Weblog Consulting Register Login Subscribe to Free Influx Emails Join our Facebook Group Branding Street Cred Technology Lifestyle Style Entertainment Interviews Art InfluxTV Map Widgets RSS — All Subjects RSS — More Feeds

Search

Advanced Search

Contact Privacy Policy

A few weeks back Esther Dyson wrote an op-ed piece in the WSJ about the future of  advertising. She uses the example of Dopplr (the travel based social network) as a way of imagining a new brand relationship.

"Each user determines who will get into his own garden, whether friends or vendors. Look at Dopplr (where I plan to become an investor), a site for travelers. I list my trips, and see how they intersect with my friends' itineraries. "Oh, we'll both be in London April 4? Let's get together!" Or, "Juan and Alice will be in town next Tuesday. Let's hold a dinner!" You can imagine or visit equivalent approaches for books (a hypothetical Amazon 2.0, new and more personalized), clothes (Glam.com and Stardoll.com), and even money management.

So what's the business model? I'll "friend" British Airways, which will say, "We see you're going to Moscow next month. Why not fly through London and we'll give you 10,000 extra miles?" I'm no longer in a bucket of frequent travelers, my privacy protected. I'm an individual with specific travel plans, which I intentionally make visible to preferred vendors. British Airways, of course, will pay Dopplr a handsome sponsorship fee to be eligible to be my "friend" (just as a Nike rep might pay to sponsor a basketball game and be part of the community). Someday NetJets may show up, offering to ferry me and my friends to a conference we'll be attending together."

It's interesting when you look at the changed dynamic here.

The user is in complete control, they are only inviting the friends they want, to be inside their walled garden and the brand friends have to behave in a very specific way.

Note: This is not Facebook with unsolicited ads coming at you from all sides.

This new world requires a lot from brands.

1. Are they trustworthy and good enough to be considered "friends" in the first place?

Do they have a powerful enough brand reputation?

Are they interesting enough?

2. Once they become a friend-Are they a smart friend or a dumb friend?- do they just spam offers without intelligence or do they know user behavior and needs in rich enough detail, so offers can be tailored?

This requires using data correctly and perhaps the means and ability to create billions of tailored offers (ads?) in real time.

3. Are they prepared to be flexible?- change their voice to be more personal, sound friendly and on the consumers side, perhaps even negotiate to win over a customer

Overall, Esther's scenario represents a radically changed relationship one that could be truly one to one and one where brand respect has to be continuously earned and maintained.

Posted by Ed Cotton "Advertising is a tax you pay for unremarkable thinking."

Robert Stephens, founder of GeekSquad

Via Social Customer Manifesto


Posted by Ed Cotton Facebook launches its ad platform and suddenly the giant monetization scheme is revealed.

All the hype was worth it, because it's just the same as every other ad platform invented since the start of the consumer society.

It also looks very much like an interuptive model to me, albeit one with some fine targeting opportunities.

One has to ask a simple question.

Do I really really want to make friends with Coca-Cola?

That appears to be what Facebook is suggesting, so when I searched and found that "person" called Coca-Cola, I discovered the world's most valuable brand only had 15 friends and two of them were journalists. Something tells me this thing is working already.

Taking a more lateral and perhaps unconventional approach, it might have been possible to see a Facebook platform as a way for brands to liberate their nameless employees.

A way for everyone to see and interact with the faces behind the faceless.

Could I be friends with an employee of a brand or corporation?

Possibly.

Sadly, that's not going to be the case and surely, that's a missed opportunity.


Posted by Ed Cotton I got an email today asking me write about "Handvertising", the problem is that I am unsure if it's real.

Is it an example of the growing spread of media into every possible space, or an experiment to see how many bloggers take the bait?

This is some of the text from the email.

"This is a new form of advertising and is completely different from the television commercials and magazine ads people are used to. What do you call advertising on your hands? "Well I like to call it Handvertising", said Mike Brown CEO of Handvertising USA.
 
Handvertising USA is transforming the way advertisers are looking at your skin, more specifically your hands. "Almost everyone has been to a county fair, swap meet, bar or club and had had their hand stamped for proof of entry. We have found a better use for this space that could make everyone happy" said Mike. "Advertisers are always looking for a new and exciting way to promote their brand. Handvertising USA offers a unique way to do this and everyone benefits" said Mike."

Take a look at their site and let me know what you think.
 


Posted by Ed Cotton As online video explodes and fragments, new entrants are emerging to lead new niches. One interesting example is Firebrand, who've decided to focus on advertising as their lead form of content. I emailed Shari Leventhal, the company's Chief Marketing Officer to learn more, ahead of the site's launch on October 22nd.

1. Why is now the time for Firebrand?
 
Firebrand enters the media landscape at a time when the commercial interruption is coming to an end. Firebrand believes that by taking commercials out of its second-class position as an interruption and creating a destination where consumers can choose to watch and are guaranteed to find the best in creative advertising, that users will seek it out. The research supports this demand indicating that over 33% of our target market is already downloading TV ads from the Internet and that 68% would watch Firebrand on TV, opt in on the web or do both.
 
2. Don't most people hate ads, why would they want a channel dedicated to them?
 
To the contrary, our research shows that 81% of our target demo feel that some ads are more entertaining than TV programs, while 74% said they would like to watch some commercials even though they have seen them before. Additionally, Firebrand offers the full depth of brand experience where users can Watch, Win, Shop and Share.
 
3. Who do you see as the audience?
 
Our primary audience is the highly desirable “Gen Y/Millennials,” a wired and media-savvy generation, loosely defined as ages 12-34.  
 
4. How will the ads be selected?
 
Firebrand has developed a panel of in-house programmers who curate and program the “coolest” TV commercials the way MTV used to program music videos, creating the first multi-platform network to go “live” simultaneously on TV, web & mobile…You can’t pay us to air a bad commercial.
 
5. Will people be able to buy the products advertised?
 
Whenever a user is interested in a product featured on Firebrand, they will have a one click option and can go directly into that brand’s online environment where they can make their purchase.
 
6. Will other advertisers be allowed to advertise on your site?
 
Firebrand will program and curate video advertising as content so users can opt in and choose to watch and interact.  There will not be any interruptive ads like banners or pop ups anywhere on the site.
 
7. What happens if their ads suck?
 
You won’t see it on Firebrand. Firebrand has a commitment to its users to program only the best in creative advertising. This means an advertiser can’t pay Firebrand to air a bad spot.
 
8. Give us some examples of your favorite ads of the moment that you would like to have up on your site?
 
 JC Penny – It’s Magic
 Sony Bravia, “Balls”
 Bud Light, “Swear Jar”
 Nike, “Free Style Basketball”
 Coke, “Happiness Factory”
 Skittles, “Touch”
 Ikea, “Lamp”
 
9. Is your idea to show the ads alone or will there be any opportunities to showcase behind the scenes material?
 
Firebrand features “Commercial Jockeys” or CJs that contextualize commercials as art and entertainment and guide viewers through the spots, contests and promotions.  Moving forward, credits to directors, and “best director” cuts will be just some of what Firebrand offers. 


Posted by Ed Cotton The important ad news of the weekend is Chevron's 150 second advertising buy on Sunday's 60 Minutes.

It's big, bold and epic and the purpose is to educate, inspire and try its hardest to improve the negative perception of the oil business.

Of course, the ad tries hard to be real and genuine by employing the talents of Lance Accord and a  voice-over from Campbell Scott. The result is a somewhat restrained flashback to the glory days of big corporate advertising in the mid 1980s. You can't help but feel the production dollars that were thrown into this as the multiple locations fly across the screen.

You are left with the feeling that this is a company that wants to create the impression that it wants to have a conversation, but by the looks of things you can tell its going to be very one sided. The kind of conversation where you can't get a word in.

Despite all the good intentions of the campaign, you get the message that a big oil company has created the longest and perhaps the most expensive ad ever created on American television.

It's brave of Chevron to start this tough conversation and get the ball rolling, but you can't help feeling that this could have gone much further.

This is evident because the campaign uses an old web site , complete with "token forum" that's difficult to navigate and contribute to. When you read the small print it becomes clear..

"One a topic is closed, you will be able to view all of the previous comments, but no longer be able to submit new ones. We will then have an independent organization review all of the published comments and summarize their findings, which we will post on this site within 60-90 days."

Net- We will publish a report

This isn't good enough, Chevron needs to act and do something not publish a report and let it gather dust.

It needs to start and maintain a real conversation that isn't token, but is dynamic, real and acted upon.

Where are the Chevron employee pages on Facebook?

Where are the and the hundreds of Chevron employee blogs?

Where is the the pitch to the world for ideas and open innovation?

Reading between the lines, you can't help feeling that Big Oil wants to educate us.

Sure, there's a very important job to be done, but if you want to win the battle of hearts and minds, you've got to get down off your high horse and out into the streets.

You've got to create real, vibrant communities on the internet and you've got to respond in a tangible way to those voices in the community. 

Educate doesn't mean dominate.

Big Oil needs to find a way to show us its humanity.

Perhaps before it does this, it should go back to the classroom itself and read up on what Procter&Gamble, Sun and Dell have been up to recently and learn how to reach out and invite the outside in.


Posted by Ed Cotton