tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15162548742630199842024-03-19T11:52:07.648-04:00Real ThinkingCommentary, observations and ideas about people, how we communicate and how companies try to communicate with us.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-420657229297291502012-01-20T00:02:00.002-05:002012-01-20T00:04:39.128-05:00My new commitment to my blogIt's been over 2-years since I made a post here. The last post was my promise to make more posts. I didn't stick to it. I might not this time around, either. But I'm really going to try. Here's what I think the secret will be: I'm not going to try and post novels.<br /><br />I'm going to post ideas, thoughts and commentaries. Brief ideas, thoughts and commentaries.<br /><br />Maybe no longer than this.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-53933478674866851172010-12-07T15:41:00.003-05:002010-12-07T15:55:46.926-05:00Almost ChristmasChristmas of 2010 and I haven't posted anything since April. Shame on me because I've had many a brilliant thought since then. For instance:<br /><ul><li>AOL was the first Facebook<br /></li><li>Yahoo isn't a search engine</li><li>"The Cloud" is a simple idea that's made really confusing when people try to make it simple</li><li>Bottled water is the single, biggest marketing to consumers-as-gullible-sheep coup ever</li><li>Politics as we know it is a criminal enterprise</li><li>The Internet is getting more and more closed</li><li>It's funny that people think there's still such a thing as "anonymous" browsing</li><li>Twitter's probably really good for nothing</li><li>And it will be gone in 5 years</li><li>Fast food is the new cigarette</li><li>The iPad is the one thing from Apple that I can't talk myself into buying</li><li>There will be a GM renaissance<br /></li><li>There won't be one for Toyota</li></ul>That's it for looking backwards. On to the future and a prolific 2011.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-22816039380733835172010-04-30T08:16:00.005-04:002010-05-10T08:40:52.740-04:00Why Should Apple Care About Adobe?I've been paying some attention to the ongoing grousing between Apple and Adobe because I am a fan of both and a user of both. And, I guess, a consumer of both. There is nothing that really compares to Adobe Creative Suite for creative development and design and there is no better device or interface for anything than those from Apple; I'd rather jab a rusty fork in my eye than have to use Adobe apps (or anything) on a PC. To me, the companies always seemed to be united around a common goal of making stuff that's really good for customers before anything else; they were both premium offerings that were the class of their categories, expensive but worth it. When I heard they were squabbling, I was disappointed and, candidly, more disappointed in Apple than Adobe.<br /><br />I thought that Apple was using it's new-found, broad-based and wide-spread popularity to start (I hate to say it) Microsoft-ing other companies that didn't fall in line with what the company wanted. Why not be a little more Flash-friendly? Why not let your old comrade-in-arms be a bigger part of your grand vision of the future? And beyond Flash, I was concerned that the rift between the two companies would widen to a full-fledged break-up or divorce or whatever, and I'd be left with my fork-in-the-eye alternative of either using CS on a PC or not having the best creative development platform for my Mac.<br /><br />But after reading <a href="http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/">this</a>, I think my fears are unfounded. And I think my ire might have been misdirected. Sure, I know this is from the Apple propaganda machine but I want to believe it. Honestly, Apple has never done anything other than earn my business and loyalty with everything they've done; I have never had a bad, disappointing or negative experience with anything the company has anything to do with. I love every Mac I've ever had; I love the OS and other software they develop to create such a sublime interface between user and hardware; I don't have an iPhone but want one (it's an AT&T thing, not an Apple thing): I love my iPods; and I'm looking for a better reason than "coolness" to buy an iPad, which I'm sure I'd love.<br /><br />The thing that turned my perception around after reading the piece from Mr. Jobs — and after thinking more about how Apple has plowed (and sometimes plodded) through adversity — was that, in the end, I think Apple does everything they do for <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span>. And every other user of anything Apple in the world. And everyone who doesn't use Apple's products but longs for something better. Apple has more or less bucked the conventional wisdom that access to what already exists is better business than making something new and better because it's riskier.<br /><br />Henry Ford is often quoted as saying something akin to "If I'd have listened to consumers, I would have invented a faster horse." I think Apple and Steve Jobs are in that camp, too: inventing great things for consumers that they didn't necessarily know they needed or wanted. And then executing meticulously all aspects about and around whatever that thing is. I don't know if I think Adobe has that in mind: great things I don't even know I need or want.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-33699195456548807662010-04-08T17:59:00.004-04:002010-04-19T08:44:37.588-04:00I Think I'm A Ford FanOr , after reading this <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704479404575087372469421104.html?mod=dist_smartbrief">story in the Wall Street Journal</a>, at least a fan of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mulally">Alan Mulally</a>, the CEO. As a voyeur of the American auto industry crisis, it's hard not to notice how often GM and Chrysler seem to stumble and bumble in, out and around bankruptcy. And how Ford has managed to mostly do the right thing and make smarter choices than their Detroit neighbors. At first I thought it was because Mulally was an outsider but, then again, so is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Whitacre,_Jr.">Ed Whiteacre</a> ( former Chairman and CEO of AT&T) and so was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nardelli">Bob Nardelli</a> (former CEO of The Home Depot) who was brought in by Cerebus Capital to run Chrysler after they acquired it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Marchionne">Sergio Marchionne</a> is a certainly a Detroit outsider albeit not an automotive industry outsider as the CEO of Fiat.<br /><br />So while outsiders now abound in Detroit and the American auto industry, what is it that makes<br /><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_11/b4123038630999.htm">BusinessWeek story</a> so interesting is how so not like a car guy Mulally comes off as. Which is probably why Ford continues to be a better story than the rest of the American auto industry (although I'm pulling hard for all of them and even starting to feel a bit optimistic about GM, too). Ed Whiteacre, in particular, seems like he could have had an entire career at GM and doesn't seem that different from Rick Wagoner and is only having more success because he doesn't own the baggage of too many years at the same company. I don't know if he's really doing much that's so different but he is just free to do it.<br /><br />But the big difference, I think, is that because Ford didn't take bailout money, Ford can continue to run itself like a car company while the others have to run themselves as a government subsidiary. I don't think there's many people, if any, that think that having to include government bureaucracy with giant legacy corporate bureaucracy is going to do anyone any good, particularly the public. And that's the other difference between Ford and the other companies: Ford is still working for it's owners, chiefly shareholders. The other companies are working for the government; how inspiring.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-51473124873259579852010-03-16T18:15:00.004-04:002010-03-17T07:43:16.094-04:00Innovative? Creative? Visionary?I like to think I'm a creative guy: full of ideas, thinking of new things to do and new ways to do things. Heck, I'm even a songwriter and musician. But, as I think more about it, I wonder: Is there's a difference to being creative and being innovative? Or a visionary? And can you be one without being the other? Or is one better than the other or are they just different shades of the same color? I mean, if I write a song — one no ones ever heard before and that sounds like nothing else ever heard — is that innovative or creative? Or am I visionary?<br /><br />Brigham Young University professor Jeff Dyer and others have been doing research (read more <a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2009/09/how_do_innovators_think.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_14636149">here</a>) to understand just what makes the innovators different. Or, more correctly, what do they do different and what can we do to be more innovative in the same game-changing, big idea way. In the article and interview, the words I asked about above show up: creative, visionary, innovator as well as other words that I'd like to associate with myself. But there are also many more practical and pragmatic words used to describe people like Jeff Bezos, AG Lafley, Meg Whitman and Michael Dell (granted, these guys aren't Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso or Elvis Costello, all people I'd call creative, innovative and visionary in an instant). Words like: associating, study, challenge, questioning, observing, experiment, persistence and networking. They also assert that <span id="slt_site"><span id="slt_article">two-thirds of a person's ability to innovate is learned and the other one-third is tied to how the person is hard-wired.<br /><br /></span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil9JQiPbdI_p6gG4vUFoPaedVb39-fCbo-ms0Oeo8lB_NEx1iXFqFnluS_RxUbS5Qy0xIxHgOd4aPJYvJ_ZS8zC80lrQiEwq0PHs9-vExpDJD9MPS2WUf3jDFysi8JuzFj_5KEnCJZ5Ko/s1600-h/brain2.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 134px; height: 123px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil9JQiPbdI_p6gG4vUFoPaedVb39-fCbo-ms0Oeo8lB_NEx1iXFqFnluS_RxUbS5Qy0xIxHgOd4aPJYvJ_ZS8zC80lrQiEwq0PHs9-vExpDJD9MPS2WUf3jDFysi8JuzFj_5KEnCJZ5Ko/s200/brain2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5449566616318245970" border="0" /></a><span id="slt_site"><span id="slt_article">So in my non-academic way of looking at things, I think that I'll choose to agree with one of my questions above: I think that innovative, creative and visionary are different shades of the same color. I'll go a little further and add that I think that you can't be one of these things without being the others and that perhaps it's a chosen vocation or the way these traits are acquired that defines the label: artists are creative, academics are visionary, business people are innovative (although I don't typically like labels and I'm not applying them here).<br /><br />And I take encouragement in the fact that you can work at these things to become better at them or develop them further. Speaking from my experience as a songwriter, I know that my song writing can become less creative if I am not seeking to be innovative and I am less fulfilled in both process and outcome if I am not making an effort to be visionary in crafting something that hasn't been done before.<br /></span></span>JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-6532849555328621412010-03-05T11:15:00.003-05:002010-03-05T11:27:09.802-05:00Blog or Diary<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOwUDCLcnFhjAXnShydRhmFDkPsTnqWLd0CgAuVMmh5zVhoulVLGSAbuQ1b5s83A_K3sZJ_sikmL1PYTygz0L7GYZ_UE0cF6mhzMqF3fCA9rXwuGnJmGLBKa_jGb3ghwoXIMfGHTlwL34/s1600-h/diary-header.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 154px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOwUDCLcnFhjAXnShydRhmFDkPsTnqWLd0CgAuVMmh5zVhoulVLGSAbuQ1b5s83A_K3sZJ_sikmL1PYTygz0L7GYZ_UE0cF6mhzMqF3fCA9rXwuGnJmGLBKa_jGb3ghwoXIMfGHTlwL34/s200/diary-header.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5445186546278422786" /></a>My last post is almost a year old and I don't know if I can honestly tell anyone I blog. Or if I ever blogged. I had an older post where I did a little whining about no one reading my stuff and that, really, since it wasn't read by anyone but me, or more correctly, written by anyone but me, then it is a diary not a blog. And I used that as an excuse to stop writing anything else. I also used that as a reason to use poor grammar and not follow rules like not starting sentences with conjunctions or prepositions.<div><br /></div><div>However, in thinking this through further, I realize that I actually do create and distribute a lot of content, share a lot of opinions and, I'm pretty sure, add some intellectual value to my clients, colleagues and friends. So what I'm going to set out to do as my end of the first quarter resolution is try and centralize all my activities through my blog and see if, finally, I can have more than a diary.</div><div><br /></div><div>I won't kid you (or kid myself since, at this point, this is still a diary) that the pressure is on. That said, my goal is to have a hundred followers by the end of the year. I don't know if that's realistic or not but I first typed in a "few" hundred and then dropped it down. </div><div><br /></div><div>So begins my journey...</div>JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-39305777592107454832009-04-14T11:55:00.003-04:002009-04-14T13:37:53.094-04:00The Less Influential Influential<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWarGz41IQAIoKo_GcDQ4DXRuaFscnBXUVH2ZQDW8jC0B_kP9sEF8haBOJ_X5_YA2lPTtaijWe_8fd9KbuABt44w6HIxw3eyB0MGtgwnbwqFZvgX__aAezCSDP5qO3dZOW2IFo7BpNLN8/s1600-h/soapbox.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 186px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWarGz41IQAIoKo_GcDQ4DXRuaFscnBXUVH2ZQDW8jC0B_kP9sEF8haBOJ_X5_YA2lPTtaijWe_8fd9KbuABt44w6HIxw3eyB0MGtgwnbwqFZvgX__aAezCSDP5qO3dZOW2IFo7BpNLN8/s200/soapbox.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5324597583817246978" border="0" /></a>I found <a href="http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2170">this article</a> from <a href="http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2170">Knowledge@Wharton</a>, the magazine from the <a href="http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/">UPenn B-school</a> of the same name to be incredibly interesting. The key take away for me was, in short, that it is not the person who says, <span style="font-style: italic;">"Listen to me!"</span> that gets listened to the most but rather the person who is asked, <span style="font-style: italic;">"What do you think?"</span>. It makes all the sense in the world but yet it was so eye-opening to see it represented this way.<br /><br />I'd hypothesize that one of the differences in that the self-reported opinion leaders are more focused on themselves and how others perceive them than the Physician 184 types, who are focused and committed to their vocation, interest, cause or what have you. Maybe they're more interested in accomplishment and advancement related to their passion than self accomplishment and self advancement.<br /><br />Particularly interesting to me — and I've been thinking about it a lot as it relates to me, my colleagues — is the thought put forth by one of the researcher that contends "...self-reported opinion leaders are less interested in what others are doing...'I know I'm important. I don't need to care about what other people are doing.' "<br /><br />As stated in the article, "...just because people think they're important doesn't mean it's true." I'll keep my eyes open for the second study to see if it still plays out the way it did in the first one.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-76417402631137597962009-03-15T14:45:00.002-04:002009-03-17T22:57:59.133-04:00Luxury Versus The Empowered ConsumerHere's a link to an <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=101264#comments">article on the Marketing Daily</a> site written by <a href="http://luxurycouncil.com/aboutgregfurman">Greg Furman</a>. I posted a response that's shown at the bottom and thought I'd add a little more here. What I alluded to in my comment on the article but I'll say more boldly here is this: most luxury brands just plain don't have a clue.<br /><br />Why? They look at the world only through a lens of how they perceive themselves; they are the center of the universe. Greg tells us not to worry, that this universe is safe and, at worst, just inconvenienced by the economic turmoil everywhere; if you're a luxury brand, just keep doing what you're doing and the world will come back around.<br /><br />Some other thoughts:<br /><ul><li>If I have a closet full of Armani suits, are they luxuries? Or just my clothes?</li><li>If I spend $2500 a year on new golf clubs because I'm passionate and competitive about the game, is that a luxury or a necessity?</li><li>If I spend a few hundred thousand dollars on a Tesla, a brand that's been around for only a couple of years, how important is heritage?</li><li>By this definition,<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span class="articleText"><span style="font-style: italic;">''the best that the mind of man can imagine and the most sophisticated hand of the virtuoso craftsman can achieve"</span>, i</span>s Juicy Couture a luxury brand?</li></ul>In short, I think luxury brands is a misnomer; what we really have are products and services that people are willing to spend a premium or super-premium price on in order to get some level of satisfaction, gratification, enjoyment or experience from. But that is in the eye of the beholder not the purveyor.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-4834108361958621602008-12-10T09:11:00.002-05:002008-12-12T08:13:42.115-05:00Pork-Barrel AdvertisingIt looks like a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122892559722094925.html?mod=djemalertNEWS">bailout program for Detroit's big three automakers</a> is getting closer to being approved in Washington although it's no done deal yet. And we're all familiar with the many <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BB1B020081212">billions of taxpayer dollars that will be doled out to various financial services firms </a>(what it's being spent on I can't tell you).<br /><br />Not surprisingly, all of this money comes with government involvement in the way these business are actually run. Including, presumably, something of a say — or possibly a big say — in the marketing and marketing budget.<br /><br />Think about the (potentially) imminent "car czar". According to AdAge, this <a href="http://adage.com/article?article_id=133120">car czar would control a media budget upwards of $7.3 billion</a>. That's the biggest media budget of any advertiser in the US. Not to mention agency fees associated with all those (unnecessary?) GM, Ford and Chrysler brands (<span style="font-style: italic;">note: not to be insensitive, but you know all of these numbers will be shrinking</span>).<br /><br />All I can say to this is "Holy shit."<br /><br />Can you imagine what special circle of hell it would be to have the "car czar", the Senate, Congress and White House as a collective client? Imagine trying to get a creative brief approved. Or getting any actual creative work developed, much less approved. Think about all of the special interest groups that would be lining up to get in on the action: film this on my state road; show my biggest campaign contributors in the ads; hell, put me in the ad...I'm a senator; only use the cars from the plants in my state. It could go on endlessly. It will go on endlessly.<br /><br />I'm getting ahead of myself, though. Just think about what's going to happen with product development and design. With the approval ratings of our politicians at the lowest levels ever, it's obvious that they're completely out of touch with the general public and don't seem to have any idea what citizens want.<br /><br />Arrogant, out-of-touch, self-serving people trying to run a business that needs fresh, innovative and compelling thinking.<br /><br />Wait a minute...that's the way the car companies are today. Maybe I'm over reacting; looks like it might be status quo. Let's all sleep easier.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-2170209030360587212008-11-17T22:34:00.010-05:002008-11-17T23:14:13.517-05:00Poor Jerry Yang<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2AIikFGOiOBODYK5Kn3NpP8Tk2DfeVN5VeZcvV6z0A-Om-h7oZUkyqz-Dvl4ehmWufcH4WbCBuHFufIilZr62uBhoxz0zlPBcEdbmFzrAYgd6oAn8FhTTXeI6kXsxM9cYIdvbce5Gk-k/s1600-h/Jerry_Yang.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 165px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2AIikFGOiOBODYK5Kn3NpP8Tk2DfeVN5VeZcvV6z0A-Om-h7oZUkyqz-Dvl4ehmWufcH4WbCBuHFufIilZr62uBhoxz0zlPBcEdbmFzrAYgd6oAn8FhTTXeI6kXsxM9cYIdvbce5Gk-k/s200/Jerry_Yang.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5269845941707138450" border="0" /></a><br />According to pretty much everyone,<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122697024336935679.html"> troubled Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang is leaving troubled Yahoo</a>. Hard to say whether he was a victim of poor timing (trying to do big deals in a deal-averse market), supremely arrogant or a little out of touch with what the rest of the world (read: board) wanted but, whatever the reason, things just weren't working out.<br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br />And compounding Mr. Yang's misfortune, his timing for departure was off by some matter of months so that, if there is any justice in the world, he won't receive a<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16469224/"> Bob Nardelli-esque payout</a> on the way out the door.<br /><br />Thinking in terms of time and money, it probably would have been a better deal for Yahoo investors had Mr. Yang departed a year or so earlier, received a big payout but left some value in the company in terms some sort of deal with a Google or Microsoft. It might have stung some but at least it would have been a lopsided swap of millions for billions.<br /><br />Lastly, I have to say that I have only seen Jerry Yang on WSJ's website tonight and in the photo above from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Yang">Wikipedia</a>. That said, I am a huge fan of the comb-over/comb-back being sported in this photo; I'm putting money on white socks to round out the ensemble.<br /><br />PS — please don't confuse this Jerry Yang for that <a href="http://www.jerryyangpoker.com/">Jerry Yang</a>.<br /></div>JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-81843361913819986052008-11-06T22:16:00.003-05:002008-11-06T23:03:11.880-05:00Please Notice Me<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiscHYfy2trizW_DlyvxyTFHPkGD9D3oXcBxCdL5npsb3hVQfw4Z6PyN4hmuJdjj4IsfQLgcYbnUmix59wRL4EIg2A4llsOS7MlYB_51A_GCWl5GyZZRVqwR2DSscJ0CvwxjrtmUwCUWKo/s1600-h/jumpyoufackersuo1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 134px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiscHYfy2trizW_DlyvxyTFHPkGD9D3oXcBxCdL5npsb3hVQfw4Z6PyN4hmuJdjj4IsfQLgcYbnUmix59wRL4EIg2A4llsOS7MlYB_51A_GCWl5GyZZRVqwR2DSscJ0CvwxjrtmUwCUWKo/s200/jumpyoufackersuo1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5265761086309377314" border="0" /></a><br />This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a while: <a href="http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/850501/Agencies-slam-branding-700bn-bailout-plan/">Agencies slam branding of $700 billion bailout plan.</a> Seriously? Better 'branding' would have made this plan more appealing to Americans who are watching their retirement accounts and home equity evaporate? Maybe a logo and tagline slapped on it would have made all of those Bear Stearns employees feel a little less stung as they carried their belongings out of their offices for the last time. Honestly, I think that Wall Street and Main Street are only separated by the absence of a clever positioning statement.<br /><br />And who better than a bunch of advertising agency people to take care of it? Hopefully, the new president, who seems to be very bright and capable, will take some of these wizards and put them in some cabinet posts so they can bring their un-self-importance and wide vision to the issues. I brand them patriots. I brand myself a sarcastic ass.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-45976532942629454382008-11-06T12:18:00.005-05:002008-11-06T13:20:39.314-05:00Here's a crazy idea...Why not start charging a premium for placement of shitty creative, whether online or offline, traditional or emerging? That way, really good stuff, stuff people enjoy and happily engage with is cheaper (even free?) and easier to place in front of people. And they'll see value in it being there.<br /><br />On the flip side, lousy stuff — the kind that makes people change channels and leave web sites — would cost a ton and be more difficult to put in front of people. You know, put a little burden on the marketers and advertisers of the world to really think about the consumer (of media, and goods and services) as opposed to just themselves?<br /><br />For instance, as the creator and owner of Office Space, I'm going to charge Swiffer extra money to show that stupid commercial with a broom sending flowers to a woman at home ...make them pay for the privilege of driving away my hard won viewers.<br /><br />On the flip side, maybe I'll charge Apple less because their spots keep my viewers interested and actually make a little sense in terms of the content of my show. So, they help me keep my viewers engaged and entertained. How about that?JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-53068131377071375402008-09-29T13:47:00.002-04:002008-09-29T13:50:24.903-04:00A Silver LiningThere's an upside to most everything and the current US economic crisis is no different. For instance, for the enterprising web guy, how about registering all the domain names for merged banks. According to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7621647.stm">this article</a>, this practice is already underway but, given the new happenings every day, it looks like there is still a chance to get ahead of the curve.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-38880496862561867822008-09-15T08:24:00.002-04:002008-09-15T08:34:22.009-04:00Better Than The Tax Incentive?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0_lsvcCxWDy88yvaHkHIXOLJDoRtP-EGXk56HIQXnYEba1BN-X75p3uNW5a1syDKLKQIEPOa4LfmZ0TbPuAtgx1GRTnyxEqAD6men2_hsUHPDgWBudbYHNLmOe7nfrouIMkFacfGom6g/s1600-h/walmart_greeter2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0_lsvcCxWDy88yvaHkHIXOLJDoRtP-EGXk56HIQXnYEba1BN-X75p3uNW5a1syDKLKQIEPOa4LfmZ0TbPuAtgx1GRTnyxEqAD6men2_hsUHPDgWBudbYHNLmOe7nfrouIMkFacfGom6g/s200/walmart_greeter2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5246225205836360818" border="0" /></a><br />Surprise,<a href="http://walmartstores.com/"> Wal-Mart</a> is back to <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.san&s=90567&Nid=47246&p=204573">advertising low prices</a>. It's good to clarify that because everyone was starting to think of the world's biggest retailer as a fashion house. Or some provider of high-end what-ever's. What I thought was interesting, though, was that by shopping and saving at Wal-Mart could save families (or individuals, too, I guess) up to $700 a year. For many, that's more money than they received as part of the governments economic stimulus package. I wonder how far a buck could be stretched if a person's economic stimulus check was spent only at Wal-Mart.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-49633729687665403052008-08-16T11:14:00.003-04:002008-08-16T11:22:58.598-04:00Back From The Dead<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFNMvBKBrerPv6nU339stABKuA4HbfPmX3xbVhYRX-RupCg0haUDXVPKGFy7kMLjv2krvmhSr6GSYX_nHGUx-IXa94g78qa4C7L7d0EKC79axToGzy3P9wX9a8uAYgsVkeOcaEIexfHu0/s1600-h/charge_1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFNMvBKBrerPv6nU339stABKuA4HbfPmX3xbVhYRX-RupCg0haUDXVPKGFy7kMLjv2krvmhSr6GSYX_nHGUx-IXa94g78qa4C7L7d0EKC79axToGzy3P9wX9a8uAYgsVkeOcaEIexfHu0/s200/charge_1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5235136138747796114" border="0" /></a>Not that anyone every really noticed that I posted to this site. Or that I had been on a nearly year long hiatus (except my friend Chad who actually read this stuff and said he missed it.True, Chad? Or just feeling sorry for me?). But I am going to give it another go and see if I can get a little more traction personally and, perhaps, with others in the wide world of the web.<br /><br />Granted, this is some what of a shuffling step forward toward my grand ambitions of shouting into the wind and actually being heard but it's a step nonetheless. So off I go. I would welcome any company at all.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-6170817404340617822007-09-25T13:39:00.001-04:002007-09-25T14:28:12.318-04:00A Moment Of Honest Contemplation...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ0VoyumkSQp07pZt04aEfP4eLKHTWB0S28fzxnhx77ULryswpmOONZ7uECVPZ3kaDZW7ZBS3KGAAMb5GlJ-mQtacwgOwee0GXlEAWqg_pNNgUsxw_sFehFgkYGOn2C6XOQPTwIfKoAzU/s1600-h/thinker.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ0VoyumkSQp07pZt04aEfP4eLKHTWB0S28fzxnhx77ULryswpmOONZ7uECVPZ3kaDZW7ZBS3KGAAMb5GlJ-mQtacwgOwee0GXlEAWqg_pNNgUsxw_sFehFgkYGOn2C6XOQPTwIfKoAzU/s200/thinker.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5114201075093329346" border="0" /></a>I don't presume to believe that there is anyone out there waiting for me to post my next post. I don't even pretend that there are that many people interested in reading my old posts. Or that I matter that much to anyone but my family and friends (who won't read my blog because they don't care about what I write about). But I can speak truthfully that, when I began this blog of mine, I had every intention of keeping it fresh and adding content on a regular basis.<br /><br />Believe it or not, I had planned to add a post daily. I thought that I had that much to share and that it would be so easy to spend a little bit of time every day and express my views, thoughts and ideas. But I was mistaken. As it turns out, my posts have been about as frequent as a bar mitzvah invitations for the president of Iran.<br /><br />I want to say it's because I am focusing on quality not quantity but that would only be part of the answer. Or I could kid myself into thinking that it's because I am too busy but that's not only part of it, too. But the real reason I dropped off so fast is this: my fragile ego.<br /><br />I wrote posts that I thought were intelligent, insightful, relevant and well researched. I put in what I believed were clever images and even a little humor. In short, I was proud of my efforts and was sure that others would enjoy reading them as much as I had enjoyed writing them. My posts would serve as catalysts for a thoughtful dialog about things like business, marketing, communications or even society.<br /><br />But that, it turns out, is not the case (or not yet, at least). The painful truth is, I don't know if anyone at all reads what I write. If anyone does, none of them add to it (OK, so a couple of people have). And I think this is the case for many, if not most, blogs; people put them up and they put stuff on them for themselves. Maybe they want to be part of the next, newest, greatest thing. Maybe they hope that their blog will become "hot" like so many (or few) others.<br /><br />Or maybe they think that it's important to be a voice whether you get heard or not. And I guess that might be the best thing about this medium: it is a forum for any and all who want to make the effort. And I, for one, have reconciled my delusional aspirations with that fact and pledge to make more of an effort and throw my voice on the wind and see if it lands on any ears. Or eyes.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-49683811262570603572007-06-12T08:37:00.000-04:002007-06-12T09:57:08.867-04:00"Industry Executives" Are So Smart<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijgY9P5_lRMhw_gSvYXsfRRIM31Kf2xqEpN953yJ3hDPD6mmFlB5ufeahxY2f-saPjZcvVR02W_OSZuTSaFN4Ivg2lFASCwN2e0QAx9kLax8LVeCxH13ZTeFTboS1fiDMV1FZ03XW2uow/s1600-h/TV.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijgY9P5_lRMhw_gSvYXsfRRIM31Kf2xqEpN953yJ3hDPD6mmFlB5ufeahxY2f-saPjZcvVR02W_OSZuTSaFN4Ivg2lFASCwN2e0QAx9kLax8LVeCxH13ZTeFTboS1fiDMV1FZ03XW2uow/s200/TV.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5075161031976155266" border="0" /></a><a href="http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=62192&Nid=31265&p=204573">Amazingly provocative.</a> The big brains of media have gotten together and some exciting, insightful, brilliant thinking has emerged: people will ignore or avoid advertising that isn't relevant. In this case, we are talking about people who watch TV. Of course, I am simplifying this because most <span>normal-brained</span> people couldn't comprehend what it takes, intellectually, to come to such amazing conclusion. But a pack of "industry executives" at the <a href="http://www.digitalhollywood.com/">Digital Hollywood</a> conference managed to figure it out.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, "all agreed on the demise of traditional TV ads." And that TiVo, with it's fast-forwarding capabilities "represents a huge problem for traditional TV advertising."<br /><br />Some other gems:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> "... right message in the right content. Google's business was founded on that."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> "... "I don't think a brand marketer can establish a deep connection" when the viewer is fast-forwarding.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> "... television," is "increasingly delivered digitally."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> "... user-generated content is proving much harder to monetize than "premium" or professional content on the Web."</span><br /><br />Amazingly, I was able to get all of this intellectual capital from one story covering this obviously monumental conference. Imagine how much wisdom was dispensed over three days...it boggles the mind. Unless you are one of these sharp "industry executives" who are starting to sound more like the ubiquitous <span style="font-style: italic;">guy</span>, as in, "my washing machine's broken...better call the guy." No, my friends, this type of heavy mental lifting is definitely better left to the professionals.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-51429126423680939512007-06-04T14:51:00.000-04:002007-06-05T00:17:00.473-04:00Don't Blame The Advertising<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpLbta2HskF5mXCXyzs8f78o5Bwt4EorLSrc7442ROW4JrW-Q6KKyIUEdksn46Zqmnid6wMyXKj9CDhsZbubpifOXFw_hP8a-t1APZzdGJft6TelgCnJUb4E5k7JnS5xlD_3xFffG3SUc/s1600-h/childrenschart.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpLbta2HskF5mXCXyzs8f78o5Bwt4EorLSrc7442ROW4JrW-Q6KKyIUEdksn46Zqmnid6wMyXKj9CDhsZbubpifOXFw_hP8a-t1APZzdGJft6TelgCnJUb4E5k7JnS5xlD_3xFffG3SUc/s320/childrenschart.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5072428599552243826" border="0" /></a>According to a <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/2007/06/index.shtm">new study</a> from the <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/">FTC</a>, advertisers might not be to blame for the childhood obesity epidemic. According to Michael Salinger, director of the bureau of economics at the FTC, "I think childhood obesity is a major problem. But I think the study casts doubt on whether food advertising is the main culprit." As a matter of fact, according to the Federal Trade Commission, children ages 2-11 were exposed to <span style="font-style: italic;">fewer</span> paid TV food advertising minutes, at about 9% fewer ads — 5,538 commercials in 2004 versus 6,100 food ads in 1977.<br /><br />But before there are too many back slaps and hearty handshakes of self-congratulations, let's not overlook another difference between 2007 and 1977: the Internet.<br /><br />In 1977, there were no web sites for kid foods, kid restaurants or kid menu items. There weren't web sites for any food, restaurants or menu items for that matter.<br /><br />But today:<br /><ul><li>A Google search for Happy Meal returns 5,320,000 results</li><li>A Google search for McDonald's delivers 15,200,000 results</li><li>Go to Disney.com and click on content for <a href="http://home.disney.go.com/foryou/boys/">boys</a>, <a href="http://home.disney.go.com/foryou/girls/">girls</a> or <a href="http://home.disney.go.com/foryou/kidsandteens/">kids and teens</a> and see ads for Cheetos, Honeycomb and Frosted Flakes cereals<br /></li><li><a href="http://www.nick.com/">Nickelodeon</a> features a Baby Bottle Pop promotion. <a href="http://www.nickjr.com/">Nick, Jr.</a> and <a href="http://www.noggin.com/">Noggin</a> feature McDonald's salads since, presumably, moms help their toddlers and preschoolers surf the Internet — and work up an appetite doing it.<br /></li><li><a href="http://www.yahoo.com/">Yahoo</a> features Mt. Dew promotions (<a href="http://www.yahoo.com/">games</a><a href="http://www.yahoo.com/">, </a><a href="http://www.yahoo.com/">music</a>) tied to the Transformers movie release<br /></li><li>Checking on the <a href="http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1561562&vid=151702"><span style="font-style: italic;">Most Talked About Moments</span></a> from the <span style="font-style: italic;">2007 MTV Movie Awards</span> featured a :30 Taco Bell commercial. Banners were also featured prominently (on reloads, it was Ghost Rider)<br /></li><li><a href="http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=music&MyToken=13d01915-20b6-42cd-8006-2e21ef6e7833">MySpace music</a> features Dr. Pepper</li><li>AOL Games features a Hillshire Farm-sponsored <a href="http://shrek.aol.com/main.php">Shrek game</a> (what?)<a href="http://shrek.aol.com/main.php"><br /></a></li><li><a href="http://www.noggin.com/">Noggin.com</a> pushes McDonald's salads to moms (since it's a preschooler site and kids and moms probably access it together)</li><li><a href="http://www.candystand.com/">Candystand.com</a>, sponsored by Wrigley's is loaded with games, as is the <a href="http://www.wonka.com/">Willy Wonka Candy Factory</a></li><li><a href="http://www.postopia.com/">Postopia.com </a>is the Post cereals game site<br /></li></ul>It goes on and on; virtually every kid food product (really, every kid product) has an online presence to engage and entice the children of today. This is important because, according to the <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/index.asp">Pew Internet and American Life Project</a> report entitled <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/162/report_display.asp">Teens and Technology</a> (07/27/2005), the number of teenagers using the internet has grown 24% in the past four years and 87% of those between the ages of 12 and 17 are online. Compared to four years ago, teens’ use of the internet has intensified and broadened as they log on more often and do more things when they are online. And according to <a href="http://new.marketwire.com/2.0/rel.jsp?id=700704">Nielsen/NetRatings</a>, the amount of time spent online by kids 2 - 11 has increased 41% in the last 3 years.<br /><br />And according to <a href="http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/06/01/ftc_study_looks_at_kids_and_tv_food_ads/">Susan Linn</a>, a Harvard psychologist and spokeswoman for the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, whether kids are seeing fewer ads on TV isn't the issue. Newer forms of advertising, such as product placements in movies and TV shows, Internet ads and product tie-ins between popular movies and fast food restaurants makes the volume of TV ads "kind of meaningless," Linn says. "Just because children may view fewer television ads in no way means that they're being advertised or marketed to less," she said.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji1bI43NCbcs7kg_Ful7Y9rqIYmQhTtGpEBOZqcqsaUlO3gBG54qV0bdeYxuoUnrc2Q0yIZOGMSkKAGoNklX3p37rpekSu8c7GQEE3klGNAovZgAce47hQDsFYX0xuycSu04T2t9j015c/s1600-h/41AZMTX81BL._SS400_.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 144px; height: 144px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji1bI43NCbcs7kg_Ful7Y9rqIYmQhTtGpEBOZqcqsaUlO3gBG54qV0bdeYxuoUnrc2Q0yIZOGMSkKAGoNklX3p37rpekSu8c7GQEE3klGNAovZgAce47hQDsFYX0xuycSu04T2t9j015c/s200/41AZMTX81BL._SS400_.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5072427968192051298" border="0" /></a><br />So are marketers and agencies breathing a collective sigh of relief after being (slightly) exonerated for causing childhood obesity? Or are they saying, "True, it's not the TV advertising; we've just finally cracked the code on truly integrated marketing."?<br /><br />Believe me, I don't think that advertising, no matter how good or integrated, is causing obesity in children or adults. Does it play a role? Probably but not that significant of one. Can it play a role in helping to turn the tide? Absolutely. More to come on the subjects of obesity and the role of marketers.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-76967339433848482802007-05-14T08:30:00.000-04:002007-06-05T00:15:45.930-04:00Fragmentation or Focus?In media and communications, you can't help but be bombarded with doom and gloom messages regarding media fragmentation. Fragmentation, in this instance, refers to the fragmentation of the audiences for various media and the impact it has on the ability of the media outlets to make money selling advertising.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyW-FeAtZVtDrB6hS094dDYH8wUcxhXWxgDYHgC6z8FT1j6N0S-jbR2r0Myzf9TCwDFDpYNCr8gtd5gauvp2SQpc9IjpQ2GQTU4ExYpnbgmm-AUWdUQIo7ZzNZ_Gb0ob8fbdIVcxnr5-g/s1600-h/grenade.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyW-FeAtZVtDrB6hS094dDYH8wUcxhXWxgDYHgC6z8FT1j6N0S-jbR2r0Myzf9TCwDFDpYNCr8gtd5gauvp2SQpc9IjpQ2GQTU4ExYpnbgmm-AUWdUQIo7ZzNZ_Gb0ob8fbdIVcxnr5-g/s320/grenade.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5066082724858254834" border="0" /></a><br />You see, back in the good old days, you could count on millions of consumers showing up at places and times determined by networks, publishers and the marketers who funded them. It was so comforting and reliable. But with the relentless and growing wave of technology (beginning with the remote control), those huge flocks of consumers began behaving less and less like sheep and more and more like what they were: individuals with their own likes, dislikes, tastes and interests.<br /><br />So, in the minds of those entities who take it upon themselves to determine what we see, hear and read, fragmentation is an abomination to the model they created and perpetuated for so long.<br /><br />Truly, they built it and come we did. And happiness and satisfaction was in abundance. But, as is in nature, capitalism and businsss change is inevitable and the model began to evolve. As individuals and societies grew wealthier, enterprises developed and adapted to relieve them of their wealth. And as the number and variety of goods and services increased to compete for the attention of the consumer's dollar, the attention of the consumer began to focus on where their money was going; was it going to what was best for them? To the best value? To the most entertaining? In short, the consumer began to focus on what <span style="font-style: italic;">they needed and wanted</span> as opposed to what was simply available.<br /><br />So, in a round about way, I've finally gotten to the idea of focus rather than fragmentation. The world of media has not become fragmented — it's become much more focused; focused around the indvidual as opposed to the entity, focused around context as much as content. Because of the internet, TiVo, VOD, mobile communications and any number of other technologies, the individual cannot only find exactly what they want but get it exactly when they want it. They can move with soul singularity of purpose or gather and congregrate around a shared idea. Or create the idea and advance it.<br /><br />But what is not needed in many – if not all — of these instances is a commercial sponsor. Perhaps the opportunity for the old-model players mentioned earlier in this post is to adopt and outside looking in view of the world as opposed to an inside looking out; you are whining about fragmentation while the world around you is embracing the freedom offered by free-flowing information, entertainment, commerce and communication.JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-67887669079734445972007-05-10T11:22:00.000-04:002007-05-11T08:15:54.522-04:00Finally...a "unique sonic brand" from USA Networks<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH3O1WM5e5IYI13WQVeLcntP8IGHxEyrAT5wBNhWs8ON1wbq2kR31FL6C0cvc1QVLXP1JqJuwOnNSQ23YVMaqWdo0Y-DqJ2D6EjSUFx8GJX74UyMAdtd7hNIa6EEob8gGaq8Je_N9M_eM/s1600-h/listen_girl.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH3O1WM5e5IYI13WQVeLcntP8IGHxEyrAT5wBNhWs8ON1wbq2kR31FL6C0cvc1QVLXP1JqJuwOnNSQ23YVMaqWdo0Y-DqJ2D6EjSUFx8GJX74UyMAdtd7hNIa6EEob8gGaq8Je_N9M_eM/s320/listen_girl.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5063275732855017042" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Thank God it's finally here: <a href="http://www.usanetwork.com/">USA Network's</a> "unique sonic brand." This thanks to a <a href="http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=60127&Nid=30265&p=204573">deal</a> between Yahoo and USA Network in which the two companies will join forces to promote emerging artists and share in resulting revenue. According to Chris McCumber, U</span><span style="font-family:verdana;">SA's senior vice president of marketing and brand strategy, </span><span style="font-family:verdana;">this "innovative partnership has the potential to create a new model for the way musical artists are discovered and developed." <span style="font-style: italic;">(note to Chris: sonic branding refers to audible brand signals like the 3-note Intel sound or AOL's "you've got mail.")</span><br /><br />In this arrangement, <a href="http://music.yahoo.com/">Yahoo Radio</a> will identify unsigned artists with high listenership and pass them on to USA where they can be signed by <a href="http://www.nbcuni.com/">NBC Universal</a> (what NBC Universal will sign them to I can only guess; they don't have a record label. Did I mention most musicians want recording contracts?). While this is no doubt an oversimplification of the process, you can see why it's so important; it's not enough that consumers have already identified these artists as being relevant by listening to their music and, most likely, shared their selections with their friends and cohorts.<br /><br />No, to really work, it has to make some uninvolved third (or fourth or fifth) party money. Only in this instance, the uninvolved party is making it's money on the backs of the consumers who have taken over the role of the traditional record company A&R guy (again, I haven't been able to track down the record label in this mix; the relevance of record labels will be a post for another day).<br /><br />Yahoo Radio is a great offering; it's easy to find and easy to use. You can listen to a lot of music, create your own station, see videos (already better than MTV) and share the things you like. There are lots of artists, both well known and not so well known so it's pretty obvious why USA/NBC Universal would want to hop on this bandwagon. And the promise of creating a "unique sonic brand" is so enticing.<br /><br />But for the consumer and the artist, what's the upside to a "sonic brand" from USA? Are they going to distribute music? That's already going on. Are they going to become a label? That business is proving less and less relevant. Are they going to put these artists on TV? Well, it won't be the Monkee's but TV distribution is ultimately what the end game probably is.<br /><br />So, in a round about way, USA/NBC Universal is telling the audience of Yahoo Radio to get the hell away from that computer and get in front of your TV! Which is a further round about way of saying what you want to do is not as important as what we want to do: make money off of you.<br /><br />I just can't wait until we start getting some unique visual brands for radio.<br /><br /></span>JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1516254874263019984.post-36861014940392541022007-05-09T14:33:00.001-04:002007-05-20T15:54:52.197-04:00No more fast forward...<span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:100%;" >Today</span><span style=";font-family:verdana;font-size:100%;" > I <a href="http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=60052&Nid=30218&p=204573">read</a> that ABC and ESPN (parent company: <a href="http://corporate.disney.go.com/index.html">Walt Disney Co.</a>) has put together a deal with <a href="http://www.cox.com/">Cox Communications</a> regarding their video-on-demand service that will effectively disable the fast-forward function on programs like "Desparate Housewives", "Grey's Anatomy", "Lost", and "Ugly Betty". Granted, these programs are available for viewing the <span style="font-style: italic;">day after</span> they run in their regular time slot but I have to wonder...<br /><br />Cox's consumer customers pay a fee for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand">VOD</a> service that has certain features and benefits that they (the customer) have determined are worth a premium price. Now, Cox has decided that the needs and wants of their business customer (Disnsey, ABC, ESPN) are more important so they are, in effect, changing the offering for their consumers to satisfy their business customers.<br /><br />Now I love cable TV. I love TV in general. But I would bet my hard earned cash that Cox didn't mention to their consumer customers that they were changing their offering. I'll bet they never asked them if they'd mind a change in the offering. And I'd bet even more they never said, "Look, we're making this deal and it's going to change the way the service you pay for works; you won't be able to fast-forward for certain shows. If you want to be able to fast-forward with the service you pay for, there are other offerings out there that will let you like a satellite service or competing cable provider; you should go there."<br /><br />The president of advertising sales for ABC, Mike Shaw, says that cable operators "are in the same business we're in", that being the business of selling ads. But here's sort of the rub: if you're in the business of selling ads, then the programming should be free for consumers, as it is, for the most part, on network TV. I know cable costs money but that is my next point.<br /><br />Cable operators are in the business of selling access — not ads. Cable subscribers pay for access to the infrastructure that the cable companies have built. Networks also fund that infrastructure by paying to access it as a means to delivering their content (ad funded) to consumers; it's a cyclical thing.<br /><br />But what Disney, ABC, ESPN and Cox are missing is that they are trying to force an outdated model and method of thinking on a progressive and independent consumer; a consumer that has made a decision to assert some control over something that was previously out of their control.<br /><br />Part of the reasoning that makes Cox and Disney think they can devalue the consumer role at this point is that VOD and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_video_recorder">DVR</a> have a low penetration into consumer households and that, at this point, there are fewer people to piss off. I think that this is a bad idea and a bad precedent if other cable operators, satellite operators, and others, adopt this thinking and approach.<br /><br />It seems appropriate to insert this quote from, of all things, the movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/">Network</a>: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"<br /></span>JD Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15249841409644646093noreply@blogger.com0