One version of one vision of advertising

Okay, that last post was a little bit cranky, sorry about that. I suppose I should take the time to show you the positive side. To show you how we do things, how we work with our clients who are building online communities and products, and how it can be done right. This will also, conveniently, help explain to my mother what I do all day.
Let’s say that you are, in fact, the world’s leading authority on, say, orchids. Like you go to conferences and stuff, and thousands of people seek out your wisdom regarding orchids. Let’s then say that you, along with a friend, realize that there’s a substantial number of orchid aficionados out there and that, say, 90% of them use the internet. Let’s say you learned this at first anecdotally, but then, because your friend happened to be a bit of a research buff, you actually confirmed this with some research. Let’s say it transpires that there are 4 million orchid buffs out there on the web, and they happen to have a high disposable income, a predilection for spending time on the internet, and a genuine hunger for more wisdom, discussion, insight, learnings, entertainment, and, in short, content about orchids. And you are fully capable of providing this content because you’re one of an elite band of orchid experts, and they are already sending you weird postcards and stuff asking you questions, and then one day you started a blog and it was so weird because all of the sudden like 50,000 orchid lovers were reading it and you didn’t even put that much effort into it.
So then let’s say you and your friend write up a business plan explaining your vision for a new orchid lovers community site. You’ve done your research and your homework, and you’ve established that THE WORLD IS DYING FOR AN ORCHID COMMUNITY SITE. And you’ve figured out that you need about $3 million dollars to start this orchid community – and you’ve got all your costs worked out: site build, admin/CMS, editorial content and plan, maintenance and continued development, staffing plan, ad sales plan, ad operations plan, etc. And it just so happens that your friend’s college roommate is a VC at some firm on Sand Hill Road and he looks over your plan, and makes modifications here and there but generally is on board with the plan because they’d been doing some research too and realized that this is a golden market – affluent, niche, hard-to-reach, etc. And you have another orchid lover friend who works at a media agency and is like “yes! we’ve got like 15 clients that would love to reach this demographic and I know my friend sally at MediaVest has the same problems.”
So you all shake hands and start a company and the VC writes a check for $3 million and it’s time to go. LET’S DO THIS. WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. WE’RE GOING TO REVOLUTIONIZE THE WORLD OF ORCHID GROWING.
What now?
Well, this is what you do. You find a CTO. Then you hire some developers or an agency to build your site. Then you hire another firm to handle the information architecture and user experience. And maybe you hire one of those two firms, or another firm, to handle the site design. And of course this needs to be tied into the branding, so then you gotta hire a branding firm to develop your site’s branding. And then you have to figure out a marketing plan for when you actually launch the site. Oh, and along the way you need to hire someone to develop a content strategy, and someone else to figure out the editorial calendar, and probably someone to sell the ads, and someone else to deploy all those banner ads to the site and manage the inventory. And you need to choose an analytics package. And an ad operations package. And maybe you have some e-commerce and need a fulfillment partner. And what about mobile? You’ll end up with probably 3-4 hires, and then something like 4 firms all working on your site. Because you want the best. Who’s the best development firm? Okay, let’s get them. Who’s the best User Experience firm? We sent RFPs to Molecular and Adaptive Path and a few others. Who’s the best design firms? Sent out RFPs to Pentagram (wait do they do interactive?) and those cool kids up in Canada that did Digg and 37 Signals. Wait are they designers or UX? We sent RFPs to Ogilvy and Landor and a few specialized one-person shops for the branding, and we’re definitely gonna call the Barbarians for the marketing. Because they did that Subservient Chicken thing and it was awesome.
So now you have something like 5 different firms and 4 different people working on this, and they all sort of want some part of the other firms’ business, but not others, cuz they all do one or two things and have these mandates to grow their business with additional work from their pre-existing clients. It’s like their business plan or something.
And each of these firms is on a different engagement timeline, with different deliverables, and none of the deliverables are making you the greatest possible product and successfully launching it through an integrated strategy that coordinates content, editorial, pre and post-launch development, user experience and marketing. And there’s no coordination, really, except for the CTO on the technical side (if you’ve been lucky enough to find one yet), and the content editor you hired and your friend from the media company you lured away with some equity. And you. The orchid lover
It is, in short, like herding cats. And, worse, it is painfully sequential, or “waterfall.” The branding firm needs to finish the branding before the design firm can get started. The design firm can’t get started until the UX team has really dug in, and the tech guys can’t do much until you’ve hired your CTO and chosen a platform and some basic requirements have been identified and maybe a few wireframes have been built. And all of this will completely distract you from the marketing of your new site once it’s launched, and you’re still not sure who you’re going to hire to keep developing on the site once its launched, because let’s face it, there aren’t a lot of developers out there who also love orchids and there’s only so much equity to go around and don’t all developers really just want to work at Facebook?
You could, of course, hire all of these people internally. Give ‘em equity in the company, and try and instill a spirit of camaraderie in them. Or you could find one development partner, get the thing built, hope it takes off and then build the business around it (this seems to be the logic of the young turks on the New York scene: Tumblr, Muxtape, Iminlikewithyou, etc).
But wouldn’t it be cool if there was one company you could hire to do all of that for you? That you could work out a deal with to be your partner, before and after launch, and got the right team together from all of these disciplines, and all worked in tandem, in an agile, responsive, nimble manner, with all disciplines working in tandem for a common goal? You handle the internet, I’ll handle the orchids Wouldn’t it be cool if they chose the tech based on not just what’s best for the job but based on what made it easiest to help you in your CTO search? So you could get going even before you found them? Wouldn’t it be cool if some great marketing idea could influence the user experience? Wouldn’t it be cool if the UX guys had an awesome idea they knew exactly whether the development gals could handle it and what the process was for getting this unexpected brainstorm done, because doing it will make the product better? Because everyone wants the product to be better?
This is, in short, the service we have been growing to offer to these people now. All things in the service to interactive marketing. 20 developers. Dozens of creatives. Marketers. Planners. A fast-growing, talented and battle-hardened user experience department, all of whom have embraced agile methodologies and have extensive experience on real sites and real communities. Designers who love to iterate. Even the client service gang is in on the mix, acting as your Scrum-certfied product owner, translating your business decisions into concrete tasks for the team. UX people who understand that it’s not just about usability but emotion and marketing and users becoming wed to your site. And marketing people who haven’t gotten jaded because they know they have a stake in the actual product they’re marketing, and knowing that if their genius marketing idea is that oh-so-common idea of make the product better that they could actually make it happen.
I don’t think we’re 100% there yet: bringing Noah on board was a key element in reinforcing the strategy and planning angle of it. And we’re taking agile development into places that it was never really intended to go: who, for the love of god, has ever actually attempted agile branding? But I do believe that we’re on to something, and I think our clients are pretty into it as well. I can’t wait until this fall when we start having things to show to put our money where our mouth is on this front. But I definitely believe in it. And I have faith enough that I’m talking about it now. Because, really, it’s all I talk about anymore. ;)
(oh, and it’s not just for startups. We work this way with tech companies offering new products. With consumer product companies wanting to extend their brand onto the web in a truly connecting way via branded utilities, communities or content. But this metaphor is a good time so I’m gonna roll with it).
I see so many sites being launched that are awesome technological demos. They have pretty solid PR too (and, as an aside, it’s almost an embarrassment for the ad world that the PR world seems to have figured out this whole internet thing more quickly than them). They get their awesome product and they do some awesome PR and they get a mention on Tech Crunch and they get a nice spike in traffic the first week and then… What? Things stall. Why don’t they do any marketing then? Why doesn’t Dopplr market? Why doesn’t Vimeo? Who doesn’t Hulu? That’s a really interesting one. Basically they all seem to be hoping that the launch push will take hold and and turn into a Twitter-like network effect. And if it doesn’t? Well, they seem to toss it out and move on. Fair enough, I suppose. If you’re looking to score an online hit no matter what the content or product. But if you’re invested in a certain topic – be it your future as an orchid expert or your brand’s very reason to exist in the 21st century – you need to succeed this time, in this field. So, if you’re in it for the long haul, why not market?
I believe our brains, bruised from the web 1.0 world and embracing of the web 2.0’s ethos of fail “fast, fail cheap” have caused us to develop a few subconscious mores and taboos. Why don’t more startups market anymore? Partially because the people behind the startup are not committed to its success – they can move on if it fails. But I believe it’s also because of all the profligate spending during the Web 1.0 world, and because Web 2.0 is about staying cheap to achieve rapid profitability. Fair enough. But Web 2.0 brought other trends to bear along with staying cheap. Viral marketing. Word of Mouth. Gimmicky little games. The tactics have changed, but marketing can still work. Marketing can still drive traffic to your site. And if your site is good enough, that traffic can expand exponentially.
Web 2.0 showed us something else, too: user experience is marketing. Your feature set is marketing. Think Google maps. Why did it win? Because of an amazing new feature set (ie., AJAX). The lines are blurring a bit. It gets tricky. It can be argued that Google Maps won because it was a superior product offering, simple as that. Facebook could say the same. I would absolutely agree with that. But I would also say that this implies that a unique, improved user interface can drive traffic far beyond just the individuals who discover it. When people are pleasantly surprised by an amazing product on the web, they tell their friends about it. Marketing. And, once you’ve got this superior product, driving traffic to it using other marketing tactics – viral marketing, advergaming, etc – just like you do with your PR can be a huge advantage. It doesn’t have to be a super bowl ad. It doesn’t even have to be an online media buy. But marketing is a tool to be used here, especially when it’s done in perfect synchronicity to the dev and the UX, and you don’t have ‘the marketing guys’ sitting in the corner not grasping your product. When you have marketing peeps who were there every step of the way. Who are as invested as you are in the product’s success.

Formal Friday Salute

WIN!

Twitter-Free Fridays Are Stupid

I read an explanation of “Twitter-Free Friday” on Raster Web this morning, and it inspired in me a kind of knee-jerk vitriol usually reserved for conservative bloggers.
Twitter is a monopoly. Just like Microsoft was and Google is. And any time you rely on one single entity for something, that’s bad news. Even worse news if it’s something you need or really want, because at some point, after you are hooked, they will screw it up, and you’ll have no alternative.
With the original Microsoft-Free Friday by Dave Winer, the goal was to punish Microsoft for their abuse of their power in one segment (OS penetration and OEM channels) inside another segment (browser penetration). This was a trust issue, and a monopoly issue. Microsoft, by leveraging the walled gardens of their operating system made it practically impossible for competition to exist. The DOJ took note.
The person who dreamt up “Twitter-Free Fridays” seems to have a definition for “monopoly” that is far looser than that of the DOJ. My guess is that they found a palatable one-liner in a dictionary and assumed they were sufficiently armed to make legal judgments.
Being at the top of an emerging market segment does not constitute a monopoly. Unfair practices, abuses of that dominance to limit fair access to resources and outlets – those are monopolistic. If Twitter struck a deal with Mozilla that blacklisted other microblogging services, we’d have something to talk about. Opening APIs freely and allowing supplemental markets to emerge hardly seems consistent with railroad barons.
Twitter isn’t a monopoly. There are no trust issues. They are, by some metrics, the top dog in microblogging, but many competitors exist and thrive in an equal opportunity environment.
Are we going to start casually redefining unfair advantage in the scope of “social” applications as any user base larger than an arbitrary number?
Is the misunderstanding of monopolistic practice going to lead to an organized backlash against any entrepreneurial start up lasting beyond their first round of funding? Will there be exceptions for those who adopt the “blessed” techno-despotism implied by the half-baked Data Portability “movement” or its half dozen sibling groups?
The reason trusts are illegal, that monopolistic abuse is illegal, is that it stifles markets and hurts consumers. Beating up on the current leader because they don’t use a library or microformat or federated architecture you like – or because they’re popular – leads to the same end result.
Now, don’t get me wrong – I am all for the market crushing a business if the business deserves it. And I believe it’s up to the market to decide who deserves what.
Still, rather than negative whiny bullshit, if the market demands a federated microblogging system, I’d rather see AFFIRMATIVE SUPPORT for the competition instead of NEGATIVE DAMNATION of perfectly honest, viable, useful services. Pimp Identi.ca all you want! Sing its praises. But do it without acting like a baby and lobbing very powerful words (that you don’t understand) around.
The type of misapplied armchair thought leadership embodied in the “Twitter-Free Friday” effort is the type of thing that spreads from one nobody blog to the next until there’s a monopolization of communication: the noise having a clear and present advantage over signal, stifling meaningful discussion entirely.
I hereby claim Mondays as “Blogwhore Chicken Little Idiot Free.”
On Tuesdays, we can talk about carving out a market segment for federated microblogging systems. Tuesdays will be for productivity, meaning, value.
See you next week.

Evil RBPs

Today’s rant: RFPs that are secretly RPBs, or Request For Business Plan. Seriously. I can’t begin to tell you how many RFPs I’ve gotten that basically are asking us to start their business for them. They want to build the next Facebook or Flickr, and want to pay us something like $50,000 to build it for them. I am at a complete loss how anyone could really think this is reasonable.
Ooo oo – and the sister project: the traditional agency driving a new online product for the client, mainly driven by the agency’s desire to appear to understand the interactive realm, insert themselves into the conversation and come out of the whole thing with a case study in their online thought leadership. Except it’s abundantly clear from day one that they really don’t have an idea of what goes into building a successful online community. This is turning into the modern equivalent of the “let’s produce a spot to win awards” syndrome.
First off, if we knew how to build the next Facebook for $50,000, don’t you think we probably would have scraped together $50,000 and built it? Secondly, do you know how much it costs to build Facebook? And maintain it? Dude Facebook spent many million dollars just on servers in the last year. Just the boxes! Most of these RFPs have no idea how on earth they’re going to maintain and grow their site – and get appalled when we imply they may need to spend more than $10,000 a month on growing their site.
And revenue. Man, I know I’m an ‘ad guy,’ but I come from the world of economics and it never ceases to amaze me how many people want to build something without any clear idea how they’re going to make any money, aside from “advertising.” It’s no surprise, of course, that few of these people have actually worked in advertising, much less the media buying & planning side of it, so they have almost no insight into how ad agencies actually decide where they’re going to place an ad. I’ll clue you in – they place them on sites with a large, engaged user base of a specific demographic. Which means you need to obtain a large user base of a specific demographic. Which takes time. Which takes money.
And I know I haven’t coded anything in a good 3 years now (though, man, my textile skills are smokin’ now), but it would probably help if someone on your team new how to write a line of code.
Here’s an important point, which hopefully makes this curmudgeonly post slightly useful: just because you’re building a website for a brand doesn’t mean the business case shouldn’t be thought through. You will be presumably competing with highly-organized companies in whatever realm you are considering dipping your (or your client’s) toes into. They are highly organized, probably have more money than you and probably have a great experienced, highly-dedicated team that are all entrepreneurially aligned to make sure their site kicks your site’s ass. You need to think of it like a business, even if it’s a branding exercise. Because a failed community (ahem, Bud.tv) will not only not help your brand, it could well hurt it.
This isn’t to say some of them aren’t a good idea – we are working with 4 different organizations right now on startup sites that have been vetted by intelligent financial individuals, and have CEOs or Presidents or Founders who bring something significant and unique to the table. And we’re in talks with 2-3 more including one that is driven by an agency – a smart traditional agency that knows what it brings to the table, knows what its strengths and limitations are and knows to partner with people, align everyone, and run the project like what it is: a new product offering from their client.
Oh, and all of them are willing to engage with us to become team members and partners in their success. I find it interesting that the RBPs that are usually least thought out are the ones that are also least amenable to sharing the success.
God, I love my clients. Thank you. This fall is shaping up to be a good time.

What to Wear? The Gap and the Median of Modesty.

Noah and I were just discussing Starbucks and books over lunch, and how buyers like Starbucks and Costco have this massive cultural impact on what books become “popular” and therefore what is considered the mean of popular culture. Think about it as maybe the WalMart-ing of pop culture, where corporate decisions have a major impact on our culture.
This led me to think about this idea I had way back in college about The Gap and its Old Navy offspring. These companies, whether they are aware of it or not, inadvertently set the median of modesty in our collective American fashion. They sell such massive quantities of clothing and are so utterly entrenched in every corner of America that teens and moms alike buy the same exact outfits across the country, setting up a standard for how “Americans” dress.
This is amazing, and I’m fascinated to know if The Gap is even aware of this consequential responsibility (some would say burden) to design and sell clothing that is setting up what the majority of the country sees as “modest”. Like, if they started selling fishnets and vinyl shorts, would there be an uproar? Are they pressured by some odd fringe lobbyist groups that try to maintain dignity in clothing? Do they get hate mail if their miniskirts are an inch too short?
Noah brought up a great point when I tried to make a parallel to McDonalds: McDonalds has the ability to alter their food in a way that would benefit the culture, but they have no economic incentive to do so. Sure, some pressure has led to things like the Yogurt Parfait and Salad Shakers, but by and large they have no reason to make massive infrastructure and supply changes for the (comparably) small PR benefit, even though it would be in the public’s best interest.
But The Gap, to Noah’s point, isn’t under those kind of considerations. Sure, if they started selling tarted up outfits they’d probably take a hit in sales, and see some outrage from fringe groups (Abercrombie and Fitch, anyone?). But The Gap can really set their own standards for what’s appropriate and what’s not, and what will sell and what won’t. I’m sure a lot of that is based on some idea of the average American’s sensibilities, but maybe it’s up to the designers.
Anyway, just a thought. I’d really love to know. Remember, The Gap, with great power comes great responsibility.

In an Absolut World, advertising makes fun of itself, mercifully.


Find more videos like this on aspecialthing
My old pal Rikki got to interview Tim and Eric of the Tim and Eric Awesome Show for Fader. Not only am I super jealous of this, I’m also super excited about the latest installment of their commercials with Zach Galifianakis is included.
I don’t know how much further we can take 4th wall breaking, super aware advertising anymore, but this renews my faith in what we’ve always wanted to do: Get companies to pay people we like to make hilarious and awesome things.
Branded Utility, indeed!
Here are the other ones:
And Zach and Will Oldham in a Kanye West video.

10 questions with Rob Walker

Really good interview with Rob Walker (author of ””Buying In””:http://tinyurl.com/6y22bz and murketing ) where he hits on just about every marketing trend going on at the moment: influencers, death of the 30 second spot, social media and co-creation to name a few.

I especially like what he has to say about customers defining the brand for Timberland: “This had nothing to do with the Internet, and nothing to do with Timberland ‘allowing’ customers to ‘collaborate.’ Consumers determine brand meaning whether anyone ‘allows’ them to or not. And they don’t need a special website to do it.” Precisely.

COMMENTS OPEN

Making Stuff on the Internet

The fine people at Behance were kind enough to ask if they could interview me for their magazine. Incredibly flattered, I of course said yes and now the interview is up at behancemag.com . It’s mostly about one of my favorite topics, “making stuff on the internet”, and includes lots of ideas and quotes you’ve probably read around here. Here’s a little bit to whet your appetite:

“My two most successful personal projects to date have been likemind and brand tags. As for getting them off the ground, they’ve been quite different, but have shared one important thing. For both of them I was quite involved and spent a lot of time emailing every single person who asked a question back. I think that personal contact/feedback is quite important (I still thank every person who signs up for the likemind mailing list). Being involved on that level allows me to get to know the people who are coming to likemind/using brand tags and helps me come up with new ideas for ways to expand.”

Go read the whole thing . Big thanks to Michael for making it happen.

COMMENTS OPEN