Last week I had the honor of presenting to a group of communications professionals from UCLA. It was great for me because I literally started my career there as an undergrad.

A very LA story: My roommate had a friend who knew a guy who was looking for an intern at Motown Records. I didn’t really know what a record label did, or what an internship entailed, but she said I would get free CDs, so I went for an interview. I probably impressed my interviewers because I wasn’t at all impressed with the entree they were giving me to the music business, which is I guess why people wanted to intern there. Never even occurred to me.

Anyway, I started loving the music business, and UCLA gave me my second foot in the door in the form of an unpaid writing slot for the Daily Bruin. Not your average college paper, it was the third largest daily paper in the nation’s second largest city, and they didn’t have anyone there who knew anything about rap music (now called hip hop), so I got to be the guy, without any of that pesky journalism training.

I basically got to write as much as I wanted, which meant I could meet as many people as I wanted in the music industry: a big leap forward in the trajectory of my career that led me to where I am today.

Long story longer, I told the communications folks about what a great opportunity they have to unleash an grassroots movement the likes of which we’ve never seen. UCLA is a massive school and has a small nation’s worth (at least a small state) of fans. I say put those people to work, and I told them how to get started.

You can see the presentation here:

Got any thoughts? I’d love to hear them. Post a comment. Or send me an email if you want me to come speak to your company or school. I can almost promise it won’t be boring.

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.

Let’s dub today Tiger Woods Day, and make it the last day on which public apologies will be abided and accepted. I hereby call for a moratorium on apologies.

Tiger’s well-rehearsed heartfelt apology was just the latest in a long string of pleas by the rich, famous, and powerful to allow them back into our lives, and our wallets. Politicians, athletes, actors — blessed with the trappings of celebrity have increasingly found themselves at the podium in recent years, begging for forgiveness. More specifically, they’re begging us not to take those trappings away.

Seth Godin said it best in The Dip, essentially that most of the rewards in any profession are reserved for the very few at the very top. The reason, among other things, is the scarcity of available spaces at the top. Who’s the second best golfer in the world? If you follow golf, you should know the answer to this, although there might be some debate. The rest of us have no idea. Is it John Daly, Jack Nicklaus, Lee Iacocca? Who cares?

But what does the best mean? The guy who scores the lowest and wins the most jackets? Or the guy who plays well enough on the field and is also a model husband. That’s for you to decide, and for us as a society to decide what matters most.

Either way, I propose that given the untold riches — both monetary and in the form of women all over the world throwing themselves at you — give to guys like Tiger, this is a one-shot deal. Zero tolerance. No apologies. You mess up, you have to own it. No fake tears or rehearsed speeches. The collective sob stories must be stricken for the record. We either care or we don’t.

Of course, I’m living in my own little fantasy world. We are addicted to the soap opera of public life in which people are lionized and then brought back down to earth. But I say it all has to stop. Today.

Who’s with me? Post your comments here and help me celebrate Tiger Woods day.

Red Bull Stash was a Facebook-powered scavenger hunt that enables fans to find Red Bull Energy Shots hidden around the country.

It seems like brands are launching social media campaigns every day, so why is this one “Down With Us” and not a Worst Practice?

Simple. Red Bull Stash is a give back to the community of loyal fans, over one million of whom have “friended” the brand on Facebook. Now, we don’t generally give too much weight to friend counts, but in Red Bull’s case, we happen to know that they have real fans all over the world who really love the brand. And part of the reason they do is that Red Bull has always taken giving back very seriously.

It seems that building community isn’t just about getting a lot of people to watch your ads. It’s about treating them like real people you want to have relationships with. Give back early and often, and carry that spirit into all of your communications. The payoff is significant.

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.

If you’re in the business of selling stuff online, or advertising stuff online, you have to watch this video.

Here Guy Kawasaki walks four young people and Anastasia Goodstein through a series of questions about their actual online behaviors and what they think their behaviors might be, to answer the question: “Will anyone pay for anything?”

The simple answer is no, with a couple exceptions. And then Anastasia shared some study data that seems pretty disconnected from reality. Without spoiling the plot completely, these kids suggest that most of your efforts to sell and market online are probably for naught.

They also offer a little bit of insight into what they do value, which is stuff they’re already into, and how to get them to pay up, which is to build something incredible (X-Box Live).

Okay, let’s assume the four thieves on stay with Guy don’t represent all of Gen Y. But if your job is to market to Gen Y, wouldn’t you want to find out for certain just how accurate a picture they paint? Are you still relying on syndicated studies that give you generic answers, or are you really getting to know your audience for real?

The LA Auto Show kicked off last week. After spending two days there for the press conferences, including the reveal of the 2011 Mazda2, I went back on Sunday to see what the consumer show looked like. Here’s what I noticed:

Attendance looked really light. A casual guess would be about half of what I expected on a weekend day. But I could be wrong about that. I wonder if the pricetag scared people off (although tickets were only $12, once you add in parking and refreshments, it’s a $50+ outing. Kind of a lot to go window-shopping). More importantly, Gen Y and Latino and black audiences were especially under-represented. Overall, the show skewed white, Asian, and Boomer/Gen X.

Aside from a couple well-designed booths (Audi comes first to mind), most of the exhibits were pretty boring. Like a parking lot with carpet. Mazda and Scion both made interesting use of augmented reality technology, but that was about it.

What does this mean?

1. Auto shows may not be as important as they used to be. If you’re selling to young people or multi-cultural buyers, you may not be reaching enough of them at these shows.

2. Auto companies still don’t fully get experiential marketing. Why not program the experience a bit and increase your chances of engagement?

If I were CMO at an automaker, I’d make it mandatory for employees to attend the auto shows. In fact, I’d probably have our full-time employees staff the shows, instead of or along with the usual promo models. You need your people to be interacting with consumers face to face, learning what the market is about and what people want. Get them out there pressing the flesh.