it. By the end of the meeting, they're all nodding and happy, as if they've come to some agreement. In truth, they have come to no consensus whatsoever.

The second problem is this: Our verbal communication culture is mirroring our virtual culture. Right now I'm writing in one tab in Google Chrome. I have five other tabs open. I'm checking my email. I just got a call on my cell. I have IM open. According to my toolbar, I have 12 programs open at the same time, and I'm toggling between almost all of them.

In other words, if I get 30 seconds to devote to any one task, I'm lucky. Interruption has become the norm, so much so that we've internalized exterior interruptions and have started interrupting ourselves when no one else is around.

In conference room communication, the level of interruption is astounding. It used to be considered rude to start talking before the guy next to you has finished his sentence. Today, it's expected. Which means that when you talk, you have to talk quickly before you get interrupted. Talking, in fact, becomes a competition. Which is why in the end, everybody is talking and no one is listening.

Now tell me, if you actually got to the end of this post, did you do it without getting interrupted?

Viva la VIA?

2009-10-20T18:13:00.000-07:00

Introducing the newest CC visual post, this time explaining in 90 seconds why Starbucks is making a branding mistake in introducing its new VIA(tm) instant coffee.

Strange Budfellows

2009-10-01T14:18:00.000-07:00

Introducing the first Conk Creative TV commercial produced for Anytime Fitness. This is currently running for four weeks in five states. In Minnesota, you can catch it during the KARE-11 and WCCO morning shows.

Feedback welcome.

Simple Works

2009-09-21T07:51:00.000-07:00

Once in a while I catch a real-life reminder of the benefits of "keep it simple, stupid"--or as former Gov. Jesse Ventura was fond of saying (in my opinion, Freudianically in relation to himself): "Keep It Simple AND Stupid."

Freudianically is not a word.

For all the hand-wringing about photography, copy and art direction, the concept (and how well it communicates) is what matters most. In this billboard campaign, which I see every day on the corner of Snelling and St. Clair, the client clearly wanted to communicate one thing: People who think they're driving "buzzed" instead of drunk are most likely fooling themselves, and they're a danger to themselves and the rest of us. How to communicate that on a billboard?

They could have gone any number of ways, but the execution they use is simple and perfect. First, they show the outcome, not the problem. (They could have pushed the edge and shown a cadaver, but that's going a bit too far.) Second, they show the exact same picture twice. The result is a Highlights Magazine effect, where you immediately start looking for differences between the two photos... only to realize, of course, that there aren't any.

Mission accomplished. Drunk driving and buzzed driving are the same thing. Stop fooling yourself. I get it.

The only worry now: a billboard that's so effective, it distracts drivers, like they're drunk. Or buzzed.

Red Flag Phrases, Part 1

2009-09-09T07:23:00.001-07:00

Introducing a new feature on Chaos2Clarity joining the ranks of "BrandWatch," "HandshakeWatch," "Focus vs. Inclusion" and "Random Rewrites." I'm calling it "Red Flag Phrases." Its purpose is to provide some preventive medicine for the marketing world by exposing the words and phrases that mark the early warning signs of impending catastrophe.

Kicking off Red Flag Phrases is the mother of all red flags. If you or someone you love says the following in a marketing meeting, stop immediately:

"We'll do that in a Phase 2."

What does this phrase mean? It means that the client has scaled back its expectations and/or budgets for a particular project... or it's been decided that surviving politically means tackling things in smaller bites instead of all at once. As in, "We'd love to have the bells and whistles on our website, but let's just get something up in time for the trade show and handle everything else in a Phase 2."

In the realpolitik of marketing, this phrase is very common and completely understandable. The issues marketing directors face related to budgets, politics, deadlines and unreasonable expectations are staggering (especially today, when those who are fortunate enough to be employed are expected to do the jobs or two or three people).

The problem is, the phrase spells impending doom for a project. I'm quite certain that in some universe, at some time, Phase 2 has actually happened according to plan and everyone has been happy. I've yet to experience it myself. More commonly, what happens is that the creative agency does the interim work (minus the "Phase 2"), and the client isn't happy with the results. Why? Because Phase 1 is boring, and even though clients say they don't expect to see Phase 2's bells and whistles yet, deep down they really do.

The key for both sides in this situation is to stop for a second and hammer out what they really mean by Phase 2. More often than not, with early detection, Phase 2 can be reached in Phase 1 without anybody getting hurt. (I was going to write more about this topic, but I'm saving it for a Phase 2.)

SEO vs. Brand

2009-09-01T09:46:00.000-07:00

I recently found myself in a place of clear brand contradiction. These are the moments when Philosophy (how you want people to behave) meets Behavioral Psychology (how people actually behave). And the two go at it until they either shake hands or kill each other.

Working with a client in a brand consulting capacity (Philosophy), I followed the adage that the best way to cut through in terms of marketplace positioning is to define not only your organization or product, but an entirely new category around it (think "SUV" or "overnight delivery service"). I thought they should define themselves in a totally different way than their competition, and then name it. I presented the idea. I proposed a name. They liked it. It was time to do a new website. Time to use the new positioning. Time to conquer the world.

I put on my writer hat and developed a whole page devoted to this new angle, this new perspective, this new term. I storyboarded an animation they could use to show it visually. Then I made sure to sprinkle the term throughout the site to achieve consistency, clarity, repetition and reinforcement. Mission accomplished, right?

Wrong. Now it was time to look at the site from the perspective of Search Engine Optimization (SEO). SEO, at least in terms of title and description tagging, is the ultimate in behavioral psychology. To be effective, you have to live in the real world. What do people look for? How do they search for it? What terms do they most often use to find exactly the information they want?

SEO has quickly become one of the most important marketing considerations for virtually any company--especially business-to-consumer organizations. The problem is, it flies directly in the face of otherwise-effective branding. To effectively position something, you have to go against the wind. To make something SEO-savvy, you have to go with it.

If FedEx had been founded today, there would have been a huge fight among the marketing folks about whether to create the category of Overnight Delivery Service:

"It's original, no one else has thought of it!" would shout the philosophers. "And if we don't take it, someone else will!"

"No one is searching for it!" would shout back the psychologists. "It has no relevancy!"

In the end (as with everything except politics these days), the solution was a compromise. The new positioning could still be there front and center, but the site still had to be loaded with already-used keywords--both in the copy and in the tags.

Now comes the experiment: Will anyone start searching for the new term and create a truce between these two warring camps?

Buyers vs. Users

2009-06-26T11:44:00.000-07:00

A recent study revealed some interesting truths not only about technology, but about human nature in general. It was commissioned to solve a mystery: Why do so many people buy technology-oriented products, only to return them a week later? The conclusion: because as a species, we're basically bipolar.

Maybe it's more accurate to say that we all have multiple personality disorder: We're one person when we buy something; we're quite another when we own something. For example, when looking at say, digital cameras, we care most about having lots of features. All things being equal, we want the device that offers the most stuff so we feel like we're getting our money's worth.

The problem is this: Once we take the camera home and start using it, we become an entirely different person. Our needs change. We want simplicity. And because loading a digital camera with all the bells and whistles needed to get us to buy it also increases the device's complexity, we get frustrated and return it. (The poor camera-maker then throws his or her hands in the air and says, "What do I have to do to please these people?!")

Dividing our personalities into "buyers" and "users" is quite fascinating on all levels. Think about how it applies to dating (buyers) vs. marriage (users), and you probably have a hit screenplay on your hands. Lately I've been thinking about how it applies to purchasing creative services. So often what companies look for when shopping for an agency is Creativity (with a big "C"). That's one of the reasons why Big Agency spends so much money on cool digs, hot young account execs, juice bars, ping pong tables and retro video games.

That gets the account. The problem is, once the account is won, the client switches from a Buyer to a User. Now what they want is high-quality work, responsive account service, strong attention to detail and reasonable prices. Unfortunately, putting on that sizzling dog-and-pony show to win the RFP costs money. Details and customer service? How boring.

My suggestion: Try to have a User mindset from the beginning. That way, you'll never get used.

Taking an Untraditional Approach

2009-06-23T10:02:00.001-07:00

I'm happy to share the results of a recent project that covered the "concepting" part of my copywriting, concepting, clarity tagline.

A joint project--won through an RFP and executed between Conk Creative and 185 Media--the challenge was to create a 5-minute video that would get high school students excited about Hennepin Technical College.

The concept was to make the video as untraditional as the school itself:

Focus on action and showing the facilities (rather than a talking head).
Rather than a standard voiceover, make it a fast-cut music video with a custom-built soundtrack.
Incorporate the actual sounds of the school's different areas into the soundtrack.
Use clever transitions that link the different areas of study (e.g. a stove burner in Culinary Arts to a fire during a Firefighter Training exercise).
Draw a clear and appealing distinction between the experience of Hennepin Tech vs. a traditional 4-year college.

Here's the result. Let me know what you think.

Chipotle vs. KFC

2009-06-08T19:54:00.000-07:00

In the first of what I hope will be many visual Chaos2Clarity posts, I offer a 90-second analysis of recent brand-related uber-moves made by two fast food giants.

BrandWatch: The Photographer's Guild

2009-04-24T14:14:00.000-07:00

Apparently, you can call the Photographer's Guild on Snelling and Selby for any of the following:
- Weddings
- Portraits
- Commercial
- Geo-Political Consultation

(And I thought it was weird that LeeAnn Chin was selling frozen yogurt...)

Ah, the Good Old Days...

2009-04-24T14:09:00.000-07:00

The Incredible Effectiveness of Contrarian Marketing

2009-04-16T08:02:00.000-07:00

It's rare that a piece of marketing really impresses me, but this one figuratively blew me away.

In a move to become less selfish (and knowing that my family is incredibly lucky while lots of people are really hurting right now), I recently gave some money to Second Harvest. I probably responded to the organization's latest direct mail campaign because I remember Bruce Springsteen talking them up during one of his recent concerts. (That's some high-level product placement...)

Anyway, in considering an organization that can enlist The Boss, I thought I knew what to expect in the way of follow-up. So when I received the standard thank-you note envelope in the mail recently, I knew it was going to be either the type-written form letter or the more advanced it-looks-type-written-but-it's-actually-just-Lucinda-Handwriting-font-with-your-first-name-ink-jetted- at-the-top-through-the-printer's-list-merge-program form letter.

But I was wrong. Take a look at this. It's a handwritten note. I repeat: an actual handwritten note! I've long considered the benefits of going totally contrarian in marketing (like responding to the current Twitter Mania by telling my clients to reach their target customers by sending them telegrams), but this is Marketing Contrarianism at its best. When is the last time you read a handwritten note, especially from a total stranger? (When's the last time you actually sent a handwritten letter? Or any letter?)

Bravo, Second Harvest. You're a great organization in every way, and I'm happy to use this supposedly advanced social media tool to promote your beautifully inspired use of a lost art--and to encourage everyone who reads this to support your cause.

Attention Deadline Disorder

2009-04-02T14:53:00.001-07:00

I like coming up with axioms to explain behavior, because it creates a nice illusion of understanding and control. So far, I have only two axioms (axii?) that I consider iron-clad, battle-tested and USDA approved.

Axiom #1. The speed of a driver is directly proportional to his or her height. (The shorter the driver, the slower the driver... or at least, if you find yourself behind a really slow driver, chances are you can't even see his or her head in the front seat.)

Axiom #2. In marketing, a client's attention to a project is inversely proportional to the number of days before its deadline. Translation: People don't really start paying to attention to anything until it's due.

You know what I'm talking about. I recently completed a project that went something like this:

30 days before deadline
Client: "This is fantastic. No changes."

15 days before deadline
Client: "Just a few little tweaks."

3 days before deadline
Client: "What's with all the em dashes?!"

Don't get me wrong. The client is great. I'm observing, not judging. After all, I tend to write these posts starting about three days before I plan on sending the outgoing email. (Guilty as charged...)

Clarity Is Good

2009-03-24T17:53:00.000-07:00

(Warning: This post is incredibly self-serving. But then again, so is this entire blog.)

After harping on bloated branding exercises, busy graphic design and the oft-made tragic choices of "inclusion" over "focus," I'm happy to share a Conk Creative campaign that will hopefully bring clarity (and excitement) to an unlikely place: academia.

About four months ago, I was hired by a group at the University of Iowa called the Iowa Center for Developmental and Learning Sciences (ICDLS). Yes, despite my resume in fitness, technology, manufacturing and media, this group trusted an outsider to take on a project in the world of high-powered university research (an area no less competitive than the others, by the way).

The core membership of the ICDLS is a group of professors who know more about human learning and development than you and I can ever dream of. In their market, they're the upstart Davids in a world dominated by old-school Goliaths--the Apple trying to break the grip of the oppressive PC by exposing "nature vs. nurture" as a false choice and bringing gene worship back down to earth.

They invited me to come down to Iowa City, do interviews, learn about what they do, and develop a marketing plan. The marketing plan turned into a Brand Blueprint, and the recommendations were aggressive. Change your name. Design a new logo. Embrace a new icon. Change the way you talk about yourselves. Launch a new website. Make a video. Start a Facebook page.

To my shock and awe, they took every recommendation and re-hired me to help them execute the plan. In two months.

The result was a classic example of strong collaboration and applying creativity not only to materials, but to budgets. Not enough money for a full video? We created simple "Lessig-style" videos out of the interviews I had recorded. Can't hire out the entire website? Fine, we'll do the overall logo and graphic design and turn the buildout over to your internal staff.

As of today, the new website is live. The ICDLS is now the Delta Center. The launch party is tomorrow, and I'm headed down to IC. Feels good to walk the walk.

(Here's the website.)

Handshake Watch 2009

2009-03-09T08:59:00.001-07:00

A simple word of advice. If you're putting together any promotional vehicle--be it a brochure, a direct mail piece or some Flash loop for an upcoming trade show--and you or your designer don't know which image to use for that section about Partnership--do not... I repeat, DO NOT reach for that shaking hands stock image.

Generic Handshake Stock Photography Users: Consider yourselves on notice.

Beware the Bloated Branding Process

2009-02-25T13:39:00.000-08:00

In 2000, Saturday Night Live ran a TV ad for a fictional company called Westlink. Filled with beautifully vague images--a hang glider soars past a mountain top, Japanese children carry parasols, an elderly man walks with a pick-axe swung over his shoulder--it ended with an authoritative announcer stating, "Westlink: Even we don't know what we do."

I think of this ad when I see some of the bloated branding processes that flood the marketplace today. I'm sure that many of these processes (which are supposed to bring clarity to confused brands) are wonderful and worthwhile. But the last two that companies have shared with me seem built to achieve one of three objectives: to confuse, to introduce unnecessary complexity, or to fatten the agency's profit margins.

One was a finished brand consulting report filled with page after page of the company's supposed Core This and Core That. ("Core Values: Integrity, Innovation, Service"; "Core Personality Traits: Passion, Commitment, Fun!")

My Core Reaction: Puke. By the time I was finished, I was not only unable to determine what made the company unique; I couldn't even discern its industry. The second was a bloated but extremely well-designed proposal for a long and intensive branding process. The price tag: $75,000.

These kinds of reports make me want to swing a dead cat. Not because I don't think branding processes are worthwhile (everybody could use one). And not because they're packaged (I have my own, called Brand Intervention). It's because they're ultimately little more than a clever way of monetizing corporate navel-gazing. Who doesn't want to believe that their company, organization, product or department isn't centered on Integrity, Innovation, Commitment, Service and Passion? Is it worth $75,000 to pay an agency to say that, just to make you feel good (and to sound just like everybody else)?

I work from a simple premise: Marketing isn't about saying what you want to say; it's about saying what people want to hear. Sound crass? Sorry, but it's the reality. Sound manipulative? It is if you can't back it up. But the truth is, if you're not offering people what they want in the first place, and then telling them about it in ways they can understand and get behind, then you're in the wrong business or targeting the wrong customer. In other words, you've got bigger problems than branding.

Like good writing, good marketing isn't about more; it's about less... about stripping things away, making them simpler. Good designers, writers, photographers, videographers and motion graphics experts all know that one marketing cliche will always ring true: less is more.

Which reminds me, it's time to end this post.

The Joy of Controversy

2009-02-18T14:49:00.001-08:00

A few weeks ago, I embedded a YouTube commercial Conk Creative co-produced for Anytime Fitness. As anticipated, that spot has now prompted a complaint letter from a certain well-known animal rights group.

What's interesting is that my client is demonstrating cutting-edge PR acumen by not shying away from the controversy. In fact, they've uploaded the video to their corporate Facebook page--as well as the complaint letter and their response--and they're encouraging everyone to make up their own mind about whether the ad is offensive.

I'm interested in your opinion as well. The Facebook page containing the video, the complaint letter and Anytime's response can be found here. I'd encourage you to follow this interesting tale of how PR and social media converge (which is most easily done by "fanning" the page, BTW). : )

Focus vs. Inclusion Part V

2009-02-12T12:06:00.000-08:00

The biggest tension between the people who get paid to market their organizations and the people they hire to help them do so is the tug of war between Focus and Inclusion. I've written about this tension many times, and it has, in fact, become a small obsession of mine.

It goes like this:

When you're paid by an organization to be accountable for its marketing and communications, most of the value is placed on quantity ("We want people to know everything we know about ourselves or product X, because then they'll get it"). When you're paid as a general communicator, on the other hand, most of the value is placed on quality ("Let's find the most effective message and say it in the most effective way").

It's the difference between opening a door (and revealing something shiny inside) and pushing someone in the room and locking the door.

The other night, I was watching The Colbert Report and waiting to see another academic make a good point badly. This happens often on Colbert and The Daily Show. Colbert and Stewart do academia a tremendous favor by temporarily making a Dartmouth professor as sexy as Jessica Simpson (oops, bad choice). But too often, these professors are painfully bad at communicating in the late-night talk show format. Why? Because they want to say everything that's in their heads and in their books. And instead of having the improviser's knack for saying "yes, and..." to every curve ball thrown at them from the host, they're easily caught off guard and stubbornly (and humorlessly) try to maintain their agenda.

What a surprise, then, when Robert Ballard appeared on Colbert. Here's a guy who has either been media trained or just has a natural gift for communication. Who would think that an oceanic archaeologist could be interesting in a mainstream way? But Mr. Ballard knew that he had the time and format to get basically one point across: It's more important to study oceans than outer space. And he succeeded wonderfully.

Watch the clip and notice how he finds ways to say the same thing in different ways (e.g., "We know more about Mars than our own oceans"), and how he seamlessly returns to that message time and time again.

Focus: 1
Inclusion: 0

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Robert Ballard

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Funny Political News

Christian Bale Parody
Joke of the Day

You Can't Force a Video to Go Viral Video, So Make This Video Go Viral!

2009-01-30T13:51:00.001-08:00

Catch the Virus

2009-01-30T12:15:00.000-08:00

Now that my own mother has friended me on Facebook, I know that we've entered a new phase of social media. But what exactly is it?

My guess is that we've hurtled headlong into The Great Sorting Out--at least when it comes to the marketing applications within social media. This is what happens when a critical mass of the population finally tunes into something (like Facebook), but at the same time, economic pressures make sure that no efforts are wasted and only the strongest survive.

This will be a healthy phase. There will be less pressure to do something (like Twitter) just because it's new, and more impetus to make rational decisions. For me, that starts with defining one particular element properly: "viral."

Credit a friend and colleague who recently offered these words of wisdom: "Viral" is an outcome, not a tactic.

Now, I won't go so far as to say you can't set out to make a viral video (you'll see why in my next post), but viralness, viralocity, viralocitude (or whatever you want to call it) is ultimately an attribute that is earned, not made. Put differently, to claim that you're making a viral video is akin to saying you're filming an Oscar-winning movie. The market decides, not you.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to share this post on Facebook and see what my mother thinks of it.

Thank You.

2009-01-15T17:50:00.000-08:00

A year ago today, I did a very scary thing: I handed over a letter of resignation, walked away from a good job and created a two-contractor household during a recession. On Feb. 1, 2008, I woke up with a mortgage, a four-year old, no business card, no website, no clients and no source of income. My father sent me a New York Times article on the looming economic meltdown with a one-word personal message: "bleak."

But today was a different story. Today, despite a morning temperature of 21 degrees below zero, I just finished the most rewarding day of work in my life. I shot a commercial that I developed and wrote, based on an idea that is absolutely ridiculous and absurd, and which I hope you and many others will see in the coming weeks and months.

In honor of my one-year anniversary, I just wanted to say thank you. The support I've received in my first 12 months has been nothing short of amazing. I've seen friends insist on paying for services that I would have offered for free. I've been hired by people I haven't worked with for 10 years. I've had colleagues share their clients, buy me lunch and give me a conference room to work in until I got on my feet. I've experienced the wonder of simply being trusted for no apparent reason.

When you start your own business, they call it "going out on your own." The truth is, I've never felt less alone. Thank you for making Conk Creative not only a reality, but a dream come true.

And here's to 2009.

- Marc

Elf This!

2008-12-09T08:27:00.001-08:00

Send your own ElfYourself eCards

Nokia Viral Genius

2008-12-08T19:40:00.000-08:00

Random Rewrite #4: Chick-Fil-A

2008-12-03T14:13:00.000-08:00

So close, yet so far away. I love the concept behind Chick-Fil-A's current marketing campaign, but I'm afraid it's a classic case of "doing the overdo."

The idea that Chick-Fil-A should launch a campaign that gives voice to cows who are sneakily trying to get America to eat more chicken is clever and entertaining enough. But something about its execution has always bugged me, and I finally figured out what it is. The sign should read:

"Eat More Chicken."

There's simply no reason to go the extra mile and misspell "more" ("mor") and "chicken" ("chikin"). It might've sounded funny in the meetings to assume that cows can't spell. The problem is, the misspelling is jarring to the audience. You're so focused on the misspelling that you lose the broader concept. And by the time the ad is over, the average viewer is going, "Huh?"

(And the font is a bit creepy.)

Integrity Is Sexy!

2008-11-26T14:26:00.000-08:00

When I think of it, the most common marketing problem I've heard companies express over the last 10 years (including just this afternoon), could be paraphrased as this:

"Our industry is growing increasingly commoditized. We don't want to compete on price. We want to compete on value."

It'll be interesting to see what happens as we enter the Repression of 2009 (I've chosen to combine "recession" and "depression"). The marketplace for marketing could go in one of two directions. Either every service will be commoditized like never before, and we'll find ourselves in a price-cutting death spiral, or we'll learn the true lesson of what has gotten us to where we are today: motivations matter.

"The Method," as it's called in acting circles, was derived from Stanislavski's "System," in which the actor starts by asking, "What's my motivation?" (thank you, Wikipedia). What I find with companies like the one I met with today is that their biggest selling point is the integrity of their motivations: Their motivations truly do align with the client's.

In the era of credit default swaps and naked short selling (basically economic anarchy, or legalized gambling), this isn't just a nice-sounding, pat-on-the-head kind of a message. It's serious benefit, and I think it has a fighting chance in the coming year, because we live in a world where it seems like no one is actually advocating for us.

As a wannabe screenwriter with a script on the market, I have a manager whose attention I attracted by winning a national contest. The decision to work with him was one of the easiest of my life. Why? Because he only gets paid if I get paid. His motivation is to see my script sold, because if he does, he gets 10 percent of the price tag. That not only doesn't bother me, it's a breath of fresh air. Yes, the motivations of agents and managers become more nuanced with screenwriters (not to mention actors and directors) who actually become successful, but for a first-timer, it truly is black and white.

Think about exploiting your integrity in 2009 (no, it's not an oxymoron). If you don't, you'll be competing on price alone, struggling to tread water and screaming, "I coulda been a contenda!"

Zack & Miri Make a Marketing Mess

2008-11-20T12:04:00.000-08:00

One of the things most people don't know about the movie business is that film production and film marketing campaigns are completely separate beasts. In the last mile of what is the most collaborative art form ever devised, the screenwriter's original intent (which has since been destroyed or enhanced, depending on your point of view, by the studio, the director and the actors) is placed as a glob of fresh clay in the hands of a marketing team. Their highly focused task: Get butts in the seats at all costs, especially on opening weekend.

When you have 90+ minutes to mold into a 30-second commercial, you can pretty much do whatever you want. This is how a movie like "Leaving Las Vegas"--very good, very dark--can be made to seem like a light comedy. The marketers say, "No one will see this film unless it looks funny." They hire firms whose entire business is creating trailers, and they say, "Make this Oscar hopeful about a desperately suicidal alcoholic look like the laugh-out-loud comedy romp of the summer!" And they do.

The new movie, "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" is the latest transparent example of the difference between creating something and trying to market it. The director, Kevin Smith, is known as the guy who opened up the world of raunch in a whole new way. Smith begat Judd Apatow, whose "40-Year-Old Virgin," "Knocked Up" and others produced the subgenre of "raunch with a heart."

When I first saw the trailer/ad for "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," I was somewhat amazed that Kevin Smith (now maybe trying to out-Apatow Apatow) would think he could get away with that plot and that movie title. Clearly, this was the definitive shot across the bow saying that porn had gone, to some extent, mainstream.

Then a funny thing happened. Some time after the opening weekend, which must have been a disappointment, the ads began to change. Suddenly, there was no reference to the basic plot of the movie (two longtime platonic friends decide that the only way they can survive financially is to make a skin flick), the scenes were reduced to vague one-liners and slapstick vignettes, and the title appearing on screen and spoken by the narrator was shortened to simply, "Zack and Miri," as if this were just a modern-day "When Harry Met Sally."

Time will tell if this strategy works, but I suspect that in the Internet age, it will prove to have come too late. On the other hand, if you could remove the potential public shame of walking into a theater to see a movie with "Porno" in the title... let's just say, DVD sales will be huge.

Just for fun, here's a famous video showing how "The Shining" can be re-spun as a feel-good family drama.

Dancing with the Pols

2008-11-06T06:35:00.000-08:00

I give you the Obama/McCain Dance-off. Funny, freaky or both?

Focus vs. Inclusion Part IV

2008-11-02T15:01:00.000-08:00

Okay, last political-related post...

Much was made about last week's Obama infomercial. From a marketing (not a political) perspective, I thought it was a great example of both brilliant techniques and missed opportunities.

To be honest, what I expected was a standard live "speaking from the desk" speech. Speechifying is one of Obama's strengths, after all, so one would assume that the leading candidate would stick with what works.

My initial reaction was a bit of a cringe. It was obvious from shot one that this was going to be a slick, scripted production. Given the fact that Obama raised eyebrows spending millions of dollars on the airtime alone, I thought it was a mistake to also make such a high-production-value piece. For some reason, it called to mind the practice of nonprofits printing their marketing materials on recycled paper in an effort to look like good fiscal stewards, even though that paper is actually more expensive than its glossy cousin. (For all I know, the production company shot Obama's piece pro bono. It doesn't matter. It looked expensive.)

Then I was impressed when Obama said in his opening remarks that he was going to feature the stories of three "ordinary Americans." This turned everything around, because now the candidate was spending millions of dollars to give prominence not to himself, but to other people (and thus, of course, himself). That, I thought, was an innovative idea--and a great example of using credible surrogates to back your message.

Trouble was, that's not how the piece played out. I expected three stories, roughly seven minutes each, with a pitch for the candidate as a "call to action" at the end. Instead, it turned into a classic choice of inclusion over focus. To be fair, when you're making one piece and broadcasting it on the big networks, you have little choice but to throw in the kitchen sink.

And that's what it was. Stories of people, mixed with photos and video of Obama, mixed with people talking about Obama, and Obama talking to the camera. As expected, the people featured were in swing states and represented a racial cross-section. Yes, it focused exclusively on the economy, which was smart. But when you have the candidate doing the voiceover, as if he's your host, and then you cut to shots of the candidate himself, or people talking about him, it opens up the "vanity" door, which I thought was risky.

(McCain countered well by going on Saturday Night Live, pretending to buy airtime on QVC, and quipping, "I'm a true Maverick: a Republican without money.")

We'll see if any of this makes a difference in the election (editor's note: it didn't). I suspect that it won't, except that infomercials will now become standard practice. But the marketing lesson is this: Focus beats inclusion. It's better to customize different infomercials for different stations (coming in 2012, a Sarah Palin Spanish-language infomercial exclusively for Univision!) than to be all-things-to-all-people on the big networks.

Change, Part II

2008-10-28T15:26:00.000-07:00

I was driving down Washington Ave. in downtown Minneapolis when the radio guest made an interesting point. When asked why the electorate doesn't care more about the facts in political campaigns, and why false and misleading ads are often effective, the founder of FactCheck.org said:

When you falsely portray a candidate in a way that goes against the grain of people's preconceived notions, it doesn't work. But when you do it in a way that reinforces the myth already in the ether, it often does work.

See? That's why every Republican is a greedy warmonger who pals around with bloated CEOs, while every Democrat is a tax-and-spend wimp who pals around with terrorists! The two parties have gone to great lengths (and spent millions of dollars) to create these perceptions over several decades. They're very hard to undo.

But what about something like TankGate, the famously ill-conceived photo of Michael Dukakis posing in full military garb inside an M1 Abrams tank? This wasn't a tactic of his opposition; it was the stupendously misguided brainchild of his own campaign. It failed miserably, because it tried to change perceptions overnight. Call it branding "shock and awe," as if McDonald's had suddenly announced that it was trading beef for tofu. It went against the grain, and it was an instant laughingstock.

A month ago, Bill Maher asked why the Obama campaign hadn't tried to "swiftboat" John McCain. Because they're smart, I thought. They know that swiftboating John Kerry worked because it went with the grain, but doing it to McCain would fly in the face of his solid image as a war hero. Is it fair that a Vietnam POW is bullet-proof, while a Silver Star and Purple Heart recipient from the same war is vulnerable to attack? No, but that's the way it is. Don't fight it.

Months ago, I sat in a meeting with a VP of sales who was exasperated that, despite months of indoctrination, many of his reps still described their employer as a "distributor," rather than a "solutions provider." There were probably many reasons for this (including the inertia of longer-standing employees who are always resistant to change). But is it also the case of an "against the grain" internal branding move?

We'll find out.

Good Change/Bad Change

2008-10-24T14:52:00.000-07:00

Political season is almost over, and it's time to talk about change. Good change, bad change, and the fact that we might all soon be standing on a street corner begging for change.

A funny thing, this concept of "change." When it comes to marketing, particularly in politics, it's a good thing (when times are bad, the challenger has two basic rules: run on "change" and tie your opponent to the current unpopular president). But it occurs to me that there's one kind of change that nobody likes: a candidate that seems to change during the course of the campaign.

Think back to the Gore-Bush debates. Back in those heady times, when we were blissfully unaware of the terrorist attack, wars and global recession soon to come, we had the luxury of fixating on eye rolls and sighs. After Al Gore showed much of both in his less-than-stellar first debate performance, an interesting thing happened: His handlers sat him down in front of a TV and made him watch Saturday Night Live's Darrell Hammond do his Gore imitation. "See?" the handlers said. "People see you as stiff and uptight. You have to change that."

And what did Gore do? He started wearing earth tones, doing morning-show interviews while sitting in an easy chair, and most notably, seeming to do his next debate performance on Xanax.

I remember thinking that it was a horrible decision. Sure, if we had never seen the other Gore, this Gore might seem more pleasant. But more important, people saw that Gore would change based on their perceptions of him. That's far worse, because it shows weakness. (His handlers blew it even more by leaking the SNL sit-down story to the media.)

In the next election, what was the angle that the Republicans introduced early and rode to victory? "Our guy is resolute; their guy is a flip-flopper." Hillary Clinton refused to change when it came to her initial approval of the war in Iraq, but what really hurt was the perception that she changed her personality on the campaign trail almost weekly. And McCain, who as of this writing is down eight points nationally, has always had a tough time convincing people that the current self-proclaimed "maverick" is the same guy as the media-dubbed maverick of 2000. (In the final presidential debate, most people saw one angry guy and one guy who remains calm under attack. They preferred the latter.)

Before you make any radical changes to your product, service or entire corporate brand, think about whether it's change that people want, rather than change you think they need.

Words Matter

2008-10-08T10:27:00.001-07:00

Paraguay?

2008-10-07T17:43:00.000-07:00

I've been on record as saying that I think Starbucks and McDonald's are trying too hard to become one another. I said it nearly a year ago after Starbucks started selling breakfast sandwiches and McDonald's announced it was creating barista bars to hock its McCafe gourmet coffee products.

I'll stand by the prediction that neither experiment will last, although it's pretty clear who's doing it better: McDonald's. When I try to think off the top of my head of an ad campaign that is truly succeeding (meaning, it's memorable, people talk about it, and you remember whom it's for), I think of the McDonald's McCafe spots. You know the ads. There's one with two guys, one with two women. Each follows the same "unmasking" formula: Closeted regular folk remove their veils of snobbery under the reverse enlightenment of the golden arches.

Because my biggest pet peeve about American culture is the latent hostility toward curiosity and intellect that emerges during each presidential election, it pains me to admit that these ads are very good. Why? Because they fit the brand. McDonald's isn't actually trying to be Starbucks (and it's not; the iced hazelnut coffee I tried a week ago was god-awful). It's saying that its products are low-attitude.

The ads are memorable because they're expertly written, acted and edited. People talk about them because they're funny and they strike a universal chord (all people feel the pressure to act contrary to their true natures in some way every day). And you remember whom they're for because their ultimate message travels with, not against, the grain of how we already perceive McDonald's.

True, I'll be surprised if the barista bars are still around in 10 years, but until then, well done, Ronald.

Robot in a Wheelchair

2008-09-26T07:36:00.000-07:00

I've been a member Think Tank Thursdays for several years now. T3 isn't your typical writers' group, which is exactly why I go. Instead of a group of dour novelists "workshopping" their prologues to death, it's a good-humored cabal of screenwriters who pitch their script ideas. The point is to see how good your concepts are before you ever put 12-pt. Courier font to virtual paper. There is no "workshopping" involved.

Having given and received many a movie pitch, I've figured out the hallmark of a truly good one. It isn't the pitch that draws silence because it's so airtight (like the one about a rogue Israeli soldier and Palestinian terrorist who jointly conspire to bring peace to the Middle East by threatening to detonate a nuclear device if the two sides don't hash out a peace deal in 48 hours). Nor is it the ones that leave people speechless because they're so awful (like the one that started as an interesting tale of corporate fraud, only to degrade into the author's personal conspiracy theory of Paul Wellstone's death).

No, the pitches with real potential are the ones that make people talk... the ones that provide such an appealing and versatile platform that they start chiming in, "Yeah, and then you could do this..." because they instantly want to make the movie their own.

Sure, this can annoy the pitcher, because the new ideas often conflict with his or her own. But if you accept the fact that film is by far the world's most collaborative art form, it's absolutely the best outcome. What you want, ultimately, is for a producer, a director and some actors to want to make your project their own. Barring self-financing, that's the only way your movie will ever get made at all.

Another long-winded analogy for marketing campaigns? Yes. The era of making your campaign completely airtight and closed off is pretty much over. Younger generations have grown up expecting to take any piece of creative work and make it their own, whether it's remixing their favorite song, shooting their own ad for your product, or re-editing the trailer for your movie. In short, everything has become film. Everything is a collaboration. And the quicker you accept that, and more you care more about authoring a good platform instead of taking credit for every product that platform generates, the better off you'll be.

P.S. Why "Robot in a Wheelchair"? In my favorite all-time pitch, a 20-something guy outlined his idea for a sitcom including the character of a robot in a wheelchair. I just thought it was funny.

Flurble

2008-09-09T15:09:00.000-07:00

I came across a ground-breaking new social media tool the other day that I think every marketing director and VP needs to know about right now.

Flurble combines the stickiness of Facebook, the immediacy of Twitter, the social bookmarking capabilities of del.icio.us, the searchability of Google, YouTube's instantaneous viralocity, and Digg's peer-to-peer interest group features. If you're looking for something that attracts the IM-addicted, text-savvy, iPhone app-loving emerging market, it's all about Flurble.

In fact, if I may be so bold, I would say that if your website isn't Flurblized in the next three months, you're going to miss a very big boat. If you don't believe me, I'd put money down that your competitors are implementing it (and licking their chops at the prospect of stealing your customers) as we speak.

What is Flurble? Absolutely nothing. It doesn't exist. I made it up.

Why? Two reasons: One, I'm cruel that way. Two, while I am a serious believer in (and user of) social media tools, I continue to think that marketing directors should resist the temptation to trust anyone who touts "the next best thing" on that still-developing frontier. I've been in meetings where I thought I could throw out a ridiculous word like "flurble" and make people's eyes light up.

But that would be branding malpractice. I prefer satire. :)

What Do Punditry & Marketing Have in Common?

2008-08-28T13:50:00.000-07:00

I've been watching the Democratic National Convention. While most criticisms about conventions are directed at their informercialness, my biggest criticism is of the coverage itself. Punditry has hit a new low. It now takes a dozen people to say absolutely nothing.

Most of the time I'm watching the so-called experts, I'm wondering why in the world they're not talking to real people. To hear a pundit say, "The strength of this speech is that it appeals to the blue-collar working-class swing-voter in Scranton"--and then NOT cut to an actual blue-collar working-class swing-voter from Scranton--seems absurd.

The Internet (specifically social media) has brought this expectation with it. Call it the death of the filter. CNN's entire "Best Political Team on Television" is a filter based on the old model of Expert->Consumer. Most people under 30 don't go for filters. They don't know who James Carville is, nor do they care what he thinks. Or if they do care what he thinks, their next question is, "What do my friends think about what James Carville thinks?"

As with so many things these days, I saw this as another analogy in marketing. So many times, people try to be the speculative pundit filter. In extreme cases, they actually don't care what their customers think. More often, they simply "think" they already know. But they don't actually ask. They'd rather speculate, so they can't be proven wrong.

I've been working on a product that addresses this, which is in a beta phase right now. Call it a way of eliminating Pat Buchanan and James Carville and getting right to Scranton.

Whose Ad Is This?

2008-08-21T08:16:00.000-07:00

(I'm a little late in commenting on this campaign, but I think the point is timeless.)

I'm guessing that the ad above rings a bell. It's a TV campaign where disembodied hands create an image in the negative space of sand against a light board, then seamlessly transform that image into another one, then another.

It's visually stunning and hypnotic. I've researched it and discovered that the hands belong to Israeli artist Ilana Yahav, who is the only person in the world doing this kind of art.

I love this campaign, yet ultimately, I think it's utterly ineffective.

Whether I'm right or wrong depends on the answer to this question: If you've seen these ads, can you tell me (without cheating) which company they are for?

Commodity Logic

2008-08-21T07:41:00.000-07:00

I first heard the phrase months ago from a friend and colleague in the same industry. A client of his wanted to busy up a magazine ad with the logic, "Hey, if we're paying for paper and ink, we might as well use it."

I shrugged it off as an isolated incident. Surely this is only the mindset of less-experienced marketing professionals at smaller organizations. Right?

Wrong. The same thing happened on another one of his projects--this one funded by a rather well-known, highly successful Twin Cities entrepreneur. The product: a catalog. The comment: "As long as we're paying for paper and ink, we might as well use it."

I won't get into the details of what was being discussed, but suffice it to say, if you've seen the brilliant Stop Sign Video, it was about adding more to the stop sign (and making it half blue, half pink).

The Commodity Mindset is so wrong on so many levels, the riffing analogies are almost too numerous to fathom:

"Excuse me, Senor Picasso, but as long as I'm paying for canvas and oils, could you add something more to that painting... something besides cubes?"

"Sorry, Herr Mozart, but as long as I'm paying for the 20 violinists, could you please add a movement?"

"Yes, Albert, it's very clever. But as long as I'm paying for your research, could you add another letter to e=mc2?"

Don't obsess on the individual commodities of your marketing. Think about the final product from the perspective of the audience. In a crowded world, "less is more" is usually the way to go.

Focus vs. Inclusion Part III

2008-08-06T14:55:00.000-07:00

This was originally on YouTube and then removed. Now it's back on a different site, so I'm including the link:

What If There Were No Stop Signs?

Sure, it's a little... uh, slanted toward the agency perspective. But it's an excellent portrayal of life from the creative side.

Best line: "We're targeting men secondarily."

What Do the iPhone and Working with an Agency Have in Common?

2008-07-24T11:51:00.000-07:00

I'm not a gadget head. I'm not a first adopter. I've never been a Mac Whacko. But now that's all changed, thanks to the iPhone. Especially thanks to the latest OS update.

I won't bore you with a laundry list of what makes the iPhone so addictive. What I think is interesting is this: When it comes to the creative marketing process, the iPhone provides the perfect analogy. Why? Because it's one part rigidity and one part flexibility. One part highbrow, one part lowbrow. One part singular expertise, one part massive collaboration.

The industrial design and user interface represent the first word in each of those pairings. Apple played the role of the exclusive artist and said, basically, screw convention, screw the way things have been done before, screw the entire concept of "buttons." And it created a design and user interface so human-friendly and appealing to the eye, that the mere sight of a Blackberry looks downright troglodytic.

The most recent decision to take a page from Facebook and let people create their own applications ("apps" in common parlance) for the new OS represents the second set of words. Apple controlled what it wanted to control, then it opened the floodgates to outside creativity within its constraints. The result: I've downloaded half a dozen "apps" for my iPhone, including the best device for locating movies and showtimes ever devised (Box Office).

(I've also downloaded two ridiculous apps just for fun: iBeer turns the phone in to a glass of beer where the liquid moves when you tilt the phone. And PhoneSaber turns the phone into a Star Wars light saber that makes sound effects according to the way you move the phone. Don't worry, total cost for both was only $2.99, and I consider it tax deductible.)

There is now a mad dash to create iPhone apps. And that's a good thing. Because it only strengthens the brand by keeping the public intimately engaged. People are using an Apple product to express themselves, which for me is the holy grail of branding.

When you're working with a creative agency, you should expect both sides of this proverbial coin. For any given project to succeed, you need one part "we're the experts, this is what you should do" and one part "you're the client, you know your business, we can be flexible." Too much of either one seldom works.

P.S. Just downloaded the app that turns your phone into bubble wrap that you can pop. Yippee!

What Do Franchise Relations and the Cookie Monster Have in Common?

2008-07-21T08:52:00.000-07:00

I've long despised the proliferation of "nerbs" (verbs used as nouns, such as the act of "sunsetting a product line"), but I heard a doozy in a recent client meeting that I think I can get behind.

This is a client with an extensive national franchise network. Last year, they tried a marketing campaign that seemed pretty simple for store owners to understand. Yet, in the end, execution was lacking (didn't they realize that the window clings had to go in a certain order for the design to make sense?). My contact said plainly, "This year, we need to Sesame Street it even more."

Now that's a nerb I can embrace. The truth is, it's not even an insult. I've touted my own version of Sesame Streeting, called "Good Grips Marketing." I remember reading that Good Grips kitchen products, which were intended for arthritic seniors, quickly caught on with the younger set. Why? Because there was something so simple about them, as if they looked at you and said, "Grab me here, and I won't let go." Next, I noticed how car dashboards were getting simplified. No more galaxies of buttons with no clear way of connecting the dots. Suddenly, everything was minimal and big. (It's a feature of my Honda Accord that I still appreciate.)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you want someone to do something, make it easy. If you want them to understand something, make it fun. Is this a product of a twee culture that refuses to evolve from childhood? Well, maybe. But I think it's more a reflection of our ridiculously chaotic lives, and the fact that we'll throw our loyalties behind anyone who makes the extra effort to keep things simple.

Random Rewrite #3: Honda

2008-06-30T18:59:00.000-07:00

The back cover of the July 2008 Harper's magazine displays a full-page ad for Honda. Blue sky, green grass, a father and son flying kites on a sunny summer day. After a stat showing that Honda has averaged five more miles per gallon than the industry average over the last 15 years, the copy reads:

Higher fuel efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions.
That's the power of dedication.

Over the past fifteen years, Honda has achieved the highest average fuel economy of any automaker. Which means our vehicles have emitted less CO2--the primary cause of global warming--on average, than any other car company. All of which enhances our ultimate goal: a cleaner environment.

HONDA
The Power of Dreams

* * *

It's a perfectly good ad, yet it seemed like a bit of a missed opportunity. Thanks to its own forays into hybrid technology, Honda has some legitimate environmental street cred, but the tone favors the advertiser over the audience (when you don't use the second person, you're not really talking to anybody). Plus, coupling "the power of dedication" with "the power of dreams" is a little confusing.

I would have written it slightly differently...

* * *

More miles to your gallon.
Less carbon in your atmosphere.

Spending less money at the pump isn't exactly a new idea. At Honda, we've been leading the charge for more than 15 years. Because giving you the best fuel economy of any automaker isn't just good for your pocketbook, it's better for the environment.

Green innovation is a goal for some automakers. For Honda, it's already a way of doing business.

HONDA
Innovation. Proven.

* * *

Previous Random Rewrites:

#2: AkzoNobel
#1: Nortel

BrandWatch: Leeann Chin

2008-06-22T07:01:00.000-07:00

I have a rule of branding thumb that goes something like this: The minute a business that has always been known for one thing suddenly announces a seemingly unrelated thing, count the days until it closes, declares bankruptcy or gets snatched up in a hostile takeover. I call it BrandWatch.

Case in point: Five years ago, a bagel shop near my house stuck neon posters in the windows screaming "Now Selling Smoothies!" It was a jealous response to the popularity of nearby Jamba Juice, and everybody knew it. Within six months, that bagel shop was replaced by a Caribou Coffee. (On the other hand, the mom-and-pop photo developer that also sells umbrellas is mysteriously still in business...)

For several months, BrandWatch has been tracking two stalwart brands: Starbucks, as it retreats to focusing on coffee (a good idea after some overly aggressive food flirtations), and McDonald's, as it rolls out its premium coffee McCafes (an undeniably good revenue stream with a fantastic advertising campaign that should be another short-lived experiment).

Now, as of today, I've added Leeann Chin to the Watch. Why? Because new owner Lorne Goldberg has updated the menu (good), painted the walls lime and vermilion (great) and introduced Red Cherry Frozen Yogurt (what?).

Don't get me wrong. I picked up dinner at one of these new stores last night. The decor is lively. The menu is easier to understand. And the Red Cherry Yogurt display is a nice little eye-catcher with an attractive logo. But frozen yogurt? Personally, I go to Leeann Chin to deceive myself that I'm being healthy while eating sugary breaded meats (sesame chicken...yum) on top of carbalicious fried rice. Do I want to top that off with some frozen yogurt concoction that takes me back to the mid-80s? For me, the answer is a definite no; Leeann Chin might as well sell umbrellas. We'll see what the market decides.

Do You Have the Attention Span to Read This Post?

2008-06-12T11:29:00.000-07:00

It all started when a friend of mine was talking about her experience teaching high school kids. We were on the subject of plagiarism and how the web enables it. The conversation shifted to the larger issue of IAIQO: Instantly Accessible Information of Questionable Origin, and that's when I learned something unexpected.

"My students don't check their sources and don't check the facts; they just cut and paste," my friend said. "But it's not because they're lazy. It's because they don't even understand the basic concept of synthesizing information, drawing their own conclusions and writing them down."

Wow, that's scary, I thought. It's as if the web is actually changing basic human cognition.

Enter the Atlantic Monthly. This month's cover story ("Is Google Making Us Stoopid?"), absolutely floored me with these opening remarks from author Nicholas Carr:

"I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle."

What floored me was the realization that Carr was describing me. I've had this exact same feeling lately, and I've been getting a little worried. Is my reading material just not as arresting as it used to be? Is my brain beginning its inevitable decline already?

Now, after finishing the article (well, almost... I got distracted), I'm wondering if technology is actually changing the way I think. I had come to think of A.D.D. as a scapegoat among adults--an enabling acronym used as cover for people who just don't like details. On the marketing side of things, I've long thought that the line of communication demarcation was the age of 30: over 30, narrative good; under 30, just show pretty pictures (or ask them to talk about themselves). Now it looks as though there's more of a spectrum at work, with the lines getting blurrier as human brains adapt themselves to the media we use, rather than the other way around.

I don't know what else to say about this development, except that in the course of writing this, I've received five emails and two IMs, checked the Dow, added my sister to my Facebook friends and... wait, my son is crying about something.

Did anyone make it to the end of this post?

Actually, Think Inside the Box

2008-05-27T07:14:00.001-07:00

I was sitting in a small auditorium on the campus at Hamline University, listening to a young poet named Li-Young Lee. He was a wild and brilliant writer, incomprehensible to me most of the time. But as a speaker, he was amazingly clear, and one thing he said has always stuck with me. In discussing the abstract idea of contradiction, he said, "As an architect, the best way to communicate 'space' is to enclose it." If I remember right, to illustrate his point, he cited Grand Central Station.

Over time, I've shortened my interpretation of that insight to simply this: Creativity is born of restriction. Yes, popular culture is awash in stories and images of artists who only bloom when they shake the shackles of oppression--political, religious, cultural, mostly familial. And those who deal with creative types constantly hear them whine (often justifiably so) about being too restricted. But if you doubt that restriction is absolutely essential to creativity, keep in mind that poets themselves created the insane constraints of the haiku.

In my own experience, I've witnessed it several times. The song I use as the soundtrack for my Conk Creative website: We had just enough studio time left for one live take, and it turned out to be the most popular track on our CD (despite my sloppy guitar playing). The screenplay I recently optioned: I sputtered for more than a year until I decided that I had to complete a draft in time for a contest deadline. Even with this blog, I created the "CC Pick 3" email in part because I knew it would force me to publish at least three posts a month (this is number three for May). And keep in mind that pop songs and screenplays are already two of the most highly structured vehicles in their creative families. The latter is mandated to be written in three acts, not to exceed 120 pages in 12-pt. Courier font, with margins of 1.5 inches on the left, 1 inch on the right, top and bottom.

Most recently, I've enrolled for the 48 Hour Film Project, a contest in which you draw a genre out of a hat, then have 48 hours to create a film longer than four minutes, but less than seven minutes. We'll see if this level of restriction proves to be oppressive, liberating or both. (Note to clients: This post should have no bearing on setting deadlines for future projects...)

Focus vs. Inclusion Part II

2008-05-16T09:40:00.000-07:00

For the original "Focus vs. Inclusion," click here.

Last week, I was sitting in a meeting with a successful but frustrated company. They had decided years ago to undergo one of those evolutions from "widget distributor" to "solutions provider," and their sales people still didn't get it.

Coming at it from the outside, I was having some trouble understanding what they did myself. On one hand, they were positioned at a high consultative level ("no matter what you manufacture, we can make you more efficient") that was industry agnostic. On the other hand, they still listed three specifics ("we specialize in these three areas of manufacturing"). So which was it?

Finally, I asked the president of the company a simple question: What don't you do? He was stumped. After thinking about it for several minutes, he eventually got a phone call, and the subject was dropped.

Since the day I started Conk Creative, I keep coming back to this recurring marketing/branding problem of focus vs. inclusion. It's getting clearer all the time, and it goes something like this:

- Sales people want "inclusion" because they never want to turn down an opportunity. The motivations are obvious. Basically, a sales person is conditioned to always say, no matter what the challenge, "Yes, we can help you with that." That translates to the customer as "we do everything."

- CFOs want "inclusion" because they see the world as a series of current and potential revenue streams. If there's money to be made, a client to be secured, a bottom line to be grown, they want it. This also translates to the world as "we do everything."

- People (and marketing professionals) want focus. I don't search Google for "help me do anything" or "people who can make me more efficient." I search for "plumbers," "watch repair," and, most recently, "child's leg swollen after DTP shot." (He's fine.)

These are specific. When I'm walking around a crowded world, I don't really have time to understand what a company called Stuff 'n' Things sells. In fact, they annoy me because they don't let my mind put them in a convenient category. But if they're called "Just Hats," well, I know where to go next time I want a hat.

Focus and Inclusion are constantly at war with each other, and the distinction isn't always so clear cut. After all, Target sells almost everything as far as product, but what it really sells is "discount chic," and it's been brilliant at marketing it. (Though I still have a hunch that Super Targets won't last forever... the grocery thing is pushing it.)

Starbucks is probably the best example. It broke through the branding clutter by out-focusing everybody and just selling high-quality coffee. It then managed to evolve a little bit into a lifestyle brand by producing and distributing select CDs and books. But now (after going too far with breakfast sandwiches, among other things), guess what? It's back to coffee basics, hearkening back to its very first store by promoting Pike Place Roast.

I suspect that the focus-focused internal Starbucks brand champions finally won out over the pure revenue stream crowd... because the customer was starting to get confused.

Random Rewrite #2: AkzoNobel

2008-05-06T17:34:00.000-07:00

Here's a classic case of what I suspect is an overly vetted corporate merger ad (appearing in today's Wall Street Journal).

Existing copy reads:

Joining Forces: AkzoNobel and ICI

Together, we're stronger. The integration of ICI into AkzoNobel has created a major industrial company. We now have the combined creative force of more than 60,000 individuals. The new AkzoNobel is the world's largest coatings manufacturer, the number one in decorative paints, and a leading supplier of specialty chemicals. We not only think with passion, but we also have the expertise to deliver on our ideas. By pushing our imagination beyond the normal limits, we're continuing to color, protect and transform virtually every aspect of daily life. For everyone across the globe. We're AkzoNobel. We're committed to delivering Tomorrow's Answers Today.

* * *

As an average Joe reading the Journal, I'm a little confused. I suppose it doesn't help that I've never heard of either of these companies (AkzoNobel is Dutch, as it turns out). I gather from the copy that they're in the paints and coatings business. But what does an abstract tagline like "Tomorrow's Answers Today" have to do with paint? And what's the benefit to me that they've "joined forces"? The positioning is overly vague. The tone is too self-serving. And frankly, it's a little dull for a self-proclaimed "color company."

* * *

I would have done it more like this:

The New AkzoNobel: Expanding the Spectrum

Ask Vincent van Gogh: The most striking colors come from unique combinations. That's how we feel now that ICI has joined forces with AkzoNobel. We're a new company, with an even bolder vision, backed by 60,000 innovators in 80 countries, ready to help you achieve a personal brush with greatness each and every day.

The world's leading developer of coatings, decorative paints and specialty chemicals. All in one place.

Now that's a good mix.

The New AkzoNobel
success ... in color

"Educating" vs. "Marketing"

2008-04-29T09:35:00.000-07:00

When companies get together to figure out how to market a new service or product, many strategic planning sessions eventually reach a point that I like to call "Pull the Leash." (Actually, I just made that up, but pretend it's something I trademarked five years ago.)

Pull the Leash happens when everyone in the meeting--Sales, Marketing, R&D, you name it--becomes passionate about the idea that if their customers knew as much about the product's features as they did, they would buy it instantly. It's as if the customer is on a leash, sniffing the bushes of competitors, and you can give them a yank and force them back to learning everything you know.

It's the moment when someone says "we need to educate the marketplace" or "we need to launch an awareness campaign."

Now, as the son of a university administrator and a music teacher, I will never underestimate the importance of education. Nor will I jump to the other extreme and claim that marketing has to be so focused on creating an image or selling a benefit as to be allergic to informing.

But Pull the Leash is almost always a sure sign that your perspective is too internally focused. It's the moment when you need to step outside the office and spend some time living in the same world as your customers. Do you, as an average person, sit around hoping that everyone who sells you something might try to educate you a little more about it? Are you all too eager to turn off The Daily Show after the kids go to bed so you can learn everything there is to know about non-bleach, hypoallergenic paper towels? It might be important for purchases of exceptional interest or cost, but in general, the answer is no.

Your customers' lives are just as busy, noisy and chaotic as yours. To affect their behavior, I think the simplest rule is this:

If you want someone to do something, make it easy. If you want someone to know something, make it fun.

Who's the Decider?

2008-04-22T11:54:00.000-07:00

About a year ago, I was hired to name a new product. It was a fantasy project. The product was not only innovative, but entirely ground-breaking from an environmental perspective. I plunged into the job, learning everything I could about the industry, the competition, every technical aspect of the technology involved.

I developed a presentation that outlined all of the thinking that went into my final name choices. I presented them all, noting which I one I recommended most and why. The key to success, I was told by the marketing team who brought me in, was swaying the product developer, a marketing skeptic who loved to chew up agency types and spit them out.

After my presentation, I looked to The Skeptic. He rubbed his chin, seemed nonplussed. After an interminable silence, he finally spoke. "I'm warming to it," he said. By the end of the meeting, he was excited, animated, riffing on all the ways the name could be used. It was a huge success. I was on top of the world.

And then it all died.

Getting past the product developer, I was now told, was only the first hoop. The real key was getting past Person X, who served as gatekeeper to the CEO. Person X didn't like my name.

"Can we get the name in front of the CEO directly?" I asked. No, it has to go through X. "Okay," I said. "But can I at least talk to the CEO, since he's the ultimate decision-maker?" No, only X can talk to the CEO. "Can I meet X then, so I know what he's looking for?" No, only we can talk to X.

As you can imagine, the process quickly descended into chaos. Gone were the well-thought-out ideas and slick presentations. Names were just words, and words were commodities. "We need 15 more names by the end of the day" became an almost daily request. Alas, a name was finally chosen, and it wasn't one of mine. By the end, the entire company was involved, so it could have come from Marty in Accounting.

I see this situation often, and I always feel for the marketers. They're trying to do their job, but they often serve as little more than gatekeepers, or gatekeepers to other gatekeepers. One day they're trusted implicitly; the next day, they're told not to even decide on the trade show booth carpeting without 10 approvals.

But from the creative perspective, there's simply no substitute for direct access to the ultimate decision-maker. As much as you'd like to think that you're developing ideas for the real audience (the consumer), the hard reality is that if the person writing the check doesn't like it, you're not going to get anywhere.

What Is Web 2.0... I Mean, Really?

2008-04-15T07:42:00.001-07:00

A friend and I were joking last week that the next time someone asks, "What is Web 2.0?" we should reply: "A way for young people to make money off old people."

It's a cynical answer, but there's a point. A casualty of the Internet Age is reason; a winner is fear. Change happens so quickly, each micro generation growing up with a better version of the web, that older generations grow increasingly confused and fearful. The result: A 24-year-old agency wunderkind can sit in a meeting and jabber about "social bookmarking" while his older account exec exclaims "you mean you don't have a YouTube?!", and the fearful marketing director will buckle--especially if he was told to "do something with Web 2.0."

Fear need not apply. Web 2.0 a simple phenomenon. You just have to look at it from a psychological (rather than technological) perspective:

No matter how old you are, but especially when you're younger, whom do you trust the most? Your friends. From a marketing perspective, Web 2.0 is simply this: a way to make it easier to trust your friends.

The revolution is real. The younger the person, the less she trusts any authority, at least directly. Today, Facebook is the epicenter of all social interaction. Next year, it might be something else. The point is that the web now gives everybody a powerful stamp of endorsement. If your friends don't endorse the movie, the video game, the political candidate, the car, then neither will you. (That sound you hear is Roger Ebert losing his relevance.)

As a marketer, your job is exactly the same in one way and completely different in another. You still need to influence people. You just have to do it in a different place and in a different way. It's not about shouting from the rooftops. It's about a new concept both shocking and hilarious in its irony: "perceived authenticity."

Do You Suffer from ISS?

2008-04-08T17:33:00.000-07:00

Books could be written about the psychology of promotional campaigns--not the campaigns themselves, but the interaction between the organizations and agencies that create them. The most interesting phenomenon is what I call Interim Solution Syndrome, or ISS.

ISS often starts with a mixture of envy and aspiration. You want to launch a new service or product line. You want it to be just as good as what your competitors did last year, as entertaining as your favorite Super Bowl ad, as edgy as that YouTube video you got last week, as "out of the box" as that company's crazy booth at the show in Vegas.

There's only one problem: The budget isn't there.

This is the germ of ISS. You're stuck between wanting the highest quality but keeping it within budget. If it doesn't measure up to what your competitors did creatively, there'll be Hades to pay. But if it costs a fortune... well, there's no way to slip it by Accounting.

You know you've contracted full-fledged ISS when you start saying the following:

"We just need something for right now, then we can go back and change it."
"This is just a Phase I. We'll worry about that in a Phase II."
"We just need a band aid."
"We want something with great photography like this, but we can use stock."

Unfortunately, the reality sinks in mid-project. The "right now" solution doesn't look so hot. Phase II never comes. The stock photography is all over the map, and if you want to keep using it, the royalty fees are more than the photo shoot would have cost in the first place.

This is the evil of the Interim Solution. Psychologically, it's a salve. Realistically, it's a trap.

Agencies are complicit, because they take the job thinking they'll convince you to up the budget as you go. (Agencies are driven by their portfolios. They want to create work that makes clients happy. But secretly, they're more interested in creating work that wins awards and helps them get new clients.)

So what do you do? Plan ahead, secure the right budget and set the right expectations. Hah! Just kidding (can you hear the howls of laughter from marketing VPs on the verge?).

Just be realistic. As a marketer, don't expect to get a Nike ad for $10,000. As an agency, don't over-promise and under-deliver. Recognize an interim solution for what it is:

An interim solution.

Blog Post for Dummies

2008-04-03T14:19:00.000-07:00

Note: This post was inspired by a bathroom ad for Trojan condoms. There, I said it.

Marketing 101 would dictate that one should never insult one's customers, right? Wrong.

Imagine this: A young entrepreneur sits in a glossy 14th-floor conference room and makes his pitch to three suits at a global publishing conglomerate. "Here's the thing," he explains. "People want to know how to do things. We publish a series on how to do stuff, in a really easy format. We could start with gardening."

"Great," the brass reply. "What should we call it?"

"Gardening for Dummies."

Boom! Fifteen jaws hit the floor in unison. "We can't insult our customers! Who's going to buy something that calls them a 'dummy'?"

As it turns out, quite a few (I think I just saw "Making Whole Wheat Pumpernickel Bread With Sesame Seeds For Dummies" at Barnes & Noble). Now Trojan is calling its customers "pigs" and telling them to evolve. I'll bet you anything it's working.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that General Motors go out tomorrow with an TV campaign called, "Hey, Moron, Buy a Chevy!" But in general, people are far more forgiving (and self-deprecating) than we give them credit for. It's another case of "focus" vs. "inclusion." When you have the opportunity to really cut through with 80 percent of your market, it can actually be worth the risk of alienating (or mildly offending) the other 20. Only an idiot would feel otherwise.

What's in a name? Quite a bit...

2008-03-26T17:57:00.000-07:00

You know that strange phenomenon... the closer you live to something, the less you actually see it? Guests come to visit. In one day, they ride a paddle boat down the Mississippi River, check out the newest exhibit at the Walker and grab lunch at that adorable Italian restaurant around the corner. You avoid eye contact, embarrassed to admit that you've never done any of those things.

The same thing happens in marketing. People forget that the most prominent aspect of their brand is the name of their company. Seeing it every day, they tune it out, ignore it, or even work against it. (I once worked with a client whose company had a particular word in its name... let's say it was "Easy_______, Inc." One time, they actually said, "We want to avoid using the word 'easy'; it doesn't really describe us.")

I often find myself helping people get back to basics. When we hit a stumbling block, it's fundamentals time: The name of your company is _________. You sell _________. The name of the product you're most known for is ____________. Embrace these things. I know you're really sick of the Pantone Red 486 that's in your logo, on the walls and on every chair in the company cafeteria... and it's tempting to do that new microsite in blue. But don't.

The minute you're tired of saying or seeing something is usually the point when the rest of the world is just beginning to notice it.

And that starts with your name.

Random Rewrite #1: Nortel

2008-03-19T07:43:00.000-07:00

Today, I'm beginning a recurring feature on C2C that I call "Random Rewrites," in which I randomly rewrite any piece of marketing, advertising or corporate communication that catches my eye.

Today's rewrite comes from a banner ad currently showing on the cnn.com landing page. I was struck my the shear volume of copy on the ad, as well its "inside baseball" language, so I clicked on it. Here's what the jump page said, followed by how I think it should read:

Unified or Mystified?

Gartner positions Nortel in the Leader's Quadrant in the 2007 Unified Communications Magic Quadrant. Gartner, the leading provider of research and analysis on the global information technology industry, positions Nortel in the Leader's quadrant of its Unified Communications Magic Quadrant report, published August 20, 2007 and authored by Bern Elliot.

The Magic Quadrant report positions vendors in one of four quadrants, based on a company's vision and ability to execute that vision. "The Leaders quadrant contains vendors selling comprehensive and integrated UC solutions that directly, or with well-defined partnerships, address the full range of market needs. These vendors have defined migration and evolution plans for their products in core UC areas and are using their solution sets to enter new clients into their client roster, and to expand their footprint in their existing client base in new function areas."

Register for the report by filling out the form below.

How should this copy read? I would suggest speaking from the audience's perspective, not assuming that they understand all of the jargon (especially "UC"), and adopting a smart tone that understands the larger economic context, offers a tangible and immediate benefit, and sounds as though it is informing and helping the reader:

[banner ad copy]

The Secret to Winning
in a Recession Is Here.

[jump site copy]

The economy is tightening. Uncertainty reigns. New efficiencies are essential.

Today, there’s no faster way to stabilize and boost margins than through UC: Unified Communications—merging desktop phone, legacy PBX and IP-PBX, Internet, voicemail and fax systems into a single streamlined profit center.

Who is the leader in this burgeoning field? Gartner Group, the world's most trusted global IT research firm, has named it.

Nortel.

Gartner Group placed Nortel in the Leader's Quadrant in its most recent Unified Communications Magic Quadrant. What does this mean to you? That a trusted third party ranks Nortel’s vision—and ability to execute that vision—among the very best.

We invite you to see the report for yourself. Simply take 60 seconds to register below, and you'll receive a full copy... free.

Focus vs. Inclusion

2008-03-12T07:05:00.000-07:00

One of the hardest jobs for any marketing professional is the struggle between focus and inclusion. What do I mean? I'll tell you a quick story.

I once sat in a meeting with a new client who was absolutely passionate about their company and their target customers. They were NOT all things to all people. They existed solely to promote political candidates on one (proudly) extreme end of the spectrum. That's what set them apart from their wishy-washy competitors. Even their mailroom guy was a card-carrying member of their movement.

Great, I said, that kind of specificity is marketing Nirvana. Here's the angle you need to go with. You're about more than tactics. You're about "the movement." Brand yourself by branding the movement. Name it. Define it. Certify people as being inside or outside of it. Create a stamp for it, like “USDA Top Choice” or “The Real Seal.” If you grab this space quickly and aggressively, you'll cut through the clutter, be true to your brand and attract exactly the clients you’re looking for.

They agreed. They were thrilled. They went back to redesign their logo, retool their brand and redo their website. They were grateful for an outside perspective that gave them focus.

I checked the website recently (this was a client at my former agency), and what did I see? A much-improved design, yes, but accompanied by positioning that was abstract, unspecific and noncommittal. If you were to visit their site without knowing who they were, you would assume they were happy to promote any politician from Barney Frank to Dick Cheney.

Why did this happen? I imagine it was another case of inclusion defeating focus. Companies in myriad industries often reach a point where they want to focus the message. They go down that road—often led by the marketing VP, who understands the power of specificity—only to be forced into last-minute retreat by the powers above them (or by last-minute jitters about doing something aggressive that might cost them their job if it doesn't work).

This is where thoughts shift from “we need to go after x” to “wait a minute, if we say x, we’re alienating y.” Even though “x” represents 70 percent of the total market, or 100 percent of the desired market, “y” still represents potential revenue. The result: Focus withers. Inclusion reigns.

(That is, until a competitor successfully focuses their message and starts cherry-picking clients. Then the battle starts anew...)

Do Websites Need Words?

2008-03-09T09:23:00.000-07:00

At the agency I left before starting Conk Creative, I spent the last six months saying that I no longer saw a reason why websites should have words. As a writer by trade, this was hard to admit. (The irony isn't lost on me that I'm stating this theory in words, on a blog no less... ) And the truth is, Google search rankings are one big hole in my theory, as people use words to find websites with with those same words.

But between YouTube, high-speed Internet connections and improvements in video compression, the idea of "the wordless website" stuck with me... maybe not for everybody, but definitely for people in the creative fields.

As of today, I've taken my own medicine. This morning, I launched the first Conk Creative website. I plan to add video case studies in the very near future, but this is the fulfillment of a vision I woke up with six weeks ago: Why write everything down and make people work to find out who you are, what you do and whom you've worked with, when you can play guitar instead?

See what you think: conkcreative.net

Excellent Example of Creative Clarity

2008-02-27T13:43:00.000-08:00

Here's a piece of communication that works on just about every level.

A) I received it from a friend, so it's officially "viral."
B) It humanizes its message by using a real (and authentic) narrator.
C) It mixes video and illustration in an easy-to-follow and compelling way.

The subject could certainly be considered "politically charged," but if you look past that, it's quite a brilliant use of narrative and technology to educate in an entertaining way.

Let me know what you think.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

What the Oscars Tell Us About Ourselves

2008-02-23T07:44:00.000-08:00

I'm a bit of an Oscar fiend, and I love the talk-radio lead-up to the show almost as much as I like making fun of the dresses with my wife. This year, it has occurred to me that little Oscar tells us a lot about ourselves (and the media). For example:

- Outsider Lust. The media love to talk about how the Coen Brothers are "outside the normal Hollywood system." They live in New York, not L.A. When they write a screenplay, they claim not to know what's going to happen on the next page. They don't make guest appearances on "Entourage." They're just plain weird.

- First-timer Obsession. The media are infatuated with "Juno" screenwriter Diablo Cody. What's not to like? First-time screenwriter. Former stripper. Now presumed Oscar winner. That's a little more interesting than the guy who got nominated after going through UCLA film school, was Tori Spelling's personal assistant and failed with his first seven scripts.

- "One of Us"-itis. In Minnesota, the coverage of the Coens and Cody has been borderline insufferable. Cody wrote the script at a Starbucks while living here between Chicago and L.A. The Coens share the same hometown (St. Louis Park) as Al Franken and Tom Friedman. (I remember during "Titanic" Fever seeing a local news story on some guy from St. Paul whose cousin painted one of the sets. That was after the lead story on squirrels.)

- The Icarus Complex. Both of the above are now in backlash mode. I call it the Icarus Complex: After we--and the media--hoist you up, we will grow sick of you and Lucy your football. (Sorry, too many analogies there, but I think Jesse Ventura gets my drift). Diablo Cody is now an affront to real birth mothers. "No Country for Old Men" is now overrated, its ending abrupt and obtuse. "Atonement," much ballyhooed when it premiered, is now a bore. Why, the jaded Time magazine movie critic asked yesterday on KFAN, aren't we recognizing less snobby fare like "Knocked Up," or long-overlooked actors like Hal Holbrook?

- Quality Depreciation. Two things you can set your clock by: In the winter, the media will question whether the Oscars are still relevant. In the fall, they will question whether "Saturday Night Live" has lost its edge. As we grow older, we insist that each is losing its luster... that SNL was best with Chevy Chase and John Belushi (and later, Bill Murray). And that the Oscars are never better than with Billy Crystal as host.

(Such beliefs are simply a product of romanticizing one's own past. Yet, I have to agree with both.)

Trendy vs. Tried and True

2008-02-21T07:19:00.000-08:00

I was sitting among 500 people in the master ballroom of a Vancouver hotel. It was day one of the IABC (International Association of Business Communicators) conference, and I had a pretty clear idea what was to come. This first seminar was about technology. I expected to get one or two data nuggets, but nothing revolutionary.

Two hours later, my brain emerged fully liquefied from an intellectual Cuisinart. The two presenters, one American, one Dutch, had covered blogging, Skype, RSS feeds, del.icio.us, Digg, Technorati, social media and Web 2.0—as several people around me, laptops like extended limbs, live-blogged about the presentation itself.

I felt like someone who had just experienced his first earthquake. Apparently, while I had been sitting comfortably in my padded Midwestern cell, the whole world had changed. I thought I was toast unless I could catch up. Immediately.

Fast forward two days. I’m now sitting in a smaller, partitioned room. The conservative-looking presenter paces and speaks, uses nothing more than an old-school overhead projector as a visual aid. After his recent tenure as the World Bank’s director of communications, what had he identified as the secret to effective communication? Storytelling.

Storytelling?! You mean, the thing that's been around since Cro-Magnon Man?

Yes. Case in point, when he wanted to convince World Bank leadership to move the organization from a lending institution to a global information broker, no one took him seriously. He presented compelling statistics, projected beautiful PowerPoints. Deaf ears. Nothing.

Then he told a story. A local government in Argentina had recently contacted his office wanting to know which type of asphalt to use for a certain kind of road-building. They connected this group with a similar group in Europe that had faced (and solved) the same issue. Connection made, problem solved. Imagine, he said, what we could accomplish just by being the string between the tin cans. It worked.

I find sales, marketing and communications people often caught between the two worlds of “trendy” and “tried and true.” One day, it’s pressure to find out what this social media thing is all about. (“Why don’t we have a Facebook page and a Second Life headquarters?”) The next day, it’s, “Why are we doing all this edgy stuff. We’ve lost focus... let’s go back to our bread and butter.”

It’s a tough line to walk—in fact, balancing tried-and-true principles (telling a good story) with trendy new technologies and media outlets (blogging) might be a communicator’s biggest challenge. But, needless to say, having the judgment to make that call—which requires equal parts open-mindedness and healthy skepticism—can be tremendously effective.

Welcome.

2008-02-12T12:56:00.001-08:00

One thing you're not supposed to do in any profession is give free advice. But that's not exactly what this blog is for.

It seems fitting to start this blog with a Conk Creative anti-manifesto.

In my experience, people connected to the marketing world love to think and talk about the art of communication, but they don't have time for it. By sheer necessity, they can't think about tomorrow because they have to get through today. They'd love to see the world from 60,000 feet, but they can't get there because... well, there's a trade show in two weeks and the booth isn't ready, and we have a product launch in a month, and when are we going to finally redo our website? And damn, my entire day is blocked out with meetings.

I'm offering this blog not as a one-sided conversation, but as a dialogue. Since I started my personal blog nearly a year ago, I've realized that we make hundreds of observations every day (personal, professional, emotional, intellectual, cultural, catty) that go un-communicated. I feel sorry for these observations. There's no telling where they might go if they were just expressed, read and commented upon.

So that's what this blog is really for. We're all in this together. We're all trying to keep up with a world that never stops shifting under our feet. The only real way to make progress is to realize that things have grown so complex, so fast, that the idea of a "marketing guru" is an impossible relic of the past (if it existed at all).

True insight and real progress come through humility and collaboration. So here we go. Ready?

- CC