Attention

We "new media" types (myself included) tend to downplay the importance of attention and "eyeballs" when it comes to marketing. "It's all about engagement" we say. "You need a deep, ongoing conversation" we insist.

But sometimes something comes along to show that simply being in the public eye is vitally important to successfully communicating a message or making a point.

Currently, it's the swine flu. Media outlets, governments, bloggers, and everybody else with a voice seem to be falling over themselves to talk about it. In fact, as I was writing this post, a couple of people knocked on my door to tell me all about the "fact" that this epidemic was foretold.

The topic has lots of attention, yet virtually no depth. It's a disease like many others. In the grand scheme of things, it's not much of a danger to the general public (even if and when it gets much much worse) compared to a gazillion other potential hazards that surround us every day. Statistically, even if it's as bad as SARS or the avian flu, the number of deaths it will cause worldwide will be less than a single large plane crash or apartment fire. And I don't mean to be cruel, but it's also worth noting that many of these deaths will occur in places where disease of all kinds is rampant and medical services are lacking.

Disease isn't the only thing that captures our attention like this, of course. There's Missing White Woman Syndrome, for one. For some reason, a big story was shark attacks in Florida a couple of years ago. And of course there's celebrity gossip -- something with absolutely no depth or value whatsoever.

There's no question, though, that the attention that these topics garner is valuable, despite a lack of engagement. Health care facilities are mobilized, search parties organized, Sheriff Brody gets a bigger boat, and People magazine sells millions of copies.

From a marketing perspective, this is old school advertising at its finest. Make a big enough deal about something, spend enough time and effort and money telling everyone you can reach how important it is, and hopefully people actually start to believe it. It doesn't seem to matter how true this importance really is, though.

The down side (besides the expense and the massive potential for failure) is that it's very short term. By this time next year, people will be rolling their eyes at swine flu just like they do at SARS. Actually, this is already happening. There's a nice level of skepticism out there. Maybe some of the masses are finally starting to clue in that every "big story" or "NEW and EXCITING INNOVATION!!!" isn't necessarily any such thing.

Line Ups

It's the end of an in-person experience with a large retail brand: time to pay.

You walk up to the checkout area and have your choice of three or four lines. Which one do you choose? The shortest? The one where customers only have a couple of items each? The one where the customers look to be primarily young-and-busy-and-kind-of-in-a-hurry types?

The easy answer: it doesn't matter, because you'll probably pick the wrong one. All it takes is a scanner to malfunction, a customer to try writing a personal cheque, or any number of other problems.

What I want to know is:
Why don't more retailers have "bank style" line ups?
Everybody gets in a single line and are then called over to the next available clerk.

Does it take up extra floor space to do this? Is it more difficult for the staff? I can see it being a problem at locations where customers are trying to maneuver big carts filled with awkward items (home improvement stores, for example), but most places...?

Unfortunately, the "supermarket style" is far more common.

Anybody have any insight? Do most retailers even think about this and consider "bank style" as an option?

Co-Branded Ads?

I'm a little surprised that we aren't seeing more cross promotions as brands try to cut marketing costs without sacrificing their marketing plans.

Here's a starter idea for you creative types:
Combine car and grocery chain ads. Instead of demonstrating cargo space by filling the trunk of a car with generic brown bags, show the vehicle parked in front of an actual grocery store. Feature a smiling and helpful store employee helping to load the bags, and... bam! Two positive brand impressions for the price of one!

Just watch... Soon you'll see kids wearing the latest Wal-Mart fashions while playing at a McDonald's. Or formerly-flustered housewives having time to relax with a cool and refreshing Diet Sprite because they've changed laundry detergents to new Double Ultra Cheer.

If companies are going to insist on running old-fashioned P&G-style-formulaic-product-demo ads, they might as well save a little money in the process by sharing costs, right?

Fight Fire With Fire,

By now, you may have seen the YouTube video featuring a couple of Domino's Pizza employees being disgusting (i.e. doing exactly what everyone fears/assumes fast food employees do). It didn't take long for this video to spread widely and, obviously, harm Domino's reputation.



Domino's has apologized using the same medium that caused the problem -- posting a video on YouTube featuring their president. It's very well done, with a lot of honesty and openness (such as identifying the location in the above video), and his feelings about the situation are quite clear.



I'd love to see the company take this a step further, though.

How about encouraging the other Domino's locations to produce their own videos, showing just how clean, fun, and healthy their stores are? Or challenging dedicated Domino's lovers (there must be some out there) to show why they love the brand?

A video press release is a great start, but it's only using a social media platform, not actually being "social".

Domino's is a good position to show that, as a brand, they're the good guys. Support from a few thousand employees and customers would strongly reinforce this.

Definitions

I've been seeing a lot of misuse of various digital marketing terms lately, so I thought I'd compile some of the most common infractions into a master list. Feel free to add on.

"Banner Ads"
Alright, this one I'm starting to accept. I give up.
Technically, a "banner" is a 468x60 px ad unit.
What people are actually referring to should more appropriately be called a "Web display ad" or similar, though.

"PPC"
Literally an abbreviation for "Pay Per Click", this term is often used to specifically describe paid placements on search engine results (and related networks). Although this is not exactly wrong, it is very limiting. A wide range of other online advertising methods are also available on a per click basis.

"Social Media"
Another one that's not exactly wrong, but is out of scope. Social Media should refer to the broad concepts of consumer-generated content and consumer-to-consumer interaction/communication. Unfortunately, many people seem to confuse this term with "Social Network", which specifically refers to media properties that are made up of groups of users. These networks do tend to use Social Media principles, but there are countless non-network properties and tools that should be considered "Social Media".

"Web 2.0"
It means nothing anymore. Stop using it. This term once referred to some particular changes in technology and user behaviour. But it's been so over-used to describe anything innovative that it's now meaningless.

"Hit"
An oldie, but a goodie. A "hit" is a single call to a server. NOT a visit to a Web site or use of a digital tool. A page with a hundred images on it would have 100 hits with a single visit, for example.


How's that for a start?

New Laws

A bit of a rant today...

I don't understand why new laws are constantly introduced to reflect changes in technology.

For example, lawmakers and various "rights" advocates are getting all lawmake-y about Google Streetview. But isn't it covered by some of our country's gazillion existing laws?

Photography's not new.
Distribution systems aren't new.
Public places aren't new.
Archives aren't new.

Why do we need to treat something that simply combines all these things in a new, easy to use way as if it's a completely foreign concept?

Or, another example:
Many places are looking at introducing new laws to outlaw not just cell phones in general, but texting in particular while driving.

Is this really necessary? I agree with the idea behind this type of restriction, but there are plenty of existing laws about exercising "due care and attention" while driving. Whether I'm distracted by a cell phone, a pretty cloud in the sky, a crying baby, or a Nickelback song on the radio (thus requiring me to change stations immediately), the basic fact is that I'm distracted. The person I swerve my car into doesn't care what distracted me.

Phonetic Branding?

By now, you may have already heard about how the "Sci Fi" cable TV network has changed its brand identity to "Syfy".

It's supposed to be edgy, I guess. And according to press releases "...broadens perceptions and embraces a wider and more diverse range of imagination-based entertainment..."

Ho-kay.

Public response has been predictable, with many people disliking the idea completely... and the majority seeming to be not-too-impressed. And now, there's some debate about who is actually responsible -- the agency or the client. According to a recent blog post, the agency are graciously shifting the blame... uh, I mean kudos... to the client.

Personally, if they insisted on this change, I would have suggested at least a slight difference like "Psi-Fi" or something that actually has an alternative meaning, rather than trying to invent a new word.

Amazingly, SyFy is being followed by other TV station re-brands, announced this morning.

National Geographic Channel has announced that they will now be known as "GeoSociety". Okay, that makes some sense.

Animal Planet is changing its name, though, to "HanImaPlant".
And its sister station Discovery is becoming "Very Disco".

Sure to upset certain groups (and maybe that's the idea), Fox News is rebranding as "9/11 Forever". Slightly more subtle is Comedy Central's switch to "Komedy Centraal".

In an age when traditional media are struggling for survival, these are some very bold and strange moves.

Will April 1st, 2009 be known as the day that cable TV imploded?