The Deleveraged Consumer

Ed Cotton has a good point. Planners around the world are likely crafting some inane deck about the "de-leveraging consumer" as you read these words. I also think he's right that brands will still play a role in people's lives as consumer's look to resolve their debt to earnings ratios.

Regardless of how much debt people are willing to take on, they still need to function, and functioning within our culture means incorporating brands into your lifestyle. Brands are at the heart of the performance fo everyay life. They are the meaning in what we do on a daily basis. In brushing our teeth, walking to work, drinking a cup of coffee brands are there. The brands that will continue to hold the most meaning in these moments and retain access to our wallets are those which offer the perception of an experience that is greater than the financial toll to acquire it.

In other words, nothing has truly changed.

Last week as the nation's banking system was crumbling, the NY Times reported on the scene of a Hermes sample sale. The line was out the door, despite the fact that sale in Hermes parlance means "that's a helluva lot of money for patterned silk." Many on that sample sale line were even potential victims of the downtown: financial workers.

If a brand that has built its reputation on over-priced ties, scarves and bags can still stand rigid and upright against the winds of panic, then clearly people are still swayed by brands in this time of financial crisis. Even when the market is down, people relish the experience walking down the street with the branded object more than they lament about their credit debt. It is still far better to look good than to feel good about your bank account, even in an age of deleveraging.

Influx Insights

A new (stupid) format for music

I don't know who's running the product development team at SanDisk, but they don't get new behaviors in music consumption.  Last week, SanDisk and the major labels announced that they will be manufacturing MicroSD albums, and retailing them for upwards of $10.

Dumb.  Who would want to buy a pre-loaded MicroSD card with MP3 audio quality when they can download the same tunes DRM-free and load them onto their dedicated music device or mobile phone?

Today, the only reason to purchase music in a physical format is for improved audio quality, special bonus content, and a fondness for album packaging.  This is why we're seeing a resurrgence in vinyl sales.  The other options are simply more flexible and easier to acquire.  This is why digital music retailers are winning the music shopping market.  It's also why "cloud music" services and social networks are becoming so popular. 

It's also why this gambit is going to fail.

At some point, the music industry and its retail partners are going to have to face up to the fact that physical format is a niche product at best and finally restructure their business models away from a reliance on selling plastic to selling popular culture.

Google judges Your Friends

Here they go again.  Google has a new algorithm that presents the possibility of measuring influence of a social network, or individual network node, much like Google's search algorithm measures the importance of a particular web URL in relationship to a set of keywords.  Properly deployed this algorithm could present a new targeting opportunity for advertisers: true influencer targeting.  It also presents a new revenue stream for Google that's in sync with the foundation of social networking sites: the friend network. 

Sounds like another win for Google to me. 

RIP Muxtape

Muxtape's Lament

Dexter Advertorials

Another brilliant campaign from the people who market Showtime's original show, Dexter.

Rarely do I find myself leafing through an advertorial. When I received my copy of US Weekly with a mini-Dexter themed US Weekly on the back cover and pages, I found myself doing just that. What makes this ad special is that it's both playing with its medium (using a magazine as a magazine), parodying the placement (by parodying the magazine), and providing content that supplements my understanding of the show. How delightfully meta. And of course, it's right on brand for a show about a self-aggrandizing Narcissistic sociopath. Aren't most people featured on the covers of these magazines exactly that?

Trendhunter

Maghound. For the commitment phobe in you.

Maghound, a service that allows you to change the magazines you subscribe to on a monthly basis, is a pretty novel idea.  But I'd still love to see a magazine refine its supply chain so that I could choose what sections of a magazine I want.  Readers would love the choice in the format.  Advertisers would love the ability to target.  One day I suppose . . .

Lifehacker

I'm a PC and so can you.

Go Android. Or go Nokia. Or home.

I hate the iPhone.  It gets poor 3G reception, or none.  You can't type on it without misspelling words that are far easier to misspell than misspell--like cat.  It's on AT&T.  Yes, it has a great UI.  It is an amazing example of how incredibly strong Apple is as a brand.  When Greg Packer shows up at your opening, you know you've made it.  But neither of those things make the phone worthwhile as a smartphone. 

That's why I'm excited about Google's Android phone.  I think others are frustrated by the iPhone.  People are no longer believing the hype.  Greg Packer hasn't even activated his service.  So, this prediction is likely not far off.  If anything I think they'll exceed it.

Mobile Content

Oh, and Nokia has some new eSeries phones coming out, which actually do what you'd expect a Smartphone to do. 

Suck it Apple.

Engadget

Uniqlo Robot. Brilliant as usual.

A robot intern with a blog and a Facebook profile, and Twitter soon to come (that'll be curious).  Anything robots is good by me. 

Wakamaru! [via PSFK]

Guccione Jr. on the Future of Print

With the exception of Google losing share, I agree with Guccione. 

Newspapers need a new business model, and his suggestion of what that model would be isn't a bad one.  Print isn't going away.  Magazines need to address their supply chain issues, be more flexible in terms of their content--customization anyone?--and figure out how to leverage its brands online in a way that actually makes money. 

But the magazine as a concept is different enough from the Internet to exist side by side.  The magazine's that will survive the shift in how we get news, criticism and information are those which take advantage of that difference.  We call it solid, insightful journalism.  It's something the Internet isn't capable of doing despite all its immediacy, conversation, and connection.

Yes, there is an irony that I'm posting a link to a blog on my own blog and then feeding that to FriendFeed.  Thanks for noticing.

Huffington Post   

No Seinfeld for You

Now that's a shock.  MS has dropped Jerry Seinfeld as its spokesperson.  So soon?

A lot has been written on this campaign.  Most of it was not positive.  I've been back and forth on the campaign myself.  As a web TV series, "Seinfeld and Gates," I see it as brilliant marketing that aligns MS with being humdrum and pompous and fun all at the same time--radical move.  As a series of advertisements, they lacked any sort of connection to Microsoft's products, perhaps exposing the gaping hole in the current MS offering--not innovative, not interesting.  Worse, when edited into :30's they lost the quirky pacing that made the online videos fun.  

Whatever you're feelings about the ads, a big PR blitz over a spokesperson and campaign followed quickly by a poorly spun statement about a shift of direction is bad advertising for the brand and the agency. 

Unless it's really brilliant.  So brilliant that no one gets just how brilliant it is--yet.

Valleywag

Who has time to watch porn? I'm too busy updating my Facebook status.

That Generation Y--they just aren't like us.  They're optimistic.  They
think they're going to be famous.  They love social networking online. 
They don't really like to satiate their earthly desires to
pornography. 

At least that's the theory put forth by Bill
Tancer.  Tancer, in his analysis of Internet searches, found that the
percentage of online searches attributable to pornography is
decreasing.  He attributes this to the growth of young adult's
engagement with online social networks.   If people spend more time on
MySpace then they don't have time to search for naked pictures of Sarah Palin (an activity more popular than searching for her governmental policies).

At the core of this argument is the concept of human isolation.  Both social networking and pornography are means by which people, in the privacy--and lonliness--of their bedroom, alleviate their feelings of isolation by connecting with virtual bodies, in one case your high school girlfriend's Facebook profile, in the other a naked chick who looks like your high school girlfriend doing unspeakable acts with a sow.

I wouldn't dispute that people are feeling more isolated than ever.  In fact, a recent study revealed that over a 1/4 of Americans say they have no confidant.  I wouldn't dispute that social networking is all about relieving our feelings of isolation.  We post bills on the walls of the digital playground to shout, "I am here" and hope that someone hears. 

I do find it hard to believe that feelings of isolation are the primary driver of engagement with pornography.  Pornography is not a palliative for lonliness.  It's actually one act where we don't want to connect with others online (unless of course it involves scoring with an actual body).

Instead, pornography is a tool for disciplining the body.  People view porn to gain control over desires that are uncontrollable: our arousal, those persistent thoughts about sexing it up, when we satiate those desires with another body.  Porn is just a double-click away.  Watching it, we regain control of that annoying distraction we call sexuality. 

There are a number of critics who disagree with Tancer's methodology.  We still watch digital porn--maybe more than ever.  We just search for it in a different way. 

As pornography has always been ahead of the curve in terms of technology adoption, perhaps we should be learning from these behaviors. 

While watching porn, of course.

Fleshbot
Silicon Alley Insider

Stupid Advertising Tricks Volume 321

"Oh. My. God."Vicky, this ad doesn't make me smile or want to know more.  It makes me sick.  And if it somehow persuades a single someone to use VO5 Hot Oil over another product, I have even less faith in the human race. 

What is the insight here? Women masturbate in the shower after washing their hair? Or that men service women better if they have long, shiny hair? Or that the creative team is not among those who watch less porn because they're on Facebook (more on that lame analysis).

Creative that cuts through the clutter is not necessarily good creative. Good creative expresses how the product changes people's experience of the world through its use.  If you can do that with the funny, or the provocative, more power to you.  This doesn't do either.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Did I say, stupid?

AdRants

Facebook Redesign and Ad Opportunities

Have to agree with the geeks.  There are some of you out there are expressing frustration with the new Facebook design; I'd ask why.  Advertisers should be very happy about the changes.  The prominence of shared items in the feed is especially interesting and the ease of commenting and visibility of comments can help create valuable discussions around promotions, brands and products--at least in some cases. 

It all depends on what people are sharing.  Sharing a TV commercial because it's humorous probably won't have as much value, as sharing something to help you make a purchase decision.  I might love the "Talking Stain" commercial and post it to my profile, but does that really mean that more people are going to go out and buy Tide (it is Tide, right)? Sorry, probably not.  However, if I share that Nokia e71 I think about buying and ask, "anyone have this phone what do you think about it," it could actually lead to sales of the e71 as various people tell me it's the sliced bread.  Find the way to get people to share the later, and you've found the key to social advertising.

Would you like a subscription music service with that?

Seems like everyone wants to be in the content business--even stores that sell dishwashers.  Next: McDonald's. 

I think Coolfer is right.  The subscription service market is not tapped out by any means.  Hardly anyone understands it's value, and perhaps Best Buy's (generally) well-informed sales staff can reposition this service, and change the perception that you're just "renting" music.  Plus Best Buy has sold other content platform
partnerships most in the TV space, Direct TV, FiOS, etc.  One must imagine that these partnerships have been lucrative.  Why else would they buy one in the music space?

There is a difference: the customer's education level on the type of service.  I
know what a cable service does.  I don't know what a subscription music
service is. Can a guy in a blue shirt explain the benefits, and not just to the music lover but to the average joe.

Also, will people even be receptive to Napster education as they're buying the device? With tech products and services, pre-store research is an important part of the decision process.  It's highly likely that the person who is in the store buying a compatible device hasn't done research into how they're going to get media.  It's highly unlikely that they'll trust the Best Buy guy knows, well, best.

Promotional efforts--month free--and other methods of sign-up--after purchase--could help overcome that obstacle but really, the solution lies in pre-store marketing efforts.  Can Best Buy execute the necessary campaign? Napster couldn't.  No one has really.   
Coolfer

Retracting Previous MS Ad Campaign Coment

All right.  I was wrong.  The Microsoft brand campaign is actually brilliant. My initial impression of course was why is Microsoft trying to be all cool and quirky.  Now I understand.  This campaign isn't repositioning the brand as cool--whatever that is.  It's also not throwing some product functionality in our faces to prove that Microsoft is innovative.

Microsoft is neither cool nor innovative, and this campaign is solely developed to remind us what Microsoft is: the boring guy in the poorly-tailored khaki pants who just kind of goes through life living it.  Nothing is wrong with being that guy.  Being the brand of bland is differentiated and compelling.  But most importantly it's not trying to make something that's totally not cool, cool. 

That's cool. 


Find more videos like this on AdGabber

Radio Sucks

This list is the problem with music. Thankfully, with the radio hegemony breaking up, as Sam Cooke might sing, "A Change is Gonna Come."  Soon.

Billboard Hot 100 All-Time Top Songs

Death and Technology.

Wherever there's a new mimetic technology, there's someone deploying it to capture a dead man's soul.

The photograph is the perfect example of this phenomena. Funerary photography started in photography's early days. The premise? Shoot portraits of your dead relative to preserve their souls. This practice has recently seen a resurgence. Today it's camera phones, which in Japan are being used to send images of funerals instantly to those who simply can't be there to see the soul in rapturous escape. Now it appears, people are tweeting funerals, live micro-blogging the event to life cache that very moment.

When you're talking mimetic technologies--and Twitter, a narrative representation of your presence, falls in that category--you're talking magic. They have the power to capture souls.

Twitter [via Gawker, of course]

Google Snags 1% of the Browser Market

How is it possible that a company can snatch 1% of the browser market without any advertising?

Silicon Alley Insider

Operation Capture Monkey

The Greatest Political Brand Ever

When we talk about successful brands these days we often toss around a buzz-word co-creation. We could learn a lot about what this means--and why the term is wrong--by looking at one of the most important--if not the most important--brand out there: Obama.

Don't confuse Obama with the man Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a human being. Obama is a brand that lives in the interaction between Barack Obama and his constituency--in the interaction.

Obama is not a thing brought into being, a creation, a monument; Obama is a point of contact. Like all brands, the Obama brand is formed by the collective mind of those who come in contact with the concept of an Obama, a concept initially created by Barack Obama, and it that brand is constantly being reformed by each new set of interactions. In other words, Obama is a performance that's taking place in this moment and in every moment, and then disappears, and then reappears in a new way.

To see this look at the art created by Obama's constituents. The mutability of the brand is astounding. Emo Obama! Jazz Obama! Add these to the myriad other recontextualizations of Obama (Che Guevera Obama is my personal favorite).

This is what makes Obama the greatest political brand ever, and I'd argue, one of the greatest brands ever: its ability to be performed in almost any way. Marketers could learn something from this.

Emo for Obama

Artist?

Is Perez Hilton an artist or a journalist?

No. I'm serious. It's a valid question.

I would vote performance artist. Or the Duchamp of the gossip era.

New Yorker

A Good Mother and a Vice President. Who cares?

I don't agree with Sarah Palin. I don't even agree with the fact that she calls her husband the "First Dude." That's perhaps stupider--and more indefensible--than forbidding abortion in cases of rape or incest. But the fact that the question of motherhood versus power and success has become a central narrative in the Presidential Campaign is something with which I must disagree more.

Can a woman be a good mother and Vice President? This question reflects a larger cultural trope. Women are defined in our society as the ruler of the home and family. Men as absent laborers who "bring home the bacon." Hence, the question raised--and never to men. No one asked George W. Bush when his daughters were drunk off their ass flashing their panties in party photos, "can you be a good Father and the Worst President of All Time?" No one asked Bill Clinton if he could be a good Father and the philandering leader of the free world.

They should have. We should have change that. Advertising is a good place to start.

Advertising perpetuates this problem, especially advertising for Consumer Packaged Goods. There are economic realities behind this; the vast majority of grocery shopping is performed by women. This is clearly a reality marketers need to address but it also doesn't mean they need to create images that tether women to this reality. The more we see images of women orgasmic over a new dust cleaner, the more we believe in these stale gender roles. The insight is not women are time-stretched because they need to do more. It's that women no longer want to be the CEO of the home. They want to be, well, whomever they want to be. That includes President or Vice-President.

It's time marketers leveraged their brands to help achieve equal rights for women. Help us form a new question, "why can't the "First Dude" be the "First Dude" of the home?"

Oh, by the way, Sarah Palin sucks.

Psychology Today