The other weekend, though, I was compelled to at least loosen my grip on the status quo and take a deep bow in the direction of the tsunami that is heading our way. Here’s the scoop. I looked in on my two girls (12 and 10, respectively) when I heard blaring music shaking the foundation.

I opened the door (without knocking because, well, I can). There they were, TV on full blast, watching some show where the latest quasi-pubescent heartthrob, Justin Beaver (I know his name is Bieber, but I do that just to mess with them), was guest starring. Each had their laptop (spoiled like you can’t imagine) on YouTube watching this kid “sing” really deep and meaningful songs. They also had him on their iTouches (is that the plural, or iTouchae?). One was on the phone talking to her friend, who was apparently watching / listening to the same Bieberpalooza and the other was texting about the same. In short, it was a platform agnostic, social networking, wireless, audio / visual, crowd sourced, simulcast of all things Beaver (again, just to make my kids nuts). The only thing missing was this kid live, in my house, rocking out (generous on my part) to my screaming girls and their digitally connected fan club. Of course, that came several days later when they saw him live (and, as we all know, Bieber live is like seeing The Boss live in the late 1970s—only the four hour set replaced by 3 four minute songs, primarily about school and gum). Told you they were spoiled.  By the way, while engrossed in their little BieberFest, they never even noticed I was there.  I hate Justin Bieber.

I think this is what Zach calls “living digital”.

The next day, I was telling this story to a bunch of folks at a charity event. A crowd gathered. I’d like to say that this occurred because I am a devastatingly handsome, social vortex creating, brilliant raconteur. Turns out, they all had their own recent digital life epiphanies. One 27 year old woman said her 22 year old brother thinks she is a digital dinosaur (by the way, this gal knows her stuff).

A youngish grandfather told me how his son’s 6 year old borrowed his Blackberry and asked Granddad how to make an exclamation point. Granddad’s direction to “look for the button with the black dot on the lower left side” was met with (six year old mind you) “Granddad, why didn’t you just say that I should use the ALT key?” Finally, when another youngish grandmother (do I kiss ass well or what?), told me that she saw her 2-year-old grand child “thumbing” a toy block as if it were a mobile phone while playing, the light bulb went off. If my girls and babies are doing all of this now, one can only imagine what is ahead.

Yes, Zach, you are correct. You win. The wave is a comin’, what we think is the future now will encounter obsolescence in moments, and thank the stars that we don’t “only make big splashy network TV shows anymore”. Tech will change story, story will change tech, our willingness to adopt the new will spread endlessly like the universe and alter, impact and dictate all of the above.

That said, a month or so from now when I can have things simply beamed into my head, thereby reducing my mind’s eye to a vestigial, outsourced, hunk of my gray matter, I think I am still going to want to go to the movies. Now if only everyone would stop with the damned cell phones glowing, ruining the moment and distracting me from the Academy Award winning acting dynamo known as Megan Fox.

Crackberry photo: nkpix

The brand police are knocking at the door.  You can run but you can’t hide!

In today’s Ad Age, Jack Neff writes about Good Guide, a consumer brand rating site that has already put their scale of 1-10 on over 75,000 products.  While consumer watchdogs have been around a long, long time, this more recent entry highlights a rising note that we have mentioned in prior posts—in the digital age of massive choice, one of the biggest consumer demands will be authenticity.  GoodGuide highlights the fact that the engaged consumer will not tolerate the brand that mouths claims that are not demonstrably accurate.

Utilizing their academic backgrounds, UC Berkeley professor, Dara O’Rourke,  and his colleagues use the power of various databases, consumer input and the want / need for a reinvigorated policing source, Good Guide seems to have most of the modern marketing maxims in play.   They are delivering objective information on the authenticity of consumer brands—proving their own authenticity (the lack of ads helps).  They are creating a genuine partnership between their site, the brands, and the consumer by both utilizing consumer input and informing brands, very transparently, about how they can improve their scores and, thus, their standing with the public.  They are also delivering all of this in the mandatory personal way.  Within brand conglomerates, divisions can work on their own ratings.  For the consumer, O’Rourke says they will soon allow users to create their own personalized scales based upon how each of them weigh the various indicia of “good”.

It all seems to be working.  Awareness of the site is rising. Brands are actively engaging.  Aileen Zerrudo, the Director of Communications for Clorox notes that they are genuinely listening to what the consumer is saying via GoodGuide.  Moreover, the company claims that click to conversion rates from the site to Amazon.com are 5-10 times higher than most retailers’ traditional returns.   A well-known brand actually wanting to listen, improve and increase market share?  I’m betting that the smart brand begins to actively seek out these kinds of relationships.

So how does a brand fare well with GoodGuide and, presumably, turn the maybe consumer into a loyal participant?  According to GoodGuide: (1) Change Ingredients to meet the desire for natural; (2) Quality Management (avoid recall disasters); (3) Internal Policies matter (fair labor, CSR, etc.); (4) Green and Responsible (a clean record and sustainable production); and (5) Be Transparent (if you hide data, we will find it).

So let’s say a brand follows the rules and carries the day with a “10″.  Now they just need to pat themselves on the back and incorporate how they got there into every aspect of their marketing.  By following the same rules in their marketing (being authentic, delivering personal value, being transparent, and actually caring enough to engage), brands will ride the wave instead of ending up in the trough.  Tout your score (in the right manner of course—sorry nitpickers) and score big with the public.  In the end, quality and authenticity need to become key elements of a brand’s story.  Deliver that story to the audience on their terms and you end up with quality, loyal, and passionate participants.

You can produce a strip, prime time chat show, even with a high cost talent like Leno, for a fraction of the investment required for an hour drama or half hour sitcom. Period.  On the “Zucker is wise” front, you have lower cost, less risk of audience rejection of 95% of your original offerings (if they like Leno, they will just keep coming back and NBC can pre-book that), and you get to plant your flag in the “new”  10pm slot with a tried and true brand while others must follow.  If broadcast does become the repository for reality and event TV, NBC might reap the rewards of being first to embrace.

On the other side, you give up the major windfall that the occasional hit narrative delivers here and abroad for years and years to come in syndication. NO one will argue that chat is evergreen (though original reality formats may be).  I’m having a hard time trying to figure out how the move toward inexpensive programming will balance out against the loss of the annuity of a “Friends” or “Seinfeld”.  Part of the answer may be a top to bottom embrace of the need for reinvention of the overall approach to broadcast, cable, and digital and who becomes who in the content zoo.  I’m betting on NBC.

If the Leno project works, NBC owns 10pm and has the luxury of exporting the model and success to 8-10 pm.  NBC reinvents broadcast prime time.  Where do the dramas and quality narrative go?  NBC’s cable unit.  Their cable outlets have been their success story for years and, under Jeff Gaspin, have become quality content profit centers.  There is no reason why FX should own the quality ribbon. Of course, that move will necessitate lower production budgets and the current scripted programming sources will go kicking and screaming.  As Zucker mentioned however, lower cost doesn’t have to mean lower quality.  Examples of budget and content bravery abound.  Lower budgets, lower risk, even bigger windfalls when they find a hit—and the ability to genuinely brand their cable channels.

And what about digital?  NBC is banking on Hulu.  Fine for now.  But if they genuinely want to be the Mother of Reinvention, they must actively pursue a custom strategy for serving the digital landscape.  Yes, they will offer their shows on line.  Fine.  But for a growing and evolving digital generation it won’t be enough to shoehorn “TV” into the content offerings.  The audience will increasingly demand customized, personal, quality content that is crafted for who they are, where they consume, how they consume and what they wish to consume.  They won’t be sold, won’t be washed over with message, and won’t engage unless you invite them in.  No one has the answers yet. But if NBC wants to genuinely lead the way and reap the rewards of audience loyalty, THIS is where the tough work needs to be done.  What does the online user between 7 and 11pm want?  Has anyone really bothered to find out?  That answer will be the linchpin to success.

NBC will figure out the new world of  broadcast, it will build on its cable success and we’ll see if it can address digital.   If they bother with all three prongs, they will clean everyone’s clock by being the content source that creates the 360 degree, on demand, content and distribution plan that is the future.

In an Ad Age article today, several key marketing executives point out that the worst may be over and that it is time for brands to start branding again.   Richard McDonald, senior VP-global marketing of Fender, the musical instrument brand makes it clear that the time is now. “The cost of raw materials is going up, and marketing is the only thing that offsets those increases. You have to build brand value and spend on marketing.”

It will be interesting to see how these brave souls do.  By no longer taking the Ostrich approach, will they get a leg up on competition, attract new consumer converts and otherwise grab market share?  Maybe the bigger question is that which I posed in the last post.  What about the brands like Hershey that decided to damn the recession, spend last Fall when the sky was falling and zig when all others were zagging into the long, spend not winter?   My guess is that both will be rewarded, but that those genuinely brave brand souls will show a more quantitative, qualitative, and measurable bang for their buck.

Will the spending surge be different this time?  Will marketing dollars flow toward digital as opposed to the traditional?  Stay tuned.

Just when I thought the wonders of the information age were being used for the power of good, the negative side of the free flow of information rears its ugly head.  We just came off of an election in which the power of niche marketing, personal messaging and a powerful brand message in the form of President Obama gave new meaning to grass roots politics in the digital age.  Of course the honeymoon can only last so long.  Rush Limbaugh’s recent rant about wishing for Obama’s failure has flown around every platform.  Great that the madness can be exposed so rapidly.  Not so great that the divisive message that got us into the current mess is out there for the huddled right wing masses to rally round.

Limbaugh literally said that he hoped for OUR President’s failure.

He defended himself at a recent right wing cabal utilizing an analogy that makes even his normal, hate-filled, myopic musings look like a reasonable part of the public discourse.  Somehow, he thinks wishing ill on his President is akin to his rooting for the failure of the Arizona Cardinals in the recent Super Bowl (he’s apparently a Steelers fan).  Really Rush?  Is it really the same?

Let’s see.  All that was at stake in the Super Bowl, was the fate of a team sport, the momentary dreams of some die-hard fans and a shiny trophy.  Hoping that the President fails, especially in this current crisis, is just a tad different.  Really Rush?  You actually want the economy to continue on the GDP killing path that President Bush and your right wing cronies started, nurtured, and created as a little gift to all of America?  So, foreclosures, the collapse of the markets, the highest unemployment in decades and most American families struggling to keep food on the table rises to the same level as the possibility of a Pittsburgh Steelers defeat?

When Rush defended his statements at his recent speech, the crowd of lemmings jumped out of their seats.  I guess they had forgotten that this kind of speech and creed is what is making most of them worse off than they could ever have imagined in their lifetime.

Not only is the statement and his usual bluster offensive, but arguably, it is, at best, a mild form of digital treason.  No Rush, none of us wanted “Bush to fail” and certainly none of us “wanted the war in Iraq to fail”.  On the contrary, we actually love our country and realized that the mess that was the Bush Administration was a very high stakes game that cost us $1,000,000,000.  And there is that small matter of over 4,000 brave Americans who lost their lives.

The populace spoke loud and clear in November of 2008.  The President is doing what he thinks is right in an attempt to clean up the massive mess that Rush, and his right wing minions, are conveniently forgetting was built on the GOP watch.  These are serious times that call for serious discussion and serious answers from serious leaders.  That leaves no room for the seriously disturbed, Oxycontin-addled bluster from the king of family values who has managed to rack up more wives and divorces than even some of the Hollywood commies he hates so much.

The great thing about the web is that at least Rush’s garbage spew is out there in the open.  Sorry, Rush.  Your way lost.  There is a new Sheriff in town and a new sense of community and common purpose that even your drooling hate mongering can’t stop.  You should be praying and hoping and crossing every part of your body so that President Obama gets us out of this mess, ends the bloodshed overseas and restores America to its rightful moral high ground around the world.  If you can’t do so because you are an American, do so for yourself. Think of it this way, if the economy comes around, you will have more money to pay off the current Mrs. Limbaugh when even she grows tired and repulsed by your drivel.

I hope that the rest of us step up and use the web to expose this kind of nonsense for the anti-American bile that it really is.  Rush, take a look in the mirror.  Look familiar?  That’s the bloated face of the unpatriotic.

The GOP leadership can try to call this entertainment and Rush just “being Rush”.   That’s just a dangerous and very telling dodge of the fact that this is, in fact, the guy who speaks for the party.  Any wonder why America woke up, spoke out and elected Obama?

While cave drawings present the first foray into the power of visual communication and storytelling, we are just beginning to understand how the human brain becomes an unstoppable force when trained visually.  Peter Coyote is one of my favorite actors and he hosted a show on PBS called Brain Fitness 2.  A powerful example of visualization they depict is a taxi driver in London: these guys (mostly guys) train for years studying maps and images to get the layout of London imprinted on the inside of their skulls.  Using imagery over an extended period of time, these drivers have increased the size of their brains – the hippocampus to be precise.  This is exciting.  We’re already steeped in an incredibly visual time in history.

We’ve always said, video screens are the real estate for the 21st century.  Everywhere you look there is a way to captivate people’s attention with compelling, entertaining and educational messaging.  Video search companies keep popping up and electronic billboards are starting to feature face recognition.  How long will it be before we can rely entirely on an image and visual representation, without the use of text and meta tagging?  We have only begun to realize the true potential of  video and it will be exciting to see how a new visual language evolves.  Whether or not you were born digital, if you’re visualizing, sharing and communicating your thoughts through sites like YouTube and Flickr, you’re taking part in this extraordinary language experiment that is just as exciting as it it sometimes annoying.

Zach Jordan

Laurie Sullivan’s January 9 article about a joint study of TNS Compete and the Consumer Electronics Association was welcome proof that brands ignoring the boomers is, well, ignorant.  The study, “Greying Gadgets: How Older Americans Shop for and Use Consumer Electronics”, put some teeth behind what many of us have been saying for years—the boomers have more time, more disposable income, and are more likely than you think to buy the goods and services you reserve exclusively for the 18-34 crowd.

According to the study, cell phone use, HDTV and other audiovisual purchases, and the use of search engines and online video are well within the boomers’ wheelhouse.  They are actually living brands and consuming information and entertainment just like the youngsters.

Years ago, I developed a television format called “The Far Side of 50″ that, at least in my estimation, was a lighthearted and informative magazine format for the over 50 crowd.  I pitched it, got good responses on the substance of the show but was then told that “it was about old people” and the ad sales guys would die laughing.  Despite my argument that the over fifty crowd buys cars, jeans, toothpaste (and even condoms) and that they keep their money in banks (not under their mattresses), and do all of the things that the 18-34s do (except for facial piercings), the show was a no go.

Fast forward to a few years back and I had a similarly depressing experience.  While I was President of a large animation studio, I was lucky enough to work with one of my TV heroes, Norman Lear, on an animated comedy called “Till the Fat Lady Sings”.  The show revolved around a series of older characters who congregated each day at a seniors center in Santa Monica.  The concept was amazing, the pilot script was vintage Lear (touching, poignant, and VERY funny), and the voice cast was to include Anne Bancroft, Adam Arkin and even Kirk Douglas (who was to play a stroke victim—I dare you not to laugh—HE did).  Anyway, great pitches, TV executives whipping out their own hilarious stories of seniors in their lives etc.  And then, well, you know.  The show was about OLD people. It never sold and to this day haunts me as one of my biggest professional disappointments. I get a shot at working with my TV idol and, well, anyway….

Point is, studies like Greying Gadgets are a great step toward tossing away these antiquated notions about key demographics and target audience.  Your target audience should be anyone who can arguably relate to your product or service.  The boomers are 100 million strong, have big money, big wants and needs and represent a very big buy potential (again, with the exception of body piercing products. 55 and secret piercings?  ugh).  If brands start to get it and understand that the boomers have actually seen a computer, worn a pair of jeans, had a glass or 9 of vodka and otherwise are continuing to live and consume, the opportunity to connect with this demo is astounding.

Peter J. Schankowitz