Thinking back to the days of taking the SAT (did you hear they allow calculators now?!), I remember the analogy questions and I could imagine seeing this one:

Cat is to Dog as
Interactive is to…

a) Digital
b) Online
c) Print
d) Al Gore

The obvious answer would be c), right?  Not so fast.  I just read about a company called Structural Graphics that creates what they call “interactive print”.  In an article by Mediaweek, the author writes about pitches that Structural Graphics has recently made on the concept of print ads with animation, sound and video to Time Inc. and other major publishers.  The printed page would even have a coin-sized battery!

Although they say the product is about two years away from execution, you have to start thinking that we’re not too far off from having conversion-enabled (I just made that word up) print ads that connect to the web, possibly through bluetooth on your phone or a wireless network.  Or I could see ads change based on when a person is reading that magazine (i.e. if there is an NFL ad for an upcoming game and you read the magazine two weeks later, the ad could refresh to the game that weekend).

This kind of technology leads me to believe that soon all marketing will be “interactive”.  I was at a dinner the other night and someone high up on the interactive side at one of the largest companies in town made the comment that interactive marketing is now traditional marketing.  And I think she’s right.

Just when I was about to go after Steve Ballmer for his inability to say anything intelligent about the web, Marc Andreessen beats me to it. I’ve mentioned Marc’s blog as one of my favorites a while back, and he very succinctly nails why Microsoft continues to lack an understanding of the importance (and staying power) of social networking. And for a while there I thought Microsoft might be trying when the reports were coming out that they are interested in buying 10% of Facebook, but then Steve says something like this to the UK Times Online:

“I think these things [social networks] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

He also compares Facebook to Geocities saying that it had “most of what Facebook has.” No, it didn’t. But we don’t have time to get into that. Suffice it to say, I’m guessing Steve’s not getting many Facebook friend requests as he clearly doesn’t really understand what the site even does.

But back to the point. I could try to make fun of Ballmer but as I said, Marc did a much better job in this blog post, which you now see below. Enjoy

Ballmer subsequently added:

“I think these things [talking motion pictures] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [televisions] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [rock and roll music] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [hip hop music] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [fast food restaurants] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [bikinis] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [cars] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [typewriters] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [digital music players] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [mobile phones] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [video games] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think these things [search engines] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

“I think this thing [the web] is going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

And then finally, “I think these things [personal computers] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people.”

I’m currently in the process of watching The Sopranos from beginning to end. We don’t have HBO so I missed out on what I now know is a great show. I’m just starting season 4 and there are some classic quotes I’ve heard so far. Although from a quote perspective I have to say it’s no “Fletch” (”it’s all ball bearings these days”, “I’ll have a Bloody Mary and a steak sandwich and… a steak sandwich”, and “The lob is a very important part of the game”, to name a few).

But there was something that Silvio said in the last episode that I watched that got me thinking about the interactive industry. In the scene, Tony is laying into his captains about their inability to produce revenue during the current recession. He then asks Silvio to “break it down for ‘em”. It goes like this:

Anthony ‘Tony’ Soprano Sr.: Sil, break it down for ‘em. What two business have traditionally been recession-proof since time immemorial?

Silvio Dante: Certain aspects of show business… and our ‘ting.

Classic, right? And it got me thinking. There’s a lot of talk right now about a perceived bubble that we’re in and that at any moment things might start to crumble as they did in the early 2000’s. And that might be true. But I’m starting to think that online marketing might become recession-proof. Or at least that it should be.

As we know, online marketing is still only around 6 - 8% of typical Fortune 1000 advertising budgets (at least that’s the latest figures I’ve heard). Online marketing also easily outproduces traditional advertising in terms of ROI. “Reach” is still something that online can’t compete with against traditional advertising (long live the 30 second spot), but from a pure measure-ability standpoint, nothing beats interactive.

I’d argue that if/when the bubble might burst, advertisers should increase the percentage of their budget that is attributed to online marketing. The ability to say we spent $X and received $Y in return becomes even more valuable when budgets are tight. Maybe then we’ll start seeing some of the TV advertising getting whacked.

So I have traveled a little recently and I always wonder what goes on at the office when I’m out. Well, let’s just say that I’m not sure how much traveling I’ll be doing in the near future based on what our Creative Director and Director of User Experience were up to while I was gone. Luckily someone at Spun caught it on video and slapped it up on Youtube for the world to enjoy.

I’m sorry, I can’t help it. I try to give new technology a chance, I really do. And I usually credit companies for trying things, for sticking their necks out there, for attempting to innovate. But when I saw that Playboy was launching their own social networking site…well lets just say I can’t hold my tongue on this one.

On the Playboy U website, they describe the site as “an exclusive college-only non-nude social network. Here is where you can show your school pride, connect with other students and celebrate the social side of college.”

Finally, its here! A website where college kids can network with each other. It’s going to be a Golden Age! Why didn’t I think of that? Oh wait, I did think of that, a few minutes ago when I updated my Facebook status. You know Facebook, one of the most visited sites on the web. The one that was started in early 2004, and according to Wikipedia, has “the largest number of registered users among college-focused sites with over 34 million active members worldwide”.

And I’ve been thinking about all the reasons this won’t work but the biggest reason is very simple: females largely detest Playboy. At least the females I know. Heck, most females can’t stand Hooters, let alone Playboy. So getting females to sign up for this will probably be impossible. So then there are just the guys. Why do guys use social networks? Especially college guys? It’s not to chit-chat with their buddies. It’s to meet girls. College guys pretty much have three things on their minds, and they’re all called, “meet girls”.

What’s funny is, when I read this I assumed the the Playboy headquarters must be in some place like Big Piney, Wyoming (no offense to all of our Big Pineyian readership - we’re huge there). But no, Playboy HQ is in Chicago. So they should know better.

Yeah, this is going to be a big winner.

So I was in the middle of finishing this post when I got an email on the same topic from my good friend and childhood idol, Joe Koufman. So now I have to give him credit for the idea - great. Oh, and if you don’t know Joe, he works at a great Atlanta technology company, KnowledgeStorm, and is apparently a huge hippie based on this photo I found of him and his lovely wife. Peace, man.

Back to the point…according to a study by Rainmaker Consulting there is a pretty big gap between what agencies think a client wants (when choosing which agency they want to work with), and what clients actually want. The biggest differences? Size and location. Apparently clients don’t care too much about those two things, and I’m betting in the interactive world they care about them even less.

The ranking of things that are important to clients when selecting an agency came out looking like this:

1. Quality customer insights
2. Chemistry
3. Creative work
4. Service level / response to needs ongoing
5. Cost control
6. Innovative / strategic thinking
7. Case for ROI
8. Client list
9. Strict adherence to brief
10. Seniority of account team
11. Location
12. Size

We shouldn’t be surprised, but all those agencies that lead with their clients, size and experience better rethink their pitches. Wait, what am I saying? You guys should keep pitching that way and maybe just flip this list upside down and start from there. What do clients know anyway about what they want, right?

In all seriousness, do you really want a client that is focused on the size of your firm and impressiveness of your client roster? Surely the client that is focused on things like your ideas and the chemistry they have with you are going to be better long-term partners for the agency.

So my question is, does this list surprise any of you?

Nalini sent me this email the other day and rather than encouraging her to create a blog post about it (which is probably my first response to just about anything people at Spun tell me these days…Hey Jeff, check out this new Facebook app…Great, blog about it!…Hey Jeff, where are you going for lunch today?…Great, blog about it!), I figured I’d just throw up a quick post so people could hear about this pretty unique campaign and if you have any thoughts about it…Great, blog about it!

Enjoy:
I saw Katie checking out the site: http://www.1-18-08.com/ and thought it was really cool so I asked her to send me the link.

She also sent me the blog that had the article related to the site, which I think is even more interesting: “How do you advertise a movie with no name” because it talks about how you can generate user interest by leaving clues on websites; using emails; even phone calls.

Valleywag has a post about the hotspots in Silicon Valley, and instead of going into my typical meditative state where I hum loudly and picture myself in Silicon Valley in the midst of all things online and cool (ok, I don’t really do that…much), I thought I’d maybe point out some of the hotspots in the ATL. Below are four of the most popular networking spots to grab a bite, each with a little something different to offer.

The Silver Skillet - mostly breakfast networking but you can find everyone here

OK Cafe - breakfast or lunch, take your pick

Thumbs Up Diner - for the East Atlanta crowd

The Flying Biscuit - my favorite is the one on 10th and Piedmont…

Anyone care to suggest a few more?

The much anticipated and over-hyped Mad Men (Thursdays at 10pm on AMC) held my attention for about a show and a half before it dawned on me: this shows is horrible. The show is named after the Madison Avenue advertising crowd in NY in the 1960’s. And for the past few months you couldn’t pick up an industry mag without seeing multiple ads for the show.

It was the premise that I thought was interesting. I’ve always been curious about the early days of advertising and how the industry really took off. But it’s like the writing staff decided they also wanted to make this a documentary about living/working in the ’60s and then somewhere along the way, after drinking multiple rounds of their own spiked Kool-Aid, the entire show became about the sixties and they over dramatized every little detail.

People in the sixties smoked a lot? Ok, great, I get it. Did every single person smoke in every single conceivable situation? They do on this show. The entire first episode was like one big smokefest where even the advertisers themselves were promoting a cigarette brand. By the end of the show I had to slap on a few Nicotine patches just to get over it.

There weren’t any seat belts in cars? Ok, yeah I understand that. Do I need to constantly be reminded of this and see kids climbing all over the place in the car and flying about when the mom gets in a wreck?

And the way they depict how women were treated back then - you half expected some guy to come out of a conference room dragging the secretary by her hair while he eats a huge, raw chicken bone. And all the men cheated in the sixties, didn’t you know that too? And don’t even get me started on the racism, which is probably the most believable bit.

But it really took the cake in the scene when two kids are playing and they come running into the kitchen to see their mom and the little girl has a big dry cleaning bag over her head. And while we all gasp in the audience about the potential suffocation of this poor kid, her mom simply yells that her dry cleaning better not be wrinkled and she should run along and keep playing, while she sips on her beverage of choice. She might as well have said, “Now run around and here, hold these scissors for me, and for fun why don’t you try to stick them in the light socket”.

The show had a good premise but they want us so badly to say, “Wow, the sixties were a bunch of sexist, racist, adulterous, smoking, reckless idiots”, that they forgot the reason they even created the show. I’ve taken the serious step of un-DVR’ing it so I won’t be seeing it anymore, thank God.

If you really want to, you can watch some Mad Men videos here - but I wouldn’t waste your time.

The buzz over the past year has been that more and more, digital shops will start winning the overall global accounts and will dictate creative/strategy for the client, rather than the traditional shops winning the account and then siphoning off a percentage of the budget to the digital folks.

I feel like I’ve been somewhat of a traitor to my people on this one because I just haven’t been able to get on board and agree that we (interactive) should be leading the way. The other day I had breakfast with a colleague from a traditional agency in town and he brought up a recent client he heard of that chose a digital shop to manage its account over a traditional shop - and this was one of the biggest companies on the planet! But even still I just couldn’t see it, how could a client, which let’s say has a $100MM+ budget, decide to use a digital agency to lead the charge when most likely less than 20% of that budget will go to the digital side (and honestly, 20% is pretty generous)? How would a digital-focused agency be able to give direction to the traditional folks when they have such disdain for that side of the house?

Ah, but now I get it. In an article this month in Adweek, the writer tackles this subject and what struck me was the quote by Dare planning partner John Owen. He said:

The digital age is about the democracy of a good idea which can come from anywhere, including the consumer. So it’s about being more open and more collaborative, and having respect for the consumer’s contribution. Traditional agencies are used to control rather than collaboration and that’s where they are coming unstuck because they are finding it difficult to adapt to the new ways of working.

That’s it! It’s not necessarily that ideas that are interactive/web-based are more important than traditional media (though I’d love to debate that one), but more so that we as interactive agencies understand the new way to interact with the consumer. Traditional shops, because of their mediums, have almost no way of appreciating how powerful consumer interaction and collaboration can be. Digital shops get that, and that’s why they are continuing to take over.