PepperDigital

Campaigns: An Outdated Way of Thinking?

By: Sam Ford, PepperDigital

George Carlin had his "seven dirty words" routine, but I am beginning to see quite a few "dirty words" circulating when it comes to the social media space as well. For me, the word I focus on is "viral." As those of you who have heard me speak or lead a workshop in the past few months know, I have a bit of a hang-up about how language shapes how we think about issues. In social media, making a video or blog post or podcast "go viral" leads companies to still think they can be broadcasters in a social space and that people turn into impressions because of something in the content that makes them not be able to help but share it. (See more here.)

When I was participating in the Advertising Research Foundation's inaugural launch of its Social Media Council last week, I had the chance to rail on a few of this issue. And one of my panel colleagues, Chris Andrew from Digitas (Twitter feed here), had a dirty word of his own: campaign.

His point about moving clients away from talking about campaigns really resonated with me because of how often it has come up with clients. I liken it to fictional television content: there are shows that are episodic, which come at regular intervals but in which one episode has little or no relationship to those that came before. So, in the most traditional example of all, Lucy tries to find a way to become part of Ricky's show in almost every episode, and it fails. In the next episode, she starts all over again. On the other end of the spectrum are serialized television shows, where "previously on..." becomes crucial, and each episode picks up where the previous one left off. Soap operas have traditionally been that content, and most of the more critically acclaimed dramas today fall into this mold (from Dexter to Friday Night Lights to Ugly Betty).

In short, a brand is a storyteller, and that story has to be larger than any particular one-off campaign. As Joel Rubinson of the ARF says, maintaining a social media presence is not a campaign at all; "it is on-going and self-perpetuating."

The conversation also provided a few aspects of online communication that should NOT be treated as dirty words. Mark Studness from Verizon talked about the importance of customer service in social media spaces and Verizon's experiences with managing an online forum for their customers to share advice with one another and draw on their collective intelligence to solve problems, with Verizon being amongst but not driving the conversation (and then was surprised with customer service questions directly from the crowd during the Q&A, reminding us all that marketers aren't just marketers...they're customers, too.) Meanwhile, General Mills' Heather Maxwell spoke about how online research is not a dirty word and the importance and value in connecting customers in communities and gaining customer insights from facilitating and listening to their conversations.

All in all, it was a fantastic session, and a reminder not only at the many ways advertising, marketing, public relations, customer service, and research are all converging but also how many kindred spirits there are in so-called other industries. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who wants to add "campaign" to the dirty words list...although I still don't know if I can get others on board for doing away with "consumers."

Let Go of My Legos!

By Jackie Kolek, PepperDigital

As anyone who has ever been six years old knows, Legos rock. The simplest of toys, kids are fascinated by them and can spend literally hours and hours building creations only to knock them down and start all over again. My six-year-old recently got several new sets to add to his collection, a collection that includes my old Legos from when I was his age. Not only does he play with them for hours on end, but mom and dad put in considerable time working with him on his creations.

It’s for that very reason that Legos made a fatal mistake in rejecting Spinal Tap’s request to include a YouTube video featuring Lego people decked out as the band playing “Tonight I’m Gonna Rock You Tonight” in their upcoming DVD release. A Lego’s spokesperson was quoted in today’s New York Times as saying that the tone and language of the video was “inappropriate” for their target audience of kids 6 to 12.  

I don’t know too many 6-year-olds whose parents would let them watch a Spinal Tap DVD. But what’s more interesting is that Legos didn’t seem to have a problem with the video when it was up on YouTube and 82,000 people watched it. Or for that matter, when Spinal Tap was showing the clip during their “Unwigged and Unplugged” tour. But whether it was copyright infringement or language, Lego’s missed a critical rule of social media - - don’t ignore surplus audiences. 

A surplus audience is any audience that you might not directly target, but has the potential to either influence others to buy your products and services or potentially buy them themselves. 

The makers of Diet Coke learned that lesson the hard way when they tried to squash the creativity of the famous Mentos and Diet Coke video craze. Back in 2006, Coke was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying “We would hope people want to drink [Diet Coke] more than try experiments with it,” adding that the Mentos craziness didn’t fit with the “brand personality” of Coke. Realizing that the more people experimented, the more Diet Coke they bought, Coke later reversed itself and launched its own online video competition using household objects.

A search of “Lego” on YouTube pulls up 215,000 videos. Now, while I haven’t had time to view them all, I am sure at least some of those are wildly inappropriate for 6 to 12-year-olds. Lego can’t control what people do with their product once it’s in their hands, but they can embrace the enthusiasm and creativity of their users and enjoy the halo effect of reaching surplus audiences. Fans of Spinal Tap are moms and dads, aunts and uncles, cousins, grandparents, and more. Legos had a huge opportunity to reach this surplus audience of potential buyers and influencers without any cost to them. But in this case, legal won out over the marketing team and the whole company lost out.

For Your Mad Men Fix, Turn to Twitter

By: Lauren Begley, PepperDigital

Like most people in the media business, I’d imagine, I’m a huge fan of Mad Men. The critically acclaimed and still, somehow, underground hit TV show that impeccably depicts a Madison Avenue ad agency in the early 1960s is a sophisticated soap opera with exceptional social commentary that is—for better or for worse—still very relevant today. For a show like this, I’m always saddened when the season finally comes and goes. What will I do for the next four to six months other than sit and ponder the pervious season’s cliffhanger? Turn to Twitter of course!

I’ve found that the Mad Men drama doesn’t stop when the credits end. All of my favorite characters are quite active on the micro-blogging site. Just the other day, @_DonDraper scolded novice admen @_PeteCampbell and @Ken_Cosgrove for “gossiping around the water cooler,” happy homemaker @BettyDraper noted that she was breading a meatloaf and fish-out-of-water secretary @PeggyOlsen announced that she was planning a shopping excursion with her far more fashionable friend. Even little @Sally_Draper, @_DonDraper and @BettyDraper’s eight-year-old daughter has a Twitter account where she lets readers know when she is riding her bike, sneaking a Twinkie before dinner or mixing a drink for her father.

Other favorite cast members including Sterling-Cooper head hancho @Roger_Sterling and his wife @Mona_Sterling, the exotic executive with a big secret @Sal_Romano and new-to-the-neighborhood and single mother (gasp!) @Helen_Bishop. These characters and others frequent their Twitter pages to keep us updated on their 1962 lives by discussing their favorite gin, gossiping about the new secretaries and hashing out deeply-rooted scandals that often involve a coworkers’ wife or girlfriend.

So if you can’t wait for the premier of the next season on August 16 (Sunday’s at 10p.m. EST on AMC), check in on the cast via Twitter for updates.

The Man Who Motivated Michael Jordan…and His Sales

by Rob Longert

It isn’t too often that I click on a banner ad, but I couldn’t pass this one up…

The Charlie Murphy character from the Dave Chappelle Show left me speechless at times and I haven’t really seen him since the show went off the air, so clicking on this banner ad was a no brainer.

The ad took me to a microsite for “Leroy Smith, The Man Who Motivated Michael Jordan.”  At first glance I had no idea what the site was for. Was it a new Dave Chappelle show? Was Charlie Murphy coming out with a new movie?

I was wrong on both accounts. The site was built by Nike and is dedicated to “Leveraging Michael Jordan¹s highly anticipated Hall of Fame induction” via a “Air Jordan Hall of Fame (HOF) Collection” coming onto the market this summer, according to a press release from SportsFuzion, Inc.

As of 2006, “SportsFuzion has been the owner of the exclusive worldwide rights to the Hall of Fame’s trade names, logos, trademarks, designs, and photos for use in sportswear.” That said, earlier today they put out a press release, saying that Nike and “His Airness” went “behind their backs to cut them out of the deal” which “has become their worst nightmare.”

In legal land, Nike and MJ might be in the wrong, but from a PR perspective, the Leroy Smith microsite is well done, the brand has been optimized in terms of media outreach to big-time sports bloggers (such as Sports Biz with Darren Rovell, and Page 2) and they chose to use Facebook, Twitter and YouTube as their social media channels, which seems to be working out for them as they have about 161,000 views on their featured video, 8,000 fans on Facebook, and 3,357 followers on Twitter.

It could be that I am a huge fan of MJ, a fan of Charlie Murphy or that I am a sucker for a funny online video, but I think the site works and Nike gets what it takes to launch an engaging campaign.

Do you think Nike and Air Jordan are in the wrong, or should Leroy Smith live on despite the suit from SportzFusion, Inc.?

Do the Same Rules Apply Online and Off?

By Rob Longert, PepperDigital

In browsing some blogs this morning, I came across a thoughtful post by Ford Kanzier, managing partner of Marketing/PR Savvy in El Granada, CA, about the using the skills that PR pros have honed over the years, and applying them to Web 2.0 and social media campaigns.

Kanzier hits on seven major points that are essential to successful traditional and PR 2.0 campaigns:

• Bandwagon Effect – Sam Ford has spoken to us about this time and time again, but being part of a social network just to say that you are part of it in no way enhances a company’s digital presence. Company’s and/or employees have to want to be part of a community for a particular reason, and engage with that community within it’s guidelines and best practices.
• Current Macro-economics – Use the essential talents our industry developed including “Strategy, Conversation, Information, Credibility, and Community” to maximize the value of PR, online and off, during today’s “business crunch.”
• Strategy – The old adage…. Think before you act, and put yourself in the shoes of your audience. Their first question from media and customers is “Why should I care,” and as Kanzier says, “businesses willing to strategically apply and control tactics on or offline will be more successful than those without clear, simple differentiation and a sharp communications focus on creating brand value.”
• Conversation – Face to face contact is not going anywhere, anytime soon. Eye contact, seeing a product and “first hand experiences (conversations)” cannot be replaced by the sole use of online tools. This applies when it comes to interacting with customers, co-workers, clients, and the media.
• Information – Here, Kanzier refers to the work of Edward Bernays and “how research and information (as well as psychology) are applied to PR campaigns.” With our online tools, “content” and information is in abundance, so this is where paying attention to the information we are taking in for our clients become even more important.
• Credibility – For this, I will direct you to Steve Cody’s RepMan blog, but think about all of the email blunders you have heard about in past years. As much as technology is a tool, it can als o be a huge distracter and an easy way to ruin reputations… Pay attention to every click you make with that mouse, because once you click, you can’t take it back.
• Community – Corralling humans around a cause is “hardly a new concept.” The web has given brands access to fans and people who share common interests, but this is no different than getting people together in person. Whether it is a car show or one of the many Comic-Con shows, people with similar interests are getting together based on their interests.

Will the rules of the web continue to mirror (to an extent) that of face to face interaction, or will we reach a point where the rules we have grown to know do not apply any longer?

The Politics of Tea in Today’s Age

By Sahana Jayaraman, PepperDigital

Over the centuries, tea trade has shaped culture and significantly influenced power and politics in both the East and the West. Therefore, it should be no surprise that, in today’s digital world, Tata Tea, a staple household brand in India, is taking its role in society seriously.

See this recent Ad Age article on their new Indian ad spot, “Jaago Re.”  In Hindi, the national language of India, Jaago Re translates to “Wake Up.”  Naturally, its expected that a key selling point for tea drinkers is its ability to wake you up in the morning!

According to the author of the article, Sourabh Mishra , the “ad started with a campaign for the brand based on the proposition ‘Jaago Re,’... But the leap in the thinking happened when they took the ‘Wake Up’ proposition beyond the physical waking up to a larger call for social action.”

India often complains of having a large “gap” between those living in high rises and those living in the slums. This poses many challenges across the board – especially for marketing to the masses. Tata looked to advertise  to this very “gap” –masses of educated middle-class people.

In an effort to grab their attention, Tata honed in on an issue central to their role in India’s society with a problem-solution approach to this controversy. Seemingly just another ad spot, the message to “wake up” signified a far greater call to action than encouraging folks to buy and drink tea.

A problem that needs attention

This year, marks a general election year in India, the largest democracy in the world. As Mishra articulately explains:

A widely acknowledged problem in India is the large percentage of no-show voters, especially from the educated middle classes. So now you have this TV commercial from Tata Tea, wherein a group of young men is exhorting people to "Jaago Re" (wake up) and go out and vote on election day, because if they don't vote, that means they are sleeping. They are handing out cups of Tata Tea to wake people up and send them to the ballots.

Sounds a little like MTV’s Rock the Vote, huh? Well, it gets better.

At first, one may feel this strategy has the risk of alienating the middle class by evoking a sense of guilt. However, instead, Tata empowers the younger generation and is very careful not to blame the people they target, but rather the infamous “process” of Indian politics. The underlying problem behind this issue is the hassle and corruption involved in the bureaucracy of voter registration. This is why the second part of the ad spot is simply genius!

A Night Well Spent

By Amelia Denson, Elle Kross, Tom Showalter, Peppercom

A few nights ago Peppercom’s intern row ventured to PricewaterhouseCoopers to learn about marketing tools in a tight economy, at a forum presented by IABC New York. James Kelly, Gary Kibel, and Peppercom’s Sam Ford spoke about online marketing. Moderator and Peppercom co-founder, Ed Moed, kept everything flowing smoothly and jumped in with his own tips and a great array of questions.

James Kelly, U.S. Brand Leader of PricewaterhouseCoopers, discussed branding which he defined as what’s in the hearts of minds of your employees and customers: Our people equal our brand.

When thinking about brands, remember: Content creation, collaboration and transparency are the tools that enrich and empower two-way interaction.

Examples of PricewaterhouseCoopers branding:
•    Power of 10: PWC created an immersive firm wide event to celebrate its 10 year anniversary.
•    PWC.TV:  PWC wanted to open the lines of communication with university students and thi was created.

On Political Branding and the "Real" and "Fake" Americas

By: Sam Ford, PepperDigital

As some of you all may remember, Peppercom Co-Founder Ed Moed wrote a call to action on his Measuring Up blog back in August for PR professionals in the blogosphere to come together on occasion and write about pressing topics that are of interest to the public relations community as a whole. (My response on PepperDigital is here.) That round focused on issues of transparency and ethics in PR using China and the Olympics as a case study. This month, the conversation focuses on brand-building and politics.

Ed and I got engaged with this topic in particular after recording our first podcast on brand building and politics, focusing on the U.S. presidential election. After their recent podcast on the topic of the vice-presidential debate, Peppercom's Steve Cody and Ted Birkhahn graciously allowed us to launch our podcast to their audience. In the future, the podcasts from Ed and me will be housed on the PepperDigital and Measuring Up sites. If you're interested in how brand-building in the industry relates to the political world, I urge you to check it out. Hope you enjoy listening to the conversation as much as we did having it.

Today, though, I wanted to focus on a particular topic surrounding brand-building and politics: small town America, the "real" America that we keep hearing about from the Republican Party of late.

First, if "the real America" is a brand, whose brand is it? Is the promotion done to elevate the standing of rural parts of our country, areas that are often overshadowed by the skyscrapers of America's big cities and written off as unimportant by people who fancy themselves tastemakers and cosmopolitans in urban areas? Of course, the Republican Party would have us believe just that, that their goal is to celebrate the heart of our country often forgotten.

It's pretty transparent to everyone, on the other hand, that they are doing so in the hopes of garnering as many votes as possible from the inhabitants of this land they are calling "real America." But I venture that what they are doing harms small-town America more than it helps, turning complex cultures into simplistic models in the process.

But branding the argument has been something the modern Republican party excels at. George Lakoff has done considerable work on how conservatives have used language to frame arguments. Take the fact that social conservatives claim the term "pro-life," or that liberal itself has taken on a negative connotation, as compared to the "compassionate conservative."

That's starting to break down.

John McCain decided to take the abortion language divide a step further in his final debate with Barack Obama by calling Obama "pro-abortion," but Obama took a strong stance to distance himself from that binary by saying that no one is "pro-abortion." The tactic was enough to convince some social conservatives I know to support Obama despite the fact that they would identify as "pro-life." Further, the idea that Christianity is "owned" by the Republican party is breaking down, now that voters are reconfigured somewhat away from hot-button topics such as gay rights and abortion which dominated some previous election cycles.

Yet, when it comes to this "real America" rhetoric, I'm surprised to find that—once again—commentators and pundits are adopting the Republican party's language and allowing them to paint the conversation. Take Jon Stewart, who has spoken out harshly against Sarah Palin's phrasing of "REAL America." He does so, though, not to strike out against the binary she sets up, but rather to defend cities against small towns. (See here.) Stewart says, "Cities are just a lot of towns piled on top of each other in one place."

Even Ed Moed here at Peppercom falls into this trap, in my opinion, in crafting his recent letter to John McCain. Ed writes, "Why are small town, working class people the only 'real Americans' with real values? By selecting Sarah Palin and having her ride this theme, I believe you have forgotten about and completely alienated hundreds of thousands of republicans who are White Collar professionals."

I agree with these statements from Ed and Jon. Of course, we're all "real America." But, in their defense of urban areas, commentators are at the same time accepting the idea that small towns are:

a.) all aligned in their beliefs; and
b.) homogenous in their social conservatism.

That means, when you disagree with Gov. Palin, the very defense is reinforcing the binary she has set up. She has created this brand of "Real America" that brings with it a false dichotomy. Because of the language she uses, she urges even those to disagree with her to react to the surface language while still taking the bait on this "either/or" idea between rural and urban America.

Jon Stewart's response is to make fun of small towns, which of course only strengthens Palin's appeal to draw rural voters together as a group aligned around that value. While this "real America" brand may have come too late to define the campaign around--given the agenda has been set around economic issues and foreign policy--it's an effective rhetorical strategy to get some last-minute votes and to try and get back to inserting the same dichotomies that prior elections have been decided on.

Those bloggers, pundits, and commentators who don't want to see the "real America" brand succeed in swaying folks shouldn't speak out against it. They should do what Barack Obama did in the debate with "pro-abortionist." They should challenge the mindset surrounding "real" and "fake" America at its core. Otherwise, talking both "for" and "against" the brand "real America" serves the interests of Gov. Palin.

For the past three years, I've written a weekly column for The Ohio County Times-News in Hartford, Ky., called "From Beaver Dam to Boston" and now "From Beaver Dam to Brooklyn." The column focuses on differences in the lifestyle between rural and urban America. In writing those columns, I've spent considerable time thinking about this divide. And, while I agree that folks here in New York and in Boston could benefit from thinking outside the bubble of their city (and that media research and public relations work alike would be benefitted greatly by non-coast perspectives, as Bruce Leichtman advocates), I don't agree that small towns are easy to stereotype any more than big cities are.

Does Beaver Dam, Ky., greatly resemble Sarah Palin's Wasilla, Alaska, in that they share all the same thoughts and values? The differences between Kentucky, the Deep South, the West, and the Mid-West--much less Alaska--speaks to a complex diversity of cultures in our country, one that a small town vs. big city binary does all it can to simplify into this false dichotomy. As a resident of both "real" and "fake" America, I reject the binary altogether.

For full disclosure, I consider myself an independent but have already voted for Sen. Barack Obama in this year's election...so don't try and talk me out of it now.

Note: See Ed Moed's piece on Measuring Up about Barack Obama as a brand here and Todd Defren's post on Obama campaign manager David Plouffe here. Also, see Frank X. Shaw's thoughtful post on Sarah Palin as a "fragile brand" here, Talya Bosch's post about how this election affects the United States as a brand internationally here, and Ted Weismann's good points about takeaways for politics and for industry when it comes to the backlash against negative depositioning here. Look forward to others of you joining in this conversation as we roll into the week of the U.S. presidential election.

Finally, in the wake of President-Elect Obama's victory, Peppercom's Matt Purdue writes about some of the most significant takeaways from Obama's success for brands here, and Indra Gardiner writes about Obama's marketing as compared to Seth Godin's book Tribes here.

Love ‘em or Hate ‘em, Crocs Wants to Know

Guest Post By: Lauren Begley

“What are those ugly things on his feet? Are those made of Styrofoam? I have never seen that shade of [insert bright color] before.”  These were my initial thoughts on America’s most unlikely fashion trend. 

From the time Crocs entered the market, they had extremely high brand recognition.  The brand represented comfort, fun and functionality, and the product caught on.  Yes, they are comfortable.  Yes they are brightly colored.  Yes, they reduce foot odor.  I could understand the personality of the brand, but I still had trouble understanding why teenagers, parents, businessmen, celebrities and George Bush were sporting the unsightly, ugly things around.

And so I stood on one side of the great divide of consumers who either loved or hated the shoes. 

That’s what drew me to Crocs’ latest micro-site, Love ‘em or Hate ‘em, which embraces the fact that Crocs are the black licorice of footwear.  The site brings both sides into a dialogue in a creative way that has resonance with the visitors.  Suddenly, I was able to get a first-hand look at why people were so into this fashion trend, as well as reasons why others like me were skeptical. 

The site is propelled by user-generated content—mainly YouTube-esque videos—which allows the consumer to drive the conversation.  Members can upload videos, submit explanations why they love or hate the products and vote for their favorite posts. 

And Crocs is listening to the comments too—good and bad.  One lucky ‘lover’ and one lucky ‘hater’ with the best videos will win a trip for two to Denver, Colo., and will have a chance to appear in a national TV ad campaign. 

Love ‘em or Hate ‘em is a forward-thinking site that encourages consumer/brand dialogue and drives brand consideration.

*Image: Jack Nicholson and George Bush

Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday...

By Lawrence Hahn, PepperDigital

 

UPDATE:

It was all a hoax. In the video, we see a small gathering of people and a man (apparently a high-ranking official at Ruby Tuesday) giving a brief speech before launching into a countdown.  Then we hear a loud explosion but see no damage done to the Ruby Tuesday in the picture.  Then, all of a sudden, the camera pans over to the restaurant next door just in time to see it collapse in a cloud of smoke.  The demolition crew has blown up the wrong building!

I still can’t find any news about this on Yahoo or Google, but the world of Twitter is alive with commentary. And the good people at Ruby Tuesday have already issued a formal apology on their Web site to Cheeky’s Bar and Grill, the unfortunate restaurant who met its untimely doom.  The good news is, however, that Ruby Tuesday will never “be confused for any other dining establishment again.”

But seriously, was this “hoax” a smart move by Ruby Tuesday?  Already on Twitter, people are using the words “lame” and “fail” to describe this stunt, but could this end up being a smart move?  People mobilized for this once the word was spread, and due to the unexpected climax, it will be something that people will continue to talk about.  The real question here is whether or not people will be more inclined to check out the “new” Ruby Tuesday.

In an aggressive ad campaign, Ruby Tuesday, Inc., the casual restaurant chain named after the Rolling Stones’ song, will be blowing up its last old-style restaurant and broadcasting it live on the Internet. This is the last step in the company’s re-branding efforts, which include offering higher-quality menu choices, improving the standard of service and, of course, remodeling the actual restaurants.

More to come on this, as I will be tuned in at 3:00PM EDT today to witness the chaos. But in the meantime, do you think this will lead to a true renaissance for Ruby Tuesday?  Or, in the end, will it take much more than an explosion (i.e. better food and service) to revive this classic chain?