Trump Is Just Being Trumpy

Today, I was asked what effect Donald Trump’s supposed presidential run is having on his personal brand.

In my opinion, Trump’s flirtation with the presidency doesn’t impact his brand value one way or the other.  This is because – whether he originally intended it or not – Trump has had a bifurcated brand for years.

Trump has a business side and a farcical side. The farcical or “personality” side is what’s enabled him to create (and – hello – publicize) entertainment properties, because it drives him to behave in an entertaining way.  In his real life, he’s a paunchy, weird-haired real estate guy, so to be entertaining, he needs to be over the top.  Brad Pitt can just stand still and attract attention; Trump cannot. Donald’s got to jump up and down to draw interest.

This means that people expect to see Trump behaving in an outlandish sort of way, so his “presidential bid” isn’t new news: it’s just The Donald being wacky again.

Therefore, his recent jaunt through Kookytown (a) doesn’t impact people who expect it (and that would be everyone by now), and (b) wouldn’t put off anyone who actually wants to do real business with the Trump Organization (those who ignore stunts and would be interested only in the deal they were getting), so… this is Donald Trump status quo.

Let’s clarify: I loathe what’s happening and agree with The New Yorker’s David Remnick regarding the reasons for Trump’s behavior.  But that wasn’t the question and, unfortunately, our pseudo-celebrity culture – in which many don’t think any deeper about a person’s character than what dress she wore to court – will simply bump along the surface before moving on to its next source of amusement.

Stephanie Fierman Gives Her Seat To Darth Vader

Branding gets a bad rap.  I’ve always thought this was fascinating because – without branding – there would be little else in the world of consumption.  That’s because a “brand” can be defined as what a product, place or person means to you: it’s the place in the mind occupied by our real or anticipated experience with that person or thing.  And it drives many of our decisions. 

Think of it this way.  You get up in the morning.  The soap and toothpaste you use, the cereal you eat, the car you get into or the subway stairs you descend, the maker of your briefcase or backpack or handbag, the coffee shop you favor (or avoid), the newspaper you pick up, the particular vacation spot you research when you get to your desk: your real or perceived experience with each of these things drives your choices.  That’s brand.  You can’t (and don’t) live without it.  It’s all over, all the time.

And man, there’s a lot of competition.  And distraction.  And price pressure.  And etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

So if this is the case, then it’s the job of a brand owner to create positive associations – a positive experience – associated with the person, place or thing in question.  Life is hard: great experiences are priceless and they’re something  you want to share with others.

Thanks to my Twitter compatriots David Ansett (@brandamentalist) and Story Worldwide (@storyworldwide), I came upon this wonderful NY-based company, Improv Everywhere,  which describes itself as an organization that “causes scenes of chaos and joy in public places.”

What does that mean, you ask?  It means that Improv Everywhere creates “missions” that create an attention-getting public event that creates positive buzz – a positive experience – that is very unexpected and equally as impactful.

Here’s one that got a lot of press in NYC: “Star Wars Subway Car” (if  you cannot see the video below, click HERE):

The one that made the biggest impression on me was “High Five Escalator.” The video was shot literally on the escalator/stairs of New York City’s E/V/6 subway stop at 53rd Street and Lexington Avenue.  Now, this stop is a friggin nightmare during the morning commute: you’re squished, it’s hot, it’s unpleasant… just a major potential misery at 8 or 8:30 in the morning.  But on this particular morning, a few Improv Everywhere “undercover agents” got 2,000 people to smile and give a “high five,” and many more just had a great experience on their way to work (if you cannot see the video below, click HERE):

Here’s an interview with Charlie Todd, the founder of 9-year-old “prank collective” Improv Everywhere (if you cannot see the video below, click HERE):

Improv Everywhere says that it takes on commercial clients only here and there, and that this is what allows them to keep doing what they’re doing.  But while Improv Everywhere “works to live,” if you will, hasn’t it cracked the very essence of the brand manager’s job?  What if your brand was associated with such a positive, memorable experience? 

This guy’s on to something.

P.S. I’ve signed up to be an Improv Everywhere undercover agent, so – the next time 200 people freeze in the middle of Grand Central – look around…

Stephanie Fierman Suggests Goldman Sack This Idea

Marketers become accustomed to defending, documenting and demonstrating the value of marketing itself – particularly the beautiful art and science known as branding.  A lot of us are pretty good at it.  When branding comes up, I stand at the ready.

Ready, that is, until I’m not.

And so it was with the news that Goldman Sachs is considering a big, broad, very public effort to polish its brand. “Public” as in advertising, letters to the editor(s), responses to media reports… even an appearance by CEO Lloyd Blankfein on Oprah.

Can you imagine? Oprah. I picture it as a cross between Tom Cruise’s 2005 crazy-eyed appearance and her skewering of James Frey in 2006, and not in a good way.

Look, I may condemn the investment banking scoundrels for their wrongdoing when I’m out having a drink somewhere, but – behind closed doors with the Goldman team – this would be my position:

Goldman executives may indeed be shocked – even hurt – by the way they’ve been treated by Congress or by the all-out vitriolic point of view on Main Street, but the fact of the matter is that these are not the audiences that really matter at Goldman… and this is the price to be paid for what they do for a living.

It’s a pretty small price, in my opinion.

Goldman isn’t nor was it ever in the business of being loved. It’s in business to be 100% rational, not emotional, and to make money for itself and its clients. That mission defines a fairly narrow set of individuals and companies that really need to know what Goldman is doing. For these people, a big initiative is (a) likely to be a grossly inefficient way of communicating, and (b) even more likely to be seen by those in the know as a silly distraction that pulls Goldman away from (make me money) what it’s supposed (make me money) to be doing (make me money).

Strike One and Two.

Then there’s John Q. Public, who may not understand a lot of Goldman’s business activities but knows the firm was at the epicenter of a series of events that were highly disruptive and that made a very small number of already rich people even richer. For most, these beliefs are almost purely emotional, and no company can promote itself out of negative sentiment. If you lay low – particularly when a bunch of abstract business concepts are involved – the public’s anger will dissipate, and soon another target will present itself.  Sad but true.  To communicate now would only inflame an audience that Goldman doesn’t need and create added stress for one the firm does need – it’s own employees.

Strike Three.

Branding, PR, advertising… none of these tools can be used to uproot deep-seated negative opinion while an issue is still hot. It’s tempting to buy full page ads in the Wall Street Journal that say you’ll make things right (paging British Petroleum) but you can’t win doing this and, frankly, it’s a bit immature and disrespectful. It’s like saying “Hey, I punched you in the eye, hard, and I can’t take it back or make it any better, but I still want you to like me.” In Goldman’s case, the firm plays hardball, it’s going to bruise some people and it’s going to make billions of dollars for its inner circle of stakeholders. Everyone knows that’s the deal, and – when the spotlight turns toward them – those involved need to be able to put up with not being “liked” in exchange for their success.

Goldman’s communications advisors would do well to make sure that its client is staying focused on what’s important to its core business and true constituencies.  I disagree with those who say that Goldman must vigorously present “its vision of the ‘right thing to do’ in the financial services industry going forward.”  To what end?  To “clarify” its point of view, or contribute to the national dialogue? Through a branding campaign? On Oprah? Please.

Take care of your own employees, talk with clients, prospects and key constituencies around the world as you normally would, and wait.

Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to simply live with a situation, keep going and accept that there are moments when the right kind of marketing may be no marketing at all.

Sometimes Stephanie Fierman Uses A Black Marker

I have to say that I was struck by LVMH’s new ad campaign portraying artisans lovingly creating Louis Vuitton products by hand.  I’ve seen three: one of a (from the ad copy) ”young woman and the tiny folds” of wallet leather, another of a “’seamstress with linen thread” hand-stitching  the handle of a handbag and the last – the one that particularly struck me – showing a man painting the bottom of a shoe by hand.

The sole-painting made me pause. I did not feel compelled to run out the door for LV shoes, though… it was more a gentle “Really? They hand-paint the bottoms of all their shoes?” 

Now I know how much Vuitton products cost.  They’re expensive – but probably not as expensive as they’d need to be for LVMH to clear a hefty profit after painting the soles of every pair of new Vuitton shoes.

So I took note when the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority banned the wallet and handbag ads, claiming they could “mislead” consumers into believing that Louis Vuitton products are handmade, when in fact machines are involved in the manufacturing process.  From the agency’s ruling: “We considered that consumers would interpret the image of a woman using a needle and thread to stitch the handle of a bag … to mean that Louis Vuitton bags were hand stitched.”  O&M Paris must pull the two offending print ads immediately. The ad of the man painting the shoe bottom did not draw objections. 

Interesting.

I guess part of my question is, Which consumers?  I’m curious, for example, whether a “reasonable person” in such an instance would be absolutely anyone seeing the ad in a doctor’s waiting room, or whether it would need to be someone for whom the ad would alter beliefs in a way that could misguidedly motivate a purchase.  Would the latter be more likely to be knowledgeable and savvy (and less gullible), or does it not matter?  Vuitton has never been secretive about the fact that it has factories in the U.S., France and elsewhere that some believe are the very representation of modern luxury good production, but I guess the ASA has made its call.

There are a number of fashion/culture tongues wagging online about the fact that the ASA had nothing to say about LVMH photoshopping Madonna until she looked like a 17-year-old.  Perhaps, but it’s probably a good bet that there were no ruling bodies that thought anyone might buy a piece of luggage thinking it would make her look like Madonna (at any age).

Stephanie Fierman Is Not Offended By The Loofah! Loofah!

I am sensitive to dumb and/or insensitive imagery and statements in advertising and the media – I thought that the “How I Met Your Mother” Frosty the Snowman spoof was a little over the top, for example – but this is pushing it.

A new commercial for the all-natural line of cleaning products, Method, has already been pulled – and that’s a pity.

Droga5′s “SHINY SUDS” is a silly send-up of Dow’s Scrubbing Bubbles commercials.  Method created the video to support the Household Products Labeling Act, which would require full disclosure of harmful chemicals in cleaning products. Here’s the ad (if you cannot see the ad below, click HERE):



Right after the video was posted online, women began to react negatively – and harshly.  A blogger accused the company of “humiliating women” and effectively saying that – if you don’t know exactly what’s in the products you use – “you deserve to be sexually harassed” in your own home.  A reader of the same blog post called Method to tell them that she was “curious of [sic] their perpetuation of rape culture.”

Rape culture? Sexual harassment? The “pornification” of a dull House act about cleaning chemicals? What am I missing here?

Apparently a lot, as the company received hundreds of calls and emails from outraged women before declaring itself a “values-based company” and pulling the spot.

Of course, there are other interested parties who struck back, most notably (a) the advertising community (which asks when brands are going to – ahem – “grow a pair” and tell zealot ”idiots” to bug off) and (b) both men and women who say that this “overreaction” is just another example of why many believe that feminism has become a joke.

I’m not going to lean that hard in either direction… but I didn’t see the danger in this video.  What do you think?

New Balance Balances Oldest And Newest

New Balance has created an online/social media campaign and (offline) line of shoes that marries both worlds in the most elegant way.

The 574 men’s and women’s collection is made entirely of left-over scraps of cloth in the company’s Lawrence, MA factory and, as a result, each pair is just a bit different – each has its own personality, you might say.  A very special, limited line deserves equally powerful promotion, and the company’s ad agency, Mother, knew it.

When you buy a 574 pair from one of ten boutiques in the U.S., there’s a special Polaroid photograph in the box.  The owner can then go to 574Clips.com, and match the Polaroid to a special mini-film about the shoe.  Once the film has played, the happy shoe wearer can add his/her name at the end of the film.  The film for 106Red appears to show a man dipping a carrot into the shoe (for dip, or course), while 115Green has a lovable furry muppet (with green nose to match) admiring a pair of shoes.  Each is very short and fun – check out one or two for yourself, and see if it doesn’t make you want to buy the shoes.

574Clips.com also features links to Facebook, MySpace, De.li.ci.ous and Tumblr, so buyers of these unique shoes can tell (and show) all their friends.  The campaign is also tied to sneaker culture blogs like High Snobiety and Nice Kicks.

Anyone who watches Entourage (Episode 3, Season 6) knows how culturally important “sneakerheads” are – the (mostly) men who must have the hottest, most limited sneaker available tend to be heavy influencers and leading indicators of pop culture trends and information.  It’s a valuable and – in their own milieu – sophisticated crowd, and Mother has delivered an equally sophisticated communications plan.  The blending of manufacturing, blogs, web, community, video and product is exceptional.

And now I must sign off – I’m on my way to Reed Space: the only shop in NYC to carry the $75 shoes with the special Polaroid inside…

Stephanie Fierman’s Not Interested In Toothpaste, Either

A new study released by Q Interactive indicates that – while women may be flocking to social networking – they’re not yakking about the favorite baby food or burgers.  While 52% of 1,000 women said that they’d become a “friend” or “fan” of at least one brand, 75% of women in the study overall say that social networks do not influence what they buy.

I had to smile when Q’s president scrambled to make sure that marketers (with money) didn’t interpret the results in a negative way: Q calls the “disconnect” a “huge opportunity” for marketers and says that brands need to catch up to the needs of women online. 

If I were an agency relying on clients, I’d say the same thing!

But what if that’s not true? What if the social media frenzy that’s been whipped up among advertisers is…  overhyped?  What if we find out that women love discovering new ideas and interacting with new people and new communities, but the commercial promise in these interactions isn’t there? What if online engagement doesn’t lead to sales?  What if talking just leads to… talking?

I’m going to watch for new news and information about how women are interacting with social media because – if Facebook and LinkedIn and Twitter and all the other social sites do not turn out to be a brand bonanza for advertisers, we could see a major reset in expectations, involvement and, most importantly, dollars.

Stephanie Fierman Finds Satisfaction, But It Won’t Fix A Guitar

Ah, the sweet satisfaction of being able to vent.  You know the feeling: you have an awful customer service experience and vow to tell every man, woman and child all about it until the day you keel over.

And so you do.

But how many people is that – 5, 6, maybe 10?  And how quickly did you stop telling anyone about it – a week?

Brands often still behave as if they live in that world when – in reality – that world is gone forever.  The “social media” phenomenon has seen to that.  And I preach this as often as possible, even making presentations on the topics of online reputation management, the implications of new sites and technologies for marketers and how companies need to adjust to survive.

But we all know that this doesn’t happen.  Three of my all-time favorite this-reputation-disaster-could-have-been-avoided stories are Jeff Jarvis’ Dell Hell, the recording of Vincent Ferrari trying for 15+ minutes to cancel his AOL account and KFC/Taco Bell doing nothing for hours and hours while local NY news crews shot video through the front window of a closed store while rats scurried here there and everywhere, thereby turning a gross story into a global event (not a good day for Yum Brands…).

Today, I share my latest fave: Sons of Maxwell creating an absolutely masterful video and song, “United Breaks Guitars,” about an awful experience it had with United Airlines.

It seems that the band, Sons of Maxwell, were on the tarmac in Chicago when some fellow United Airline passengers looked out the window and saw one of the bandmember’s $3,500 guitars being thrown by United baggage handlers. The guitar was severely damaged and unplayable.  United did not deny responsibility, but tortured the band for nine months until finally refusing to compensate the guitar’s owner, Dave Carroll, for the loss.

Mr. Carroll subsequently vowed to “write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed online by anyone in the world.”  HERE IS THE FIRST of the three:

The video was viewed 150,000 times in its first 48 hours and several comments on the page are from those who say that the band’s experience has negatively impacted their opinion of United Airlines.  One person remarks that, based on the video, he shifted a group’s travel plans to another airline, thereby costing United about $10,000.

Now I’ve worked in plenty of places, and know that sometimes individual employees can be dimwits (the video dramatizes the apparent reaction three in-flight airline employees had when first alerted to the problem).  I also know that it’s a fact of life that a company can’t resolve every customer service complaint to a person’s satisfaction: some companies even calculate the likelihood and cost of getting sued, based on past experience, and consciously do not address costly errors.  History dictates that it’s more cost effective to take the risk of a lawsuit.  But this… is not that.

The guitar cost $3,500.  United Airlines does not deny responsibility.  By the time Carroll is finished, I predict well north of 1 million views of his videos: videos that will last forever and be ”rediscovered” from time to time.

We’ll see.  United says it has contacted Carroll, but first reports say that the airline likes the song (gee, thanks) but has not yet offered remuneration.

In the meantime, the band sold 40 albums on its website in 24 hours after releasing the video. It usually sells one per day.

Stephanie Fierman Knows It’s Not April Fool’s Day, But…

SFMOGD came across two ads this week that are real… which just seems sort of impossible!

Ad #1 was brought to our attention by our friend, Jonathan Gilbert, and has some disturbing things to say about the condition of German underwear.  Here is a billboard currently posted in Berlin’s shopping district:

That would be Chancellor Angela Merkel on the left posing in front of various undressed members of the German government, with her ”weapons of mass destruction” in full view.  The ad is part of an underwear company’s national ad campaign. Modeled after the country’s successful ads promoting ”cash-for-clunkers” exchanges, the ad’s copy offers Germans who trade in their old underpants a €5 credit toward a new pair with the slogan ”The country needs new undies.” No mention of whether the old panties need to be (*gag*) washed before you trade them in. 

Ad #2 appears to be a real television commercial for a North Carolina furniture store that takes race relations very seriously.  Based on the company’s perfectly normal description of the ad on YouTube, the weird humor and full-on racial context appears to have been lost on The Red House.  Luckily, it’s not lost on us:



“I’m Stephanie, aka Big Head…”

Stephanie Fierman Is A Little Coupon Crazy

There have been several articles recently pointing to the rise in both offline and online coupon use.  While consumers 65+ are more likely to use newspaper coupons and younger individuals prefer online coupons, there’s no real news here given that these stats will change over time as newspapers become less available and older consumers become more and more comfortable on the Web.

In the meantime, don’t leave home – or buy online – without it!

I’ve become accustomed to checking online for coupons and promotion codes prior to making either a store or Web purchase.  There is an art to this and, once you get the hang of it, you’ll become savvier about what sites are likely to bear fruit and which will not.

There are four general categories of sites I’d recommend you consider:

1.  Aggregators – these are sites whose sole purpose in life is to offer coupons and “promo codes” from many retailers, typically across multiple industries.  Some examples would include:

Coupons.com: the best-known source for printable online coupons
RetailMeNot
UltimateCoupons
DealCatcher
CouponCabin
CoolSavings
CouponCraze
CouponMountain
FatWallet
DealofDay
CouponNerds

2. Industry-specific couponing/deal sites:

Rental cars: RentalCarMomma
Grocery: CouponMom, GroceryCoupons, TheGroceryGame
Hotels:  Roomsaver, HotelCoupons
Computers, peripherals and accessories: TechBargains
Restaurants: Restaurant.com,

3. Clubs and affiliations that may offer codes and deals:

WorkingAdvantage, StudentAdvantage and VeteransAdvantage
Alumni clubs (check yours)
Bulk buying clubs such as BJ’s Wholesale Club and Costco
www.entertainment.com (Yes, the old Entertainment Books still exists…)
AARP (American Association of Retired Persons)
AAA (American Automobile Association)

4. Forums - some activities tend to make people want to vent (like having to take your shoes off at the airport…), and folks on these sites love to let others in on a deal:

Airline travel, rental cars and hotels: FlyerTalk,  WebFlyer, FlyerGuide, MileageManager
General shopping (usually bricks and mortar stores): ShoppingForum

If you’re set on a particular brand, it only takes a second to check out that company’s own site, too.  KFC, for example, has a pre-set button on its home page pointing visitors to printable coupons.  I’m actually surprised that more brands don’t take advantage of this simple way to build a solid customer database.  If a consumer is a fan, he will part with valuable demo and psychographic information in exchange for a steady stream of deals delivered by email.

And as a final tip: consider opening a brand new email account exclusively for your interactions with coupon and promotional sites.  You’ll be able to see all your coupon- and deal-related email in one place without clogging your own email inbox.

So start looking for coupons online and, pretty soon, you too will understand the nirvana of “stackable codes…”

Stephanie Fierman Would Like The Sneeze Pizza, Please

Poor Dominos.

In a nutshell, two employees posted a “prank” video on YouTube that shows them at work spitting and sneezing on food, putting cheese up their noses and then onto pizzas, passing gas on meat then – ouhhhh – putting said meat on the food…

As the beauty says to the gross Ben Stiller character when he asks her out (in that great philosophical movie, Dodgeball), I think I threw up in my mouth.  Just a little.

I coach corporate clients on how to manage their reputations and build brands online. I show companies how to proactively create meaningful online interactions with prospects and customers. I use case studies to demonstrate the usefulness of one social community vs. another.  I present lessons that apply to all businesses, and some that are industry-specific.  And I do train companies how to assess and react to negative content on the Web.  Be proactive and, when you must, here’s how to react to problematic online content.

And then there are things that you just can’t plan for. We’ve seen vanity urls (walocaust.com, ihatestarbucks.com) and online stunts created by disgruntled employees and angry investors.  We’ve seen rats scurrying along the floor inside a fast food restaurant.  These kinds of events are now so frequent that they can and should be part of a company’s online crisis strategy. [NOTE: You have one of those, right?] 

But two employees, with no ax to grind, demonstrating phenomenally bad judgment?  All a company can do in advance is reinforce its own employee policies with respect to unacceptable behavior and… make sure the Internet is covered.  I’m sure that disparaging the company to this extreme is already grounds for dismissal, and these two MENSA members have been fired.  And arrested and charged with a felony.

Unfortunately, Dominos is taking a real hit.  But the company has come out swinging online - play fire with fire – and I give them enormous credit for that.  Take a look at Dominos’ own YouTube response (click HERE if you do not see the video below):

If I were advising the company, I’d suggest a 5-point action plan over the next 90 days.  What they’ll actually do?  We’ll have to wait and see.

In the meantime, if you order a pizza and think you see boogers… I’M KIDDING!

Stephanie Fierman Bids $3 On The Jello

While restaurant chains suffer, and the industry predicts a “purge,” one restaurant has decided to let its customers take more of a direct role in its future.

Sghetti’s Italian Bistro, a local restaurant in Pennsylvania, has established a “pay what you think it’s worth” policy.  The menu no longer shows specific prices, opting instead for a suggested price range by category: appetizers $3-$9, pasta $6-$12 and so on.  The offer is good for parties of 8 or less at dinner only, beginning at 4pm.

“[The recession] is sad, for senior citizens and young families,” says the spot’s owner, Eugene Razzano. “…we can do something to empower people.”  Razzano recognizes that some diners won’t be fair, but believes that the press coverage and increased traffic – particularly return traffic – will make this a successful proposition overall. 

I think this is brilliant.  Razzano has been very clear that he is assessing the program on a week-to-week basis.  High-margin beverages are not included, and parties are asked to tip the wait staff, as usual.  He’s getting full-blown word of mouth, while still protecting himself on the downside.

Part of the commentary on this blog lately has seen me preaching restraint to businesses advertising at such a sensitive time.  If you’re going to put a message out there, be 100% certain that it connects to how people are feeling and what they are experiencing.  Even if a negative reaction happens “outside your target audience,” it can have an outsized ability to impact business over the mid- to short-term.  My opinion is that companies including Pepsi and Hawker have taken risks with their brand images by promoting messages that are out of tune with the public zietgeist.

Sghetti’s is spot on.

Stephanie Fierman On The Importance of IT/Marketing Alignment

Whoops!

In December, Domino’s created an online-only promotion offering a free pizza to site visitors using the promo code ”bailout.” The promotion never got final approval internally… but someone didn’t tell the pizza retailer’s online tech team.

A clever consumer living in a suburb of Cincinnati somehow caught on to the live promo code last week and before you can see “meat lovers special,” Domino’s had given away 11,000 free pizzas.  In less than 24 hours.

The news spread quickly, fueled in part by online moms at sites like www.CincyMomsLikeMe.com.  If you’re curious about the power of online moms and aren’t familiar with the Motrin Moms event last November, I really would suggest you check it out.  Do not screw with these ladies!

Things became even more complicated by the fact that Domino’s retail stores are franchised.  A man who owns 14 locations in the Cincy area thinks he gave away somewhere between 600 and 700 pizzas.  Corporate has promised to reimburse all franchisees.  Maybe the stores will even see an upside:  the event got hundreds of people to try the new ordering engine at Dominos.com (which is pretty good, by the way).

Depending on how you look at things, Dominos is either lucky or unlucky the promotion wasn’t discovered two days later – on April Fool’s Day…

Stephanie Fierman’s Sistuhs Are Doin’ It For Themselves

Did you see the Oscars telecast this past weekend?  Third worst-rated show in history.  Just painful.  I adore Hugh Jackman (duh), so I watched his interview with Barbara Walters before the ceremony started.  The first-time host told Barbara that he would indeed perform and that he felt the awards needed “more show, less business.”  I think we just needed less of everything.

Aside from Kate Winslet, “best performance” has to go to Glam Media, the women-focused vertical network boasting over 75 million users and 700 publishers.  comScore has named Glam one of the top 10 media properties on the Web.

While the likes of ABC (who did not stream the broadcast!), Twitter and Facebook wandered around trying to figure out how to make money on online Oscar conversations – celebs in the audience and at the parties were twittering, for cryin’ out loud – Glam just went ahead and hosted its own Twitter widget.  Glam then offered advertisers the opportunity to sponsor an edited version of the tweet stream during the telecast. 

Glam hand-selected which tweets appeared in the stream, thereby making it safer for brand advertisers who are always (and understandably) concerned about appearing alongside a conversation that veers into unacceptable subjects.

Aveeno sponsored the Twitter widget, and Glam says it will introduce widgets for both FriendFeed and Facebook streams running during future shows and other events. 

Poaching on other sites’ turf to generate ad dollars, when those sites haven’t figured it out themselves?   Nicely done!

If Stephanie Fierman Is Loyal, She’s Loyal Everywhere

The online/social media environment has greatly amplified the opportunities for customers who love you (or hate you) to spread the word – and spread it more frequently, to a broader audience and with a greater array of tools.

Colloquy has released a white paper reflecting the results of an October 2008 survey that measured the intersection between reward program membership and online word-of-mouth (WOM) activity among those members.

While I hope it won’t come as a big surprise, membership in and usage of a brand’s reward program is a significant predictor of a consumer’s likelihood to speak positively about your brand online. The more active the frequent user/shopper/flyer in your program, the greater the chance that you will experience the happy halo effect of him/her praising you online.  This is particularly true among women, who have become a driving force in terms of discussing and sharing products and experiences on the Web (Motrin, anyone?).

The larger take-away here – the hardest one, I think, for large companies to absorb - is that everything is connected now.  The idea that you could treat your customers one way and your employees another, without affecting your public persona, is no longer relevant.  Cut your charitable activities without the “outside world” finding out?  Forget it.  Increase mileage requirements in your frequent flyer program, and it will not only affect the opinions of your members, but also those members’ Twitter readers (who may not even be your customers).

One person with an anonymous blog and a catchy URL can impact your reputation around the world.  

Of course The New Champion Customers is just a tip of this iceberg, but it offers an interesting angel and chock-full of great charts.  Take a look.

Motrin momsColloquyWOMMA

Stephanie Fierman Is So Excited: The Baby Is Back!!

I love the E*Trade baby and am so jazzed to see him back!

And not only will he be returing to the Super Bowl, but the company is wisely stretching its $3 million as far as it possibly can with a YouTube page, a Twitter account and a Facebook effort.

E*Trade says that its 2008 Super Bowl ads were viewed more than 5 million times online, and there were 5 million searches for the ads after the game. Social media tracker Collective Intellect also claimed that E*Trade’s spots produced the most positive social media sentiment of any game ads.

Check it!

Super_Bowl Super_Bowl_advertising ETrade ETrade_baby Super_Bowl

Starbucks Takes A Good Thing And Acts Like Starbucks

How long did you think I could go in 2009 without talking about Starbucks, hmmm?  C’mon, I think 20+ days is pretty good.

The latest ragging I’m going to do is about Starbucks’ weird Obama-based feel-good advertising effort.  WHAT does this message have to do with coffee… particularly Starbucks coffee?

“Starbucks and Hands On Network are supporting the President’s call for national service. From January 21-25, 2009, pledge 5 hours to the cause of your choice and Starbucks will salute you with a free Tall brewed coffee in participating U.S. Starbucks stores.”

First of all, I think it’s hilarious that a twist on this message is that you need to work 5 hours to *afford* a small cup of Starbucks coffee.  That’s priceless. 

Second, Starbucks is behaving as if its world has not changed.  I’m not saying that a brand should give up its principles in a recession – not at all.  What I am saying is that (a) consumers process information and behave differently in a down market (like dropping Starbucks in favor of cheaper coffee), and (b) they look at a brand’s behavior differently, as well.  Anyone paying attention knows that Starbucks is closing stores and laying people off.  It means nothing to me that you did a cute ad.  I would much prefer to see you give the money you spent on this ad effort directly to Hands On Network.  Or – better yet – lower your prices on Inauguration Day.

And if you wanted to let me know – because I am a loyal Starbucks customer, and exactly the kind of person you want to hold on to now – you could email me. You know where I am. Too bad I’ve never heard from you except when you want me to buy something.

I see no indication that Starbucks has grasped its “new reality,” and predict further self-inflicted pain in its future. This company needs a brain transplant, and fast.

Starbucks Hands_On_Network

Stephanie Fierman Does Try To Favor Companies Who Give

Today on my (other) blog Marketing Mojo, I wrote a lengthy post on the necessity of creating real value – vs. sometimes status-driven perceived value – in a down market. 

When most people hear “value” they think price, packaging, size, promotion… the standard inward-looking levers a company has at its disposal.  But if a company’s key constituents care about philanthropy, then a company’s outward-looking position can create value, as well. 

At this point in time, I think the attention being paid to companies’ philanthropic efforts is driven by both “positive” and “negative” factors: (a) positive, because younger generations are more sensitive to the societal impact of the products and services they consume, and (b) negative, in that people are generally so disgusted with the bad behavior and greed exhibited by many companies that there is a heightened demand to “give back.”  Whatever the reason… philanthropy is a very real way to engage with stakeholders.

And if we need numbers, it turns out that customers with a favorable impression of a company’s philanthropic efforts are 3x as likely to become loyal customers, and 91% of consumers say they would consider switching (away) if they found out that a company had exhibited ”negative corporate citizenship” behaviors.

Think Ben & Jerry’s or Target or Pfizer or Nike – the very fabric of these companies is inextricably connected to their social efforts.  Think about your employer, your own company or the companies from which you purchase products and services… are these organizations doing enough to suit you and, if so, do the right people know about it?

philanthropy corporate_philanthropy ben_&_jerry’s nike Target_shopping

Stephanie Fierman Gets It Right With Consumerist

If you’re like me, you don’t need external affirmation or reinforcement of your decisions all the time… but sometimes is nice!

Back in June, I told you about The Consumerist, a wonderful online community and blog owned by Gawker.  I raved about its informative stories about good and bad customer service experiences (“Shoppers Bite Back”), along with all the corporate phone numbers, addresses, etc. you frequently wish you had at your fingertips.  The site also does a great job for its 1.8 million readers of promoting great deals and discounts. 

Now comes the affirmation I mentioned:  Consumer Union has just purchased The Consumerist!  Jim Guest, President and CEO of Consumers Union, says that the Consumerist community’s passion for helping consumers shop in a “fair, safe and just marketplace” will add exponentially to his company’s relevance and reach.  It will also bring younger readers into the Consumer Reports fold.

And for The Consumerist and Gawker:  WOW.  The site’s new owner knows a thing or two about online marketing and revenue generation.  With 3.3 million loyal, paying readers, ConsumerReports.org is the largest paid-subscriber website in the world.

A good deal all around!  Let’s just hope that Consumerist readers will continue to have access to its content free of charge… with some heavy-duty Consumer Reports cross-sell pitches thrown in, of course.

 Consumers Union    Consumer Reports    consumerreports.org   The Consumerist   Consumers Union Buys Consumerist

Stephanie Fierman Had No Idea That Subservient Chicken Was Tame

It’s been a very odd few weeks in the fast food marketing business.

First, there’s Burger King’s effort to spread “ugly Americanism” around the globe with its odd “Whopper Virgins” campaign. “What happens if you take remote Chang Mai villagers who’ve never seen a burger, who don’t even have a word for burger, and ask them to compare Whopper versus Big Mac in the world’s purest taste test?” I don’t know the answer, but I’m doubtful that this campaign will shift any new business to Burger King – it may fuel the fanatics (and I’m not knocking the importance of retention) but I wonder if it’s enough to balance the heat the company has received as a result of the campaign. Early results already show that the campaign is putting off women, and positive chatter on the Web is dropping quickly. Barbara Lippert judging the work as “culturally tone deaf” was one of the nicer phrases critics have used.

Then yesterday, the Pizza Hut “anti-Main Street” (my phrase) ad debacle hit Twitter, care of Ian Schafer, CEO of Deep Focus. Pizza Hut has created this odd viral campaign in which actors walk into mom-and-pop pizza shops and order pizza delivery – from Pizza Hut. So… in a recession, Pizza Hut puts out ads in which people order pizza that we all know is not as good as the product you can find in your own neighborhood, AND mocks/steals business from little restaurant owners just trying to make a living.

While it has not received much credit for it, Burger King actually did donate some money to the towns in which the Whopper Virgins ads, so the company wasn’t entirely tone deaf. The Pizza Huts ads are just, well, mean.

And lastly, there’s just not a whole lot to say about a Burger King body spray for men that smells like… meat. “Flame” offers “the scent of seduction with a hint of flame-broiled meat.” Nah, I’m not going to take the bait (pardon the pun) – it’s just too easy.

So there you have it: a strange time in fast food land. Go offer some love (and cash) to your neighborhood diner today!Burger King    Whopper Virgins    Pizza Hut    Ian Schafer    Deep Focus