Twitter helps you get it right

As Mashable explains in “How Twitter’s New Media Blog Aims To Teach By Example,” Twitter is taking a pro-active role in teaching users how to make the most out of their service.

For all the folks out there — haters and otherwise — who continue to question the validity of Twitter as a communication medium, y’all need to pay attention.

media.twitter.com isn’t just a blog. It’s an important step forward in the evolution of technology-based communication.

MySpace started us off on the wrong foot by building a massive audience and not knowing quite what to do with it themselves. Let’s assume they did their best to learn on the fly how to turn their website into a marketing platform, and as it goes with trial and error, success was very hit or miss (with lots of emphasis on “miss”). Most importantly, in typical old-media fashion, the assistance they provided was for serious advertisers only and it involved swarms of sales support teams and conference calls to help you figure out what to do to reach their crowd.

Then Facebook came along, with its brashness and anti-corporate attitude. Kind of like, “we don’t care, you figure it out.” It’s taken years for them to come around, and even now most of their assistance is human-based. And it’s mostly around advertising programs, rather than community building.

So now here’s Twitter, putting it all out there on a blog for anyone to see. Their open style is the way of the future. They’re giving us tips and case studies. It’s almost like they want us to be successful using their service. What a crazy concept!

I’m not arrogant enough to predict where social media is heading, and I’m not here to say it’s going to be all about Twitter. But I am certain that as things continue to get more complicated, the companies who take an active role in creating win-win relationships between marketers and their audiences will have a huge advantage.

This TED Talk is from Eric Giler, CEO of a company called WiTricity, which has developed a technology that will power and charge our electronic devices, wirelessly. This is a company that could change the world.

Think about it. Our phones, computers, gadgets, and cars are increasingly complex and powerful. The one thing that holds them back is power. iPhone’s battery life is terrible. So is MacBook’s. Electric cars may be the future, but they have to be plugged in, which sucks. This limits our mobility, our productivity, and possibly the resulting happiness that comes from things like mobility and productivity.

Where am I going with this?

Imagine if Coke had bought Twitter a couple years back. Its >70 million users would be exposed to Coke branding that many more times than they already are. Think that would be significant for Coke’s business? Damn straight. Now think about Facebook, Foursquare, Google, and the other companies that are changing lives and societies on a daily basis. What if instead of spending billions of dollars to advertise on these networks, major consumer brands spent just a fraction of that amount in early-stage investment capital to fund these companies? Guess what:

1. They’d have a better understanding of consumer behavior
2. They’d make money, possibly lots and lots of money
3. They’d earn the goodwill of being positioned as forward-thinking and innovative
4. They’d have countless opportunities for integration and cross-promotion

Back when I started the Rebel Organization, the premise was that major corporate money should go to investing in culture. The vision was that brands could fund records, create works of art, invest in movies. Instead of waiting for an act to become huge and then spend for a tour sponsorship that nobody cares about, put the money in early to support artist development and have a fan for life in the artist, and that artist will tell all of his fans.

We were somewhat successful in that endeavor, but we’ve never brought it to the scale it deserves.

Russell Simmons recently called social media “the New Hip Hop.” I agree completely, and that idea is reshaping my vision for a future where in addition to (or instead of) investing in culture, brands should also be investing in social technologies.

Heed my word: smart marketers will gain tremendous advantage over their slower competitors. Which one are you?

Gang Starr frontman GURU died this week. If you don’t know who GURU was, or want the details of his life and death, there’s an excellent piece on that at URB, or The New York Times. This is a marketing blog, and as much as we at Rebel were fans of GURU and are deeply saddened by his loss, our job is to help you become better at your job of marketing your brands and products. We do that by learning from everything — I mean everything — that happens around us, including the untimely deaths of rap stars. Here we go…

By some definitions, Gang Starr never made it big. They never sold records like Lil Wayne or Soulja Boy. They didn’t become actors like Ice Cube or Mos Def. But they did manage to build a career that spanned two decades and brought us some of the most important hip hop records of our time.

In a word, Gang Starr were influencers. That term gets thrown around a lot these days, generally referring to anyone with more than 5 Facebook friends. But Gang Starr epitomized the role of the influencer long before marketing types could ruin the term. They were just really good at what they did. GURU was a good rapper, but his true legacy is about bringing jazz into hip hop in truly innovative ways; it’s about crossing cultural borders by collaborating with artists from around the world; it’s about partnering with one of the best producers in modern music to create records that would endure.

Without trying, they influenced dozens or hundreds of professional musicians to improve, and countless thousands of young kids out there to pick up a mic. And that’s their legacy. Without Gang Starr — and other influential, but not famous artists — maybe there’s no Nas, no Biggie, no Jay-Z. Maybe that’s not the exact lineage, but you get the picture: For every one act who comes out and changes the world, there are several who served to inspire, to influence, to enable them to become who they are.

A major problem with modern society is that the role of the influencer is misunderstood. Surely, the current music business has no room left for artists like GURU or those before them like Rakim or Kool G Rap. The labels won’t support an act with moderate sales over multiple albums. But these are the artists that make wannabe artists want to be artists. These are the ones that matter.

The brand world is largely the same. We’re too busy looking for home runs and superstars to see the real opportunities in solid performers who don’t make the a-list. If you’re a sponsor, you’re far better off supporting artists like Gang Starr who people actually care about than breaking your bank on someone like Lady Gaga who we won’t remember next year. Even if you’re not a sponsor, you should be looking within — and outside — your organization to find the real influencers who inspire you, your team, and your customers. You need to partner with them, win them over, somehow get them on your side.

Think about it: Who influences you? Who inspires you to do what you do even better? Who influences your employees, your customers? And what are you doing to participate in that cycle of influence? Leave a comment here and tell us your story.

In a recent Advertising Age article, “Coca-Cola Lays Out Its Vision for the Future,” Coke CEO Muhtar Kent talked about how his company has gotten back on track, after saying “There was a period when our company did lose its way,” he said. “We were too internally focused and not focused enough on the changes taking place with our consumers and customers. In essence, we were too busy looking at the dashboard and were not sufficiently paying attention to the world outside of our windshield.”

Think about it. If the world’s largest brand, with all of its resources, can lose track of consumers, can’t this happen to your brand as well?

Now think about this. If the world’s largest brand, with all of its bureaucracy, can find its way back on track, learn how to leverage technology, and change, “from purely mass marketing to one-on-one marketing,” can’t your brand do the same?

Mr Toyoda in New York Times

He called me in and repeated the word to me several dozen times, perhaps to make a point about his own comfort with the word regardless of the fact that it was completely inappropriate on a CD his brand was giving away. Or perhaps just to punctuate his point. The he shared a story with me about his early days in the car business and how he messed up by trying to do something or other with Playboy magazine. It was a little blurry because I was in the middle of being cussed out by a very important client.

The part that stuck with me, though, was that he made sure I understand that an apology was unnecessary and also irrelevant. He didn’t want me to be sorry, and I’m sure didn’t care how I felt about it at all. He just wanted it not to happen again. Ever. And it didn’t. The next six volumes of CDs, in addition to everything else we created from that day on, got special attention to ensure I didn’t have to hear that type of speech again.

I had forgotten the exchange until I read this New York Times article about Toyota president Toyoda’s recent public apology, and especially the commentary.

“’Sometimes, this apology business is a way to avoid taking real action or responsibility,’ said Robert Dujarric, director of the Institute of Contemporary Japanese Studies at Temple University’s Japan campus.”

and

“’When you hear these long apologies, ‘Mr. Dujarric said, ‘It makes you want to say: Don’t be sorry, just do something about it.’”

I couldn’t agree more.

Will.I.Am My Generation Super Bowl Flo TV
Rebel client Flo TV had an ad in the Super Bowl. Three actually. The one you see here has will.i.am remaking The Who’s “My Generation” while iconic moments from TV’s history flash on the screen. The message: buy Flo TV’s portable TV device and you won’t miss the memorable moments in the future.

While I’m not much of a believer in Super Bowl ads, or TV ads, or TV, I’m always fascinated by the affect all the pressure has on the creative output we see. When stakes are at their highest, creatives tend to do some of their best — and worst — work. Some standouts…

Bud always tries to dominate, whether by trotting out the clydesdales or captivating us with its own Bud Bowl. This year it seemed like the strategy was to pelt us with a bunch of random crap. Feels like Michelob Ultra stole the show with its lone Lance Armstrong ad. Although someone at my party asked, if you’ve just burned 10,000 calories, do you really have to drink Michelob Ultra? My guess is Lance has earned his Chimay, or at least a Shiner.

On the other hand, the Boost Mobile Super Bowl Shuffle was a complete waste of money. For those of you who don’t remember (which I’m sure is most of you), the Bears made the Super Bowl Shuffle popular for about 10 seconds back in the ’80s. Boost’s target is mainly Gen Y, who probably wasn’t watching the Super Bowl and definitely doesn’t care.

As a lifelong 49ers fan, I can’t believe Skechers used Joe Montana to hawk its Shape Ups, MBT ripoff. I’d say Joe should be ashamed, but this is the guy who spent all of his celebrity clout in the 90s pitching the similarly uncool LA Gear.

Perhaps the worst creative fumble in my opinion was the two marketers who appear to have been sucked in by the “no pants” phenomenon. You may be familiar with the No Pants Subway Ride. These guys certainly are — the creatives behind Dockers and Career Builder both took the same concept of making all the actors take their pants off. The worst part: the ads ran back-to-back (pun intended). Dockers, whose ad ran second must really be chaffed (sorry).

You can watch all the ads at USA Today.

What did you think? Which were your favorite ads? Biggest letdowns? Got any great ideas for how these companies might have put their money to better use? Share them with us here.

If you’re like me, you’re among the many who were disappointed with yesterday’s reveal of the Apple iPad, and possibly even more disappointed by the name.

But the public reaction is even more interesting than the product itself, and it speaks to the incredible power Apple has built in its brand.

I had two client meetings yesterday. The first one was right around 10am — the time of Steve Jobs’ keynote — and was repeatedly interrupted by various people in the room reporting real-time announcements they got from their smartphones. Ironically, none of these people were using iPhones, and they described themselves as “non-Apple people.” But they were glued to the news just like the rest of us, illustrating the extent to which Apple has ingrained itself into the fabric of American culture.

In the second meeting, the guy went on for about a minute listing all of the things wrong with the iPad: No camera, no Flash, no phone, etc. Then, almost on cue, he stops and says, “don’t get me wrong, I’m buying one.”

Me? I don’t love it, but truth be told, I’ll probably end up buying iPad 2, or should I say iPad Super.

Tell us what you think. Are you going to buy it? And what can we learn from Apple about branding?

All of our clients are thinking and talking about cause marketing. Some of them are taking action. We saw a bit of research recently confirming that Gen Y is more willing to support a brand who associates with a cause. And especially since the Haiti earthquake, corporate helpfulness is on everyone’s mind…

…So, I’m at the Larder at Tavern last weekend ordering lunch to go. I notice next to the register a sign that says something to the effect of Tavern supports the people of Haiti. Their gesture: buy a sandwich, bag of chips, cookie, and an apple for $16, and $3 of that goes to Haiti.

You’ll have to forgive my math, but if calculations are correct, this means they want 13 bucks for a bag lunch. This is not cause marketing, this is bullshit. In fact, look at their website and the same combo is $15, so they’re throwing on an extra dollar and only losing two on the deal.

Forget about the prices of the food. Tavern is expensive but we go there anyway because the food is very good. Or not. That’s not the point here, and this is not an anti-Tavern post. The point is that they made two major mistakes that can teach us a valuable lesson.

First, we want you to give until it hurts. How about the whole $16 goes to the earthquake victims? At the very least, tell us how much the food costs and then give the rest to the cause. Don’t want to be that transparent about your profit margins, fine, then give the whole thing. The point is that we feel bad for the people who are in pain, and we want to support brands who will share some of that pain. Put up or shut up.

Second, you have to be more specific about where the money is going. Don’t tell us it’s going to Haiti. Name the organization, or the particular program. Partly because we may not believe you without specifics, and partly because we want to know that you’ve invested time and energy into caring, not just our money.

What do you think? Have you done any cause marketing? And how well has it worked? Post a comment.

A common marketing tool is to offer free trials. The thinking goes that if I give you 30 days to start using my product, you’ll discover how much you like it and want to pay. Or in the case of software, it’s that once you get all of your data in, the switching costs will be higher than the cost I want to charge you.

These companies need to learn from Twitter.

You may remember a time — say 6 months ago — when most people you spoke to thought Twitter was completely worthless and didn’t understand why anyone would waste their time. I’m sure some people still feel that way, but over time Twitter’s usefulness has increased exponentially as more people are using it and figuring out better ways to leverage the technology.

If you’re giving me a 30-day free trial, chances are you’re not allowing me enough time to get past the phase of not fully understanding how it will benefit me. We’re all pretty busy, and 30 days passes in what seems like about 5 minutes. When I consider things like CRM or project-management solutions, I know it’s going to take me at least that long to even get up to speed.

This doesn’t mean free trials should never be used, but creative marketers may need to think beyond the obvious. I’d probably not recommend using it for software — from my experience the free level that can be upgraded to premium is far more effective.

You may have seen this New York Times article making the controversial statement that the DVR may be helping, rather than hurting TV ratings. They say this as a great revelation, as if to say that of course we all know that the DVR is in fact killing TV, which makes the proclamation breaking news.

The article asserts that many people record the shows and actually sit through the commercials. In a single paragraph, the venerable Times has solved the advertising industry’s woes.

If only life were that simple.

Let’s forget about the fact that a growing number of us are letting the commercials play because we’re checking email, Twitter, Facebook, AIM, text messages, or any number of other activities on our phones and computers.

The harsher truth is that for an increasingly savvy audience, it doesn’t matter whether we see the commercials or not. We’re not going to be swayed by silly jingles or celebrity shills. We could skip through the shows and watch only the commercials, we still wouldn’t buy your products that have no soul, that are the same as everything else on the shelf next to you. We’re simply smarter than that.

Successful marketers need to think beyond “cutting through the clutter,” and “disruption.” Assume for a minute that you do have our attention. Now what are you going to say?