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.”

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’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.

I was reading the AdFreak blog (which always tickles me) and saw a post about a fun little quiz created by MindFloss. 

Certainly nobody reading this blog is unfamiliar with the many, many, many pharmaceutical commercials and their drugs many, many, many “possible” side effects.

Well … MindFloss wants to see how well you paid attention. Take the Quiz.

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.

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?

Big oops! Melissa Read, Ph.D. and I talked today about the 300-page iPhone bill a blogger received and then shared with the world to encourage e-billing. As a former Cingular employee, I cringed to hear this story–and not just for environmental reasons. Receiving a 300-page bill not only kills a lot of trees, it kills the customer experience.

I hope this publicity doesn’t overshadow Cingular/AT&Ts other industry-leading efforts to provide outstanding customer care. When I worked for Cingular, I led a revamp of the online and in-store welcome experience, especially the Cingular Service Summary and welcome collateral for all customers. Changes to the bill itself may be in order, too.

Even without a major redesign of the bill itself, AT&T could address this issue a few ways. Most people are interested in bill details only when there is a problem–not all the time. Some thoughts…

• Clarify messaging to new customers about their bill format.
• Make the default billing setting for customers online, with the option to change to print.
• For print bill recipients
• Make the default setting a summary, with the option for detailed billing or an occasional request for a detailed hard copy.
• Communicate to customers that bill details are always available online, and make details easy to find.
• If a detailed billing customer’s bill is going to exceed a certain page number, then notify the customer with an option to receive it by e-mail or online instead.
• Consider providing print details only for charges that exceed the customer’s normal amount. For instance, detail only the text messages exceeding the plan’s included number.

Within the past year, Spunlogic has jumped from 30 something employees to around 70 employees. In the two years (or so) that I’ve been with the company we’ve only had one microwave. When we moved from the Zonolite location to our Midtown location, it came with us. Of course, until recently having only one microwave was not an issue. One generally only had to wait a few minutes before they could warm up their coffee or lunch. Now that we’ve doubled in size, the queue generally built up quickly. Because of this, someone recently started a “Second Microwave Fund” via a Styrofoam cup on our sole microwave.

The last time I checked, there had been 35 cents donated, we were on our way to getting a second microwave!

Yesterday, as I went to warm up my leftovers from the night before I noticed there was a second microwave that had magically appeared!

It was donated by our fantastic Project Management intern, Katie. Katie joined us this summer after her trip to Spain, and has been a tremendous asset to our department. We’re really sad that she’ll be leaving us for her last semester at Mercer University (Go Bears!). Thankfully, she’s leaving us with a “warm” daily reminder in the break room.

On behalf of Spunlogic, I’d like to say “Thanks again, Katie!” Have a great semester – come back and see us soon!

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.