Slate blogger Mickey Kaus has been pushing an interesting theory on political consumerism, namely that the news cycle and technology have evolved and advanced so far - and in such coordination - that consumers are more adept at cycling news and information much more quickly than even a few years ago, “that voters are comfortable processing information at the vastly increased speed it can come at them”.

He cites this phenomenon, called Feiler Faster Thesis, on why everyone got NH wrong in Barack’s favor:

“…Voters who don’t really follow politics are much less informed than they used to be, which causes polls to shift rapidly when they do inform themselves … You’ve got a vast uninformed pool of voters that only begins to make up its mind until the very last minute–after the last poll is taken, maybe–and then reaches its decision by furiously ingesting information at a Feileresque pace.”

But what if we were to put this in general, non-wonkish marketing perspective: due to technology’s rapid dissemination of information and socialization of product and brand “truthyness”, the temporal market place for any brand or product is being truncated and only the most immediate message are penetrating.

One the one hand, long term investment in brand awareness creates only fleeting - not sustainable - consideration momentum that can be capitalized on (why Barack saw an Iowa bounce, but it disappeared overnight; why Hillary’s crying episode quickly overshadowed the Iowa results leading right up until voters made up their minds).

Retail sciences are exploring this trend widely, focusing on the “moment of truth”, when a consumer pulls a product from their shelves. But are agency strategists keeping up with the consideration cycle and funnel of today’s rapidly promiscuous consumer?

I’ve contended for some time now that the sales funnel looks less like an upside down triangle and much more like an extraordinarily thin hourglass, which continuously curves into itself. Maybe Kaus is right, and that it’s not so thin after all.

With even more appologies to Jeff - Man, I’m killing my career here - check out this post from AdAge: More Football Fans Hit ESPN’s Mobile Site Than Its PC Pages.

So maybe it’s just our definition of expectations that needs alignment. It certainly isn’t distribution - a recent annoucement that 1 of every 2 humans in the world now carries a cell phone surely resonates. 

With great regard for Jeff’s annoyance of top ten lists, instead of a list of what I think will become major marketing and media trends for the coming 12-18 months, these are the things I will be keeping a running interest in (in no particular order):

1) Genomic Marketing: With tests for genetic ancestry and inheritances hitting the market for under $1,000, expect more consumers to take the bait. This will initially affect marketing spaces by way of the bioproduct’s complexity and the need for the industry to educate consumers and their doctors about genetic predictabilities and phenotype interactions (we’re already seeing the results of the PR push). Secondarily, and most importantly, when more consumers are armed with their genetic predispositions we should expect marketers to respond by introducing products and campaigns that speak to your DNA and not your preferences, your fears instead of your aspirations. Good times.

2) The end of the “Celebutard” glut: After a year in which users not only passively watched but became de-facto participants in the complete self destruction of Britney and company, I have a gloomy sense that one of these narratives of posturing will end very, very tragically. During an election year, when voters will be asked to reflect on what it means to build a great society, the TMZs and In-Touch Magazines of the world will watch their audience slowly disappear. Hasselhoff will emerge as the proverbial nuclear roach.

3) Neuroscientific Retailing: From AdAge’s 2008 predictions

Going beyond traditional focus groups and consumer surveys, market research will embrace scientific approaches that literally tap consumers’ brains to learn how they neurologically respond to commercial messages and make brand choices The Four A’s and ARF have begun researching this topic in earnest with an intensive study, “On the Road to a New Effectiveness Model.” In 2008 we will start to see practical applications of these insights as advertisers and shops begin to truly understand engagement.

I agree, especially within the context of Spun’s own growth in behavioral insights and some of the functional magnetic resonance imaging techniques being used on the campaign trail, but think the real gains will be on the shelves.

The major retailers have been way ahead of their manufacturing peers and suppliers when it comes to understanding what drives category growth through their channels - from packaging and traffic patterns to narrowcasting media in-store and “retailtainment” positions. Expect to see (but maybe not hear about) shifts in the grocery and big box landscapes to reflect learnings from the neurosciences as well as continued growth of boutique retail environments geared toward the particular behaviors of discrete populations. And expect to be surprised by how much the back of your receipt knows about you.

4) The web will find its narrative voice: In what is currently still a very clinical medium, the well crafted turn of verse will begin to find its way onto websites and into interactive advertising. With thousands of Hollywood hacks flooding the market with words looking for pages (and no end to the strike in sight), brand story arcs will begin to take shape, and consumer engagement will not only be task driven, but plot driven. Gorilla playing the drums for chocolate – Ok. How about a Gorilla who has to keep playing the drums or else his Gorilla gal pal gets dumped into a vat of hot banana pudding… stay tuned (and sponsored by BENGAY®).

5) BOOMERvision!: Marketers have increasingly recognized the power of the Boomer generation’s income and impact – now they will start to segment and speak to it. Today, 50+ American adults represent 38% of the population, exploding to 47% by 2020, and control upwards of 70% of the nation’s wealth and half of all consumer spending. From “Leading Edgers” to those “Ready to Launch”, marketers will begin to understand the unique passion points of those born on the cusp of the boom versus those later on, the subtle differences between those who still have kids in the household to the empty nesters. Most agency and media pros, on the other hand, will not.

6) Green Fiends: This is already being covered ad nauseam in the trades, but companies that preach environmental consciousness better be really self-aware. Not only will consumers collectively call their bluff (and expensively flood their customer call centers), so will our elected officials, their competitors and their partners. In the end, many marketers will realize that grubby granola ground hippies don’t buy antiperspirants or luxury automobiles anyway. (Just kidding). And that capital sustainability is sometimes counterintuitive to environmental sustainability. (Not Kidding).

7) Election Rejection: Interactive marketing professionals will concentrate more during this election on topics that in no way impact their lives (insert that subject here), but will have no idea where the candidates stand on the most important topic to our field: net neutrality.

And finally, speaking of elections…

8) Real Beauty elected in landslide: After wasting months of meaningless grey matter over what the Mitchell report really means, the electorate will turn out in record numbers to select the winner of Dove’s campaign for real beauty:

If you’re a sports or music enthusiast, you’ve no doubt done the “help 2” before: strolling outside an arena or stadium holding up a couple of fingers to attract scalpers – or secondary market entrepreneurs, onsite re-sellers, etc. - who may have the goods you need.

Inevitably, the tickets they’re offering will be above face value - partly a marginal surcharge to cover their legal risk, and partly because ticket prices are set artificially low. Now, prices are synthetically low for a few reasons – unknown demand, to keep the stadium packed for a better overall experience (and to massage the artist’s ego, sell more beer, et al.), and to ensure access for the regular guy, Joe Mullet Headed Face Painter.

Ironically, and against the recommendation of almost every economist alive, scalping is for the most part illegal or dis-encouraged.

But the web has changed all of that – secondary ticket markets are a fruitful utility linking seat to potential fanny and identifying what the market really can bare. In fact, the NFL is exploring a possible relationship with one of the more popular online ticket resale exchanges, and some conventional thinking is that this will completely democratize the ticket buying process, at once identifying a market’s strike price and eventually freezing out the most loyal but more shallow-pocketed Fan.

But, what if we had this type of market with commercial media – a real time auction linking marketer to consumer? Well, probably two things immediately: 1) costs would sky-rocket, and 2) then they would plummet. Probably overnight.

Initially, artificial demand would propel media buying concerns (who currently over estimate the demand anyway, thus the Upfront) to pay way too much for the premium – probably even remnant - inventory. “Disposable” content, like reality shows and sports – where you pretty much have to see them when they occur – will make the quickest gains, and the crappy shows we all complain about will get the scraps. The actual demand would quickly be exposed, and costs would sink.

But, what would it be exposing – a true market for eyeballs, or a true market for the pockets connected to those eyeballs? Or even better, a true market for the value of the engagement? Broadcast has had it both ways: selling both general volume and/or particular audience qualities simultaneously and often contradictorily (MTV has been positioning itself recently with an engagement play, to some chuckles, but trying none the less) .

Some major marketers for years have been asking for an open market to traditional ad space inventory, but no one can agree on the product value: the cost to create the content + “what”? Of course, “what”ever someone is willing to pay – but this only works if the market is relatively transparent (and another reason no one thinks the writer’s strike will end anytime soon).

Mostly through ad networks and search models (Google even played, without effect, with an open auction model for print space), web advertising is creeping into the democratization of other kinds of media, at least creating a model for how inventory can be arbitraged.

Just something to keep in mind: Small marketers (the Joe Mullet Headed Face Painters) may be left out in the cold, even with a clearer cost structure and lower entry point; content will generally improve at the high end, sink lower at the bottom end; more “disposable” content will flood the market (until the production companies realize how much they’re giving up in lost syndication cash) and a third market will - and has already started to - open up: even more valuable inventories created by individuals themselves and their self-managed content networks.

Look, I’m as big a fan of the head fake shimmy to scallywag, foot shuffle back to head fake shimmy as the next guy, and love ironic jewelry that says something even more ironically specific when the jewelry is eaten, but I will not be upgrading to Direct TV’s HD offering - thank you very much, Beyonce.

In one of the most preposterous TV commercials of all time (I originally thought it was a parody of some kind), our luminary is starring in a music video that is going swimmingly, just beautifully, until she’s reminded that she’s actually hawking Direct TV, and desperately needs to upgrade me to a $29.99 HD package. But she doesn’t stop the video part, just injects the commercial part, or is it the other way around. I’m so confused.

But, then the mouthful of her gold “upgrade” medallion cleared it all up for me. However, the thing is, I’d much rather have the “upgrade” necklace than the Direct TV upgrade.  All I can find, though, is a necklace with Beyonce herself on it, not the actual “Upgrade” necklace that would match my “With a 2-yr service agreement” bracelet, and “After mail-in rebate” anklet.

All kidding aside, this piece of advertising, and the hideously frequent volume of its showing, is really why the average consumer gets turned off by our trade, and why smart strategy is increasingly moving toward actual and resonant consumer insights driving brand gains. What could possibly be the core insight here? That Beyonce is an expert on High Definition television? Or that she really believes that $29.99 is the optimum price point for 75 of the hottest HD channels…

No, what we have here is the classic “music to sell stuff to” theorem, wherein a marketing exec, typically on the client side (but not always), heard the song or saw Beyonce’s video, and said, “You know, it has the word ‘upgrade’ in it, and people know who Beyonce is, and we can cover the cost of her talent fee by simply cutting up the music video with some VO about the offer…, as long as we run 1,200 GRPs a week during the holidays, man this stuff is going to sell itself”.

So in honor of one of the most ungainly, clumsy and annoying commercials ever to air under the “music to sell stuff to” theory, what other gems have gone untapped? Please submit your idea for a song that ‘totally’ needs to be paired with a product; example:

+

=

profits …

In a week where I was about to pounce on Nielsen’s thin-skinned, backbone-less reversal of a rule intended to alleviate appointment only television ratings (basically, they were measuring multiple viewings of a single show as a count, but NBC, Heroes and Nissan tricked the subsystem and made them look foolish),  I am making a reversal myself and lauding them. A little.

“Hey! Nielsen” is, wouldn’t you know, a social network. But the fabric and this model is interesting and completely in line with their brand and how technological shifts in the marketplace are influencing it. First some basics:

Nielsen is widely known for their measurement systems, particularly the TV audience analysis that drives the entire media economy. A dusty old model itself, there are basically a few thousand sample households nationwide that use a clunky, television set-top box to record how many family members are in a room watching a particular broadcast. This data is used to set ratings that guide commercial costs, which steers which shows (and types of shows) get to live, die, or be put on “Hiatus”.

That covered, they also have an interesting product called Buzz-Metrics, which measures chatter densities and positive/negative spin for any number of products or topics, trolling the blogs and chatter spheres throughout the web to figure out what people are talking about and how. Dove has a new “Real Beauty” campaign? Buzz Metrics helps them figure out if people are talking about it, how, where/when etalk rises and falls, as well as how the campaign affected the chatter levels of their competitors.

Hey! Nielsen is kind of a blending of those two systems – a social network where contributors talk about, rank, dis, opinionate or just basically fight over Movies, TV Shows,  websites , and personalities (Jensen Ackles, it seems, is going to be the next that guy who was Dawson on Dawson’s creek, you know, with the forehead). It then layers on data from Billboard, Hollywood Reporter, and Blogpulse – other Nielsen products - to create a score.  You can also track the score over time. Pretty neat.

The good news is that Nielsen’s stated goal is to eventually use these scores to help drive and influence their primary products, namely TV ratings and panel data, but not until they have enough user mass and a foolproof methodology. How will they get there? By enticing enthusiasts with exclusive screenings and invite only events.

It’s an interesting start, but back to Nielsen’s feeble cowering before the media community … it would be great if they had a category for scoring ads themselves.

This really annoys me (that sound you hear is me stretching to get on my high horse) - here is a picture of the US Soccer team’s away jersey from just a few years ago: 

Here is the away jersey the women are now sporting in the current world cup:

Notice anything peculiar?

Reminds me of an informal survey someone I know either took or told me about wherein an email went out asking, male and female alike, given a choice between two potential people to date, and both are equal in all ways - attractiveness, intellect, sense of humor, interests, income, articulation… loves puppies, remembers birthdays, can cook, never dated Lindsey Lohan or Brody Jenner, etc. – but the main difference is that one would call themselves patriotic, and the other would not. Resoundingly, by a wide and long margin, the un-patriotic person was preferable.

I don’t know why, as I would not label myself patriotic or unpatriotic, rather “adequately patriotic”, but maybe my reaction to the above (or that it elicited a reaction at all), sways me in one direction or the other.

The net here (requisite marketing spin): consumers typically associate your brand or product with the colors you’ve invested time and energy to make them build an association with. No need to over think.

Maybe the uniform “deciders” didn’t want possible negative global reaction to US Foreign policy to affect the good and talented women in the tournament.

However, replacing it with a color (GOLD!) that possibly represents the most negative world perception about our domestic policy (namely, that they think we are all rich and lazy) is just maybe short sighted.

We might as well play in Cowboy hats.

The actual cowboy kind, not the Bon Jovi kind.

I read an interesting article over the weekend that answered the question: why is sports journalism so much better than the general media? (which I agree with) The author had 3 reasons:

1. You keep score, which makes reporting clear outcomes the goal.
2. Your reader base has a near expert understanding of the topics (ever meet a fantasy geek? If not, come see me).
3. There’s a monopoly in the trade (sure, there are tons of blogs, local papers, etc., but really, it’s ESPN, SI, and then Fox and CBS for NFL and NCAA basketball respectively).

I have a fourth – sports lends itself beautifully to literary metaphor, so writers can use exquisitely crafted language and not be penalized for lack of objectivity or pithiness.

So I was weighing this against why the ad trades are so poor (how many years in a row can this be the “YEAR OF MOBILE!!!”), given very similar circumstances? We do keep score (wins/losses, campaign outcomes, ratings, etc), the readers are all in the industry - for the most part - and there is an absolute monopoly on the reportage: Adage and Adweek (and their sister pubs) are the major filters for what we understand to be going on in the ad/marketing fields. We’ll here’s a stab – let me know what you think:

1. They don’t really keep score – they’ll only tell you who won and lost specific pitches, not who is really losing business, staff and rep. CP+B does some wonderfully executed creative, but how many accounts can they lose, win, lose, win, lose, win, win, lose, before we start asking about results (agencies don’t just walk away from beer and auto accounts, mind you). The pubs also play it pretty straight by NOT predicting how effective ad campaigns or agencies will be - what was the over/under on how many weeks Bud.tv would be live? You can’t grade ads if we can’t grade you, Barbara.

2. Here’s the important one: the readers of Adweek and AdAge are nowhere near as expert in advertising and marketing as a typical sports fan is about the sports world. Really. Walk through any agency – large, small, digital, traditional, other - and ask a typical AE or production coordinator who Jack Connors is, and you’ll get a blank stare. Ask even the most seasoned Art Director what AOL’s announcement that the future is in ad networks means to their world (answer: an awful lot). Net/net: we’re all in the weeds of our own businesses, clients, and agencies, and don’t really have the time to invest in anything outside the four corners of our immediate concern. The CPG cos. read about other CPG cos. and move on. The telcos read about the telcos and move on. Moveon reads about moveon and moves on. I read it all, but I’m a nerd.

3. Lastly, there’s too much of a monopoly, and it’s too geographically considered – The Wal-Mart/DraftFCB/Roehm love tryst was the biggest story in the industry… for about a month. The pubs of note don’t have the deep bench of reporters nor the long term interest of their readers to really dig deeply into a really compelling “human interest story”. Plus, who knows where Roehm will land? Who wants to be shut out of news concerning the largest retailer in the world? They’re too big, and too dependant, to mess with the hands that feed them - news and ad revenue.

Just some thoughts. I’d love to know who you think the Beli-cheat equivalent is in the ad world. Which agency is the Delmon Young of the ad industry?

Two things are currently fascinating me this media summer: Rupert’s single handed attempt to dismantle the US economy and business reporting universe buy purchasing WSJ, and the run to the White House.

On the first front, does anyone really think that even if our most highly respected paper (sorry, NYTs) does take a drastically Murdochian editorial tone and demeanor - and save for probable under reporting on China’s political enterprises (since he wants to expand his empire there), there’s no telling it will – are we really going to lose the only responsible organ for transparent reporting on capital markets? Well, the capital markets tell us…

No.

Someone enterprising and resourceful is going to fill the gaps that Murdoch will supposedly create, and if no one does, something will. A digital community, an artful blogger, an amalgam of the two. Ten years ago yes, there would be have been real concern about a reportage vacuum in the financial verts. Today? Whatever. The WSJ is in this mess because of strong competitive pressure , not a market still reliant on a single source for its financial coverage.

It’s likely Michael Bloomberg, even if he doesn’t run for the presidency, will save the day none the less.

Which brings me to my second curiosity and question: who do the presidential candidates turn to for their advertising, and how are they selected?

Is it a comment on the state of the ad community or the acumen of the office seekers that the biggest brand builders in the world - BBDO, DDB, Satchi, W+K (you know, for Nader), et al. – aren’t selected or even pitching the business for the highest office, i.e. the biggest brand, in the world.

I can’t imagine that telling a voting public how you’re decision making, baby kissing, pork loading, veto drafting, estate dinner attending skills differ from your opponents is much different from explaining how your paper towel’s spill picker-uppering is better than someone else’s. We put as much emotion and energy into selecting both.

These tiny Washington consultant groups (headed by ex-politocos like Bob Schrum, not ex-admen) are winning business that should be going to the masters of marginal narratives and integrated thinkocracy. Hillary is buds with GSD&Ms chief, but are they actually running her ad campaign?

Who’s doing the media placements, and what’s the gross up? This stuff fascinates me. Maybe the big agency holding cos don’t want the business, with all of the baggage it comes with (let alone the red face test you’d have to pass as a self respecting Creative Director building ads for a conservative).
If you know anything about this strange world I’d love to hear from you.

Has SEM arrived? Well, search engine marketing, absolutely.

What I’m referring to here is what Accenture - in the elegant codex of consultant speak - is calling Social Ecosystem Marketing. Basically, applying Gladwellian effect principals to advocates and peer groups, and amplifying your message to the most active and influential segment authorities. A blend of eCRM and oCRM (organic).

While I enthusiastically agree with moving from a mass, single segment approach to marketing in advocacy layers, especially for consumer package and household technology goods, what concerned me was a recent article in Adweek attempting – poorly – to demonstrate the power of this methodology (oh, and the impressively convoluted designation: Social Ecosystem Marketing – these people slay me).

The article cites a program Sprint and Unilever coauthored to target moms and, seemingly, their extended network of peers. Users were asked to log in and write shorts scripts about their days, with the crowd pleasing-est to be recorded by a cast that includes Leah Remini.

However, the piece cites as success 3,000 entries and 50,000 votes. So this is what constitutes the validation of Social Ecosystem Marketing? The story goes on to report that the program, “by definition” hit extroverted mothers who would invariably talk about Suave (the brand in play) to their girlfriends. But, in no way does the piece dig deeper into how the marketers know that the participants were extroverts, or if they extended the message at all to their net promoter sphere. Less an ecosystem, more like a bowl full of guppies.

Hilariously, the article goes on to tout the program as a way to gather consumer insights and ethnographic data through what users submitted. A new research paradigm: from declared behavior, to observed behavior, to self selected fictional  manners. Excellent.

Finally, about the name (if it sounds sorta like social science, it must be social science - but let’s play along): Two things an ecosystem relies on for sustainability are biodiversity – the more diverse a population, the more the system can absorb negative or high impact events; and stochastic phenomenon (basically, chance happenings). We hope that our marketing efforts don’t rely on chance, and marketing to Moms more likely means you’re hitting a far less diverse pocket of population than more (have you ever been to the local Outback Steaks during margarita night?).

Maybe I’m nitpicking. But if I think about the cost of just hiring Leah Remini for this program, forgetting everything else, don’t you think it would have been more cost effective to send 1 bottle of Suave to 5,000 local PTA presidents along with a packet of coupons for peer distribution?

Sampling…great. What’s elegant about that?