 |  |  |
IIOC: Out to Lunch on Social Media
Dear International Olympic Committee,
Get a grip.
The IOC has issued what appears to be a lawyer’s equivalent of a Rube Goldberg device in handing down what Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic participants can and can not do when it comes to social media.
The participants—identified as “Accredited Persons”—can only blog about their own Olympic related personal experiences when posting anything that has to do with Olympic content.
In other words, even though some of the more famous sportsmen and women might have thousands of fans following them on Tweet, they can’t post a blog commenting on anyone other than themselves. They are also similarly restricted in pictures they post
This is all in an apparent attempt to protect the Olympic brand, and, though it seems rather far-fetched, exclusive television rights. In doing so, they have only hurt opportunities to enhance the Olympics for television viewers even more.
In essence, they are putting a kibosh on Olympic buzz. The sad thing is they might be so far out of touch this hasn’t dawned on them.
The restrictions read in part:
“It is required that, when Accredited Persons at the Games post any Olympic content, it be confined solely to their own personal Olympic-related experience. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, blogs of Accredited Persons should take the form of a diary or journal and, in any event, should not contain any interviews with, or stories about, other Accredited Persons.”
And the IOC rules go on to say:
“Accredited Persons may feature still pictures taken of themselves within Accredited Zones provided that such pictures do not contain any sporting action of the Games or the Opening, Closing or Medal Ceremonies of the Games. It is the Accredited Persons’ responsibility to obtain the consent of other persons appearing in any pictures which may [be] featured in accordance with this Section. Still pictures may not be reproduced in a sequential manner, so as to simulate, in any way, moving images.”
Now that’s a mouthful.
Perhaps someone should inform these Olympic-sized bozos that social media creates an awareness for large television events and the ratings go up. By trying to contain social media, the IOC is shooting itself in the foot and undermining its own broadcast strategy.
Pitch Strike Nonsense
Some 20 agencies in Belgium have gone on what they call a "pitch strike" which is tantamount to going into battle armed only with a toothpick.
The agencies-and we're talking many major network agencies here-obviously have never head of what one-time Young & Rubicam CEO Tom Bell called the Golden Rule: "He who holds the gold, rules."
It is not that the agencies in Belgium, and elsewhere for that matter, don't have a solid case. They are saying they will boycott every pitch that has more than three contenders and an incumbent participating.
They say it is nonsense for the advertiser to hold and the agency to participate in tenders that often have 10 or more participants invited, and they are right on several counts. The agency has a better chance investing its pitch money at the local casino.
However, our friends in Belgium have gone about it all wrong. A pitch strike will have the consistency of cotton candy and the staying power of an amateur boxer in the ring with a Klichko, either one of the brothers.
After nervous Belgium agencies have sat out a couple of juicy pitches, the strike will fold. On the other hand, I would like to think the ad industry as a group could appeal to the collective common sense of the advertisers.
It is insanity to enter a pitch with as many as 10 agencies competing. If the agency is serious about winning, the economics don't work, especially since winning one round doesn't insure victory in a second or third round of a pitch. At each step, the agency ups the ante and spends more to win.
There exists in Ukraine another situation. Many times a tender is called when, in reality, the winner has already been chosen. However, the advertiser wants to maintain a sense of transparency to the outside world so invites multiple agencies to compete.
My view is that advertisers are generally reasonable people. The ad industry should forget strikes they won't win and try, as a group, reason and common sense with the company people who make the decisions.
For the advertiser, wholesale cattle calls simply drive up-not push down-the overall cost of advertising. Additionally, do they really want their agencies chasing every skirt that walks down the street and not concentrating on their accounts?
Of course they don't. I think there is room for discussion here.
Six Super Bowl Winners
Living in Eastern Europe, we didn’t camp out at a sports bar to watch America’s Super Bowl in the wee hours of the morning on satellite. However, like true ad folks, we did watch the television spots later.
For our European friends, the Super Bowl is the U.S.’s largest sports spectacular with more than 90 million viewers tuning in to the championship football game, that’s one-third of all Americans.
While the cost of a 30-second spot was a impressive $3 million, as a whole our Willard Marketing Monthly panel was rather disappointed in the TVCs. Most were sophomoric at best.
There was a traditional and juvenile “flatulence” spot as well as just plain goofy spots with men walking around in their underwear—which seems to be a new trend in commercials.
However, our experts have picked the six spots out of more than 50 that appeared which we feel work as entertainment, though it’s probably a stretch to say all helped move product or services.
It is interesting to note that the first Super Bowl in 1966 drew a third of the audience as 2010 but way back then the ads only cost $46,000 for a 30-second spot.
We chose a spot devoid of all images with the exception of a Google page as the top spot. We felt it best communicated an effective message by showing Google’s ease of use.
However, ad agencies be warned: The spot was created in-house at Google and not by an agency. In fact, a handful of the spots were created by consumers and not ad hot shops.
So, without further discussion, Willard Marketing Monthly’s best ads of America’s Super Bowl.
 |
Title: Fences Brand: Budweiser Agency: DDB, Chicago |
 |
Title: Green Car Brand: Audi Agency: Venables Bell & Partners, San Francisco |
 |
Title: Whale of a Tale Brand: Bridgestone Agency: Richards Group, Dallas |
 |
Title: Man's Last Stand Brand: Dodge Agency: Wieden & Kennedy, Portland, Ore. |
 |
Title: House Rules Brand: Doritos Agency: Consumer-generated |
 |
Title: Parisian Love Brand: Google Agency: In-house |
Why Professional Firm Marketing Is So Bad
Some businesses tend to be worse than others at communicating their messages. Let’s consider attempts by professional firms –such as law and accounting firms—who often believe it’s less expensive to hire in-house staff than a professional marketing firm.
It’s not. It’s also generally ineffective.
Every week another communication from a professional firm, usually a law firm, crosses my desk. I promptly use it to soak up the Coca-Cola Light that invariably spews from my nostrils from laughter.
I don’t mean to be cruel here, but the publications tend to look like bulletins from some obscure department in the bowels of a very bureaucratic government. Most resemble stir-fried gobbledygook.
For starters, there is rarely a coherent point, and much of it is canned copy from headquarters. There is little communication of key messages, and the main objective appears to be filling up space. What’s more, the missives come as if designed by a blind, seeing eye-dog.
These people are killing trees for no good reason. If you in the slightest lean green, it’s a solid case for capital punishment. Law firm news releases read like court documents, and need to be translated from legalize to be understood.. They have neither passion nor persuasion. They have, one supposes if one read that far, mostly dry facts.
In most cases, the whole print concept should be deep-sixed for electronic communication. Any target audience is probably transfixed to a computer screen several hours a day.
But, the audience has to have a reason for opening an electronic communication. To do that you need to make sure it is sufficiently interesting to suspend the reader’s attention for 60 seconds. That is about all the time you are going to have to communicate.
However, we have found that most professional firms give the job of marketing to the first person who walks through the door that knows the difference between ATL, BTL and spaghetti.
There is a reason professional firms – and again I am writing primarily of law and accounting practices – are so bad at marketing.
It’s not their day job—nor should it be. Fact is, going to a professional marketer-- in the long run and when considering value--would be a better bet to the 10th power. It would save money, time and not just result in an avalanche of words ferried to la-la land.
It would help win clients.
A Globe of Cheapskates?
I just saw a survey by the iVOX people who say Ukrainians trust the so-called “new” internet media over traditional media but a whopping 70 per cent wouldn’t consider paying for such content. What’s going on here?
For starters, this is not Ukrainians being cheapskates. If it is, most of the globe is as stingy as Scrooge McDuck.
But why is it this way?
Obviously, we were all idiots when we launched all these free publications on-line, thinking pop-up, banner and other forms of ads would pay the freight. They haven’t. However, almost no one wants to pay for something that’s been free.
Recently, one of my favorite publications, The New York Times, announced it would charge for some on-line content beginning in 2011. They floated a model whereby a number of stories would be free, but after that there would be a charge.
This is not the first time the Times has charged up this hill. A few years ago, it started—but then dropped—charging for what it termed premium content. Newspaper publishers are not known for being huge risk takers.
I think we are all forgetting something here. The important word in newspaper is not “paper” but “news.” The method in which it is delivered shouldn’t be that relevant. It’s the value of the content, silly.
In 10 years, I don’t think paid content will be an issue. Everyone will be paying for content as most traditional newspapers give up the ghost and go all-digital. It is happening now, every week.
For some publications, charging for a service—charging for value always seems reasonable for me—is the norm. I pay a relatively small yearly fee to read the Wall Street Journal, and I would do the same for the Times.
However, there is a natural barrier in paying for something you previously received by paying merely for internet connection charges. Publications as they go on-line are going to have to be smart about it.
How about bundling and syndications of subscriptions? If someone reads 10 publications a day, that person is not going to want to pay a premium cost for each read. However, if his favorite publications were bundled into a single, reasonable price, he might.
The fact is, we folks in the information delivery service are going to have to be a lot smarter—not just in the content we present, but how we pay for our time and talent.
Tough Love with the Omniscient Pablo PistachioWe had a news conference the other day, and though my boss had something important to say, he didn't get quoted as much as the other company on the platform.
Olga Gromova: From Classical Pianist to Fashion Designer
Olga Gromova is the embodiment of the George Elliott quote: "It's never too late to be who you might have been."
An ad can win awards without winning over hearts and minds. An ad can strike one's funny bone and leave the consumer laughing, but without a clue as to the name of the product or its attributes.Survivor Jorge Intriago: Go-To Guy for FDI
Having eschewed the safer career path that led through Moscow, Jorge Intriago came to Kyiv in 1995 with a two-year contract and a sense of adventure.
One of the legendary quotes to have come from the American space program was. "Failure is not an option." The words were supposedly spoken by NASA Flight Director Gene Kranz in Mission Control..Playing the Brand Game
Facebook and Amazon keep customers in a perpetual state of discovery. Whether it's to stay in tune with what your friends are doing, or to discover a new artist...That Cost Too Much
In media training, we always say there are no bad questions, only bad answers. The same is true when meeting sales objections.A Note on Social Media Relevance
The good people over at ExactTarget and CoTweet recently released a study detailing some interesting stats on consumer interaction with "social" brands...Natalia Fesyun: The Belle of Bel Ukraine
For Natalia Fesyun, life has come full circle: She began her business career in the food industry after completing a degree as a food industry engineer at Kyiv State University of Food Technology.