the inkling

2008-01-25T12:06:00.001-07:00

Still here.

2006-08-29T22:00:00.000-07:00

A new home.

After an extended absence from this site, I have resumed my blogging excellence at exurbanleague.com. See you there.

2005-12-20T14:03:00.000-07:00

Goodbye to all that.

2005-12-13T13:28:00.000-07:00

The Inkling speaks, the media listens.

This week's edition ofNation’s Restaurant News, the leading food service pub, features a full and fair article on WOM. Such a refreshing break from some of the hit pieces we’ve seen lately.

I was interviewed as well, discussing how my employer (rhymes with Sold Cone Themery) has focused on WOM as the primary brand-building strategy. I also was quoted using a five-syllable word (“serendipitous“), just to make my wordsmith mom happy.

The article also cites research by Chadwick Martin Bailey that shows 27 percent of Americans ate at restaurants based solely on a personal recommendation. At an average bill of $50, WOM can be a gold mine for the industry. Go ye and read of it.

technorati tags: WOM; WOMMA; NRN; Restaurant

2005-12-07T20:48:00.000-07:00

23 Squidoo, Baby.

Search a lens, build a lens. Enter Seth Godin & Co.'s foray into Web 2.0: Squidoo.

The idea behind Squidoo is that the Web currently has too much info to sift through. Just type a generic search term into Google or Technorati and you'll get more fluff than usable content. Squidoo invites all sorts of people to create "lenses" on innumerable topics. So now, instead of wasting time sifting through pages of search engine results, you can visit a lens on a subject and get a solid overview in a minute or two.

The site just opened to the public this week. Thankfully, I was invited to the beta test where I created a lens on word-of-mouth marketing which I invite you to visit early and often. In a completely unrelated note, I've also begun a lens on chiles since burning my upper GI is one of life's purest pleasures.

P.S: The lame reference in my headline comes from the century-old hipster phrase, "23 Skidoo." I never knew what it meant until now.

technorati tags: Squidoo; Chiles; WOM

2005-12-07T20:24:00.000-07:00

1,000.

One score and 19 days ago, I founded this modest blog to address word of mouth marketing, advertising common sense and the occasional diatribe on shaving. And today we welcomed our 1,000th visitor, hailing from the proud bradley.edu domain (Go Braves!). Hearty congratulations to that loyal reader.

I was going to offer him/her an official Inkling commemorative spoon, complete with The Hasselhoff's face rendered in mother of pearl and Topaz... but alas, our factory in Laos is short-staffed, what with the bird flu and all. A pity on so many levels.

By reaching 1,000 visitors in 39 days, by my calculations we will host our one millionth visitor by 2105. Look out, Instapundit! Thanks to all for your kind patronage.

technorati tags: Ego; 1000; WOM

2005-12-06T18:55:00.000-07:00

WOMBAT draws nigh.

What is so important about January 19, 2006? No, it's not that it is National Penguin Awareness Day. Okay, it's also the 91st Anniversary of George Claude's patenting of the electric neon sign, but that still isn't what makes the day so special. National Popcorn Day? You aren't even trying anymore are you?

Jan. 19 is important because it is the opening of WOMMA's two-day Word of Mouth Basic Training (WOMBAT) at Disney's Coronado Springs Resort in Orlando, Fla. This conference will teach you the core WOM skills and ROI measurement tools to succeed in our rapidly-changing marketing environment. And you'll be in Florida. In January.

You want authors? WOMBAT has Dave Balter, Jon Berry & Ed Keller, Jackie Huba, Mark Hughes, George Silverman and more. Experts too! Pete Blackshaw, Walter Carl, Jonathan Carson, John Moore, Laurie Weisberg and Terri Whitesel are but a smidgen of the brain trust. Still want more? Okay, okay, I'm speaking as well.

Obviously, my insights alone are worth the admission price. However, WOMMA has made sure that you -- the influential readers of this august blog -- don't need to pay retail. When you register, just use the code "speakerdeal" to received a $100 discount. Sweet.

technorati tags: WOM; WOMBAT; WOMMA

2005-11-30T17:04:00.000-07:00

Mad as hell. Not going to take it anymore. Etc.

Rumors continue to roll on Les Moonves’ efforts to snag Katie Couric for the new, improved CBS Evening News. How remarkable! Maybe they can also use a new “swooshing” sound when stories pop up on screen! And build a new desk! With blinky lights!

Les, babe, let’s chat. Network news has been fading in the ratings and from the public consciousness since I was listening to Billy Squier on eight-track. It’s beyond tired, as is reflected by your ubiquitous ads for Centrum Silver and incontinence products. I’m a news junkie and don’t know ANYONE that watches ABC, NBC or CBS’ evening newscasts. Even my retired mom watches CNN while my dad is searching for the latest WWII doc on the History Channel. Why are you continuing to kick this dead nag expecting it to start galloping again?

Let’s face facts – news junkies already know everything that happened hours before you commit it to tape at 5 p.m. EST. We in the Western states might as well be watching a newsreel considering how stale it is by day’s end. Cable news and radio own immediacy. The Internet is not only immediate, it also owns thoroughness and narrowcasting, so you can’t compete there either. And to be honest, most the people I know are either working or in traffic when your show is broadcast.

As a J-school grad, I have some residual interest in promoting journalism, so let me drop a few suggestions for that time slot in order of fiscal sanity and programming effectiveness:

1) Eliminate the newscast completely. Crush ABC and NBC with repeats of Everyone Loves Raymond. Focus your news budget on the current hour-long investigative programs.

2) Okay, that last one scared you. How about transforming the newscast into something like Nightline? Delve deep into one or two stories that no one else is reporting on. In the final segment, hold a seven-minute roundtable discussion featuring experts in the field rather than vaguely-informed journalists.

3) Still too radical? Alright, enough with Manhattan already. Keep the newscast, but broadcast from Chicago… that’s right, middle America. Better yet, buy a satellite truck and broadcast from a different location every week. Feature a few stories from the area along with the big stories of the day. Get someone untraditional to host, dropping the Cronkite “voice of God” template since no one buys it anymore. A guy like Bob Costas can read a report and he’s actually likable, believable and doesn’t seem terminally biased. Better yet, grab one of the hundred great local anchors none of us have yet heard of.

Les, you have to blow up the whole "Eyewitness News" model and create something new. Otherwise, you’ll be running ads for caskets and urns by 2010.

technorati tags: CBS; Journalism; Moonves

2005-11-28T07:51:00.000-07:00

Advertising 101.

When I entered the Marketing world as a graphic designer, I dreamed of getting my work shown in a Print or Communication Arts design annual. As I leafed through these slick tomes I was alternately inspired or dismissive, thinking I can do better than that! I loved great design, so these pubs would be my validation as a great designer. I would be admired by my peers. Being feted by other designers was my goal.

After about two years immersed in Photoshop and French Paper Co. samples, I decided that my original goal sucked. Success wasn’t defined as appealing to designers – it was appealing to my audience. Did a busy homemaker open my mailer or toss it in the trash? Did my ads draw in a reader or did he quickly turn the page? Did my brochure make a complex government program easy to understand? Design professors were irrelevant to my success. Moving units was all that mattered.

That basic revelation changed the way I viewed myself and my work. And since then, I’ve warned art departments about the dangers of “designers designing for designers.” Sadly, advertisers fall to the same temptation. Awards are great – it's a blast to be recognized by one’s community. But if you aren’t selling product, you have failed miserably.

The Basement offers a elegantly simple test:

Watch some ads on TV with friends or family. After an ad, ask the open question "What did you think of that?" and point to the TV. Don't mention the product and don't use the word "ad". If the response is "That was a (good, funny, interesting, etc.) ad." then the ad wasn't marketing. If, on the other hand, the response is "That's a (cool, neat, interesting, useful, etc.) product." then it's marketing. If they actually want the thing, then it's good marketing….

Lesson to Marketers: After watching a pitch for a new campaign, ask yourself, "if we run with this, will people say 'great ad' or 'great product'?" If the answer is the former, fire you ad firm and start over.

An award-winning ad that doesn’t move units is the great quarterback who can’t win a game, the pop idol that can’t sell albums, the tennis star that loses every tournament, or the brilliant politician that can’t win an election.
More bluntly, it’s a loser.

technorati tags: Advertising; Basement; Marketing

2005-11-17T21:45:00.000-07:00

Tom Hespos Makes No Sense.

The namesake of the snarky headline has written an article for MediaPost titled, Buzz Marketing Makes No Sense (free reg. req'd). Noting the title, I expected a humor piece. Alas.

It begins thusly:

IF THERE'S SOMETHING MORE TO this notion of "buzz marketing" that [sic] what I've already heard, someone needs to spell it out for me. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.

Let me finish this train of thought for him: "And what's with the kids today and their crazy 'rap' music? I can't even understand the words! By gum, the missus and I were sharing a phosphate down at the five and dime when a group of ne'er-do-wells sidled up with their Snoop Doggy Doggy, Mr. Fifty Cents and what-not. Tarnation, that was an infernal racket! I had half a mind to scoot the li'l shavers to my Edison Cylinder for the J.P. Sousa oeuvre. That would teach the rapscallions about music proper, by Jove!"

Now, I don't know Hespos from Adam, but from the sneering tone of his piece I doubt he'd mind a little snark on this humble blog. Nevertheless, the article is gobsmackingly ill-considered, not even fathoming the difference between buzz, stealth and WOMM.

Make sure you visit the Spin Board link following the screed since it contains wise retorts by Andy Sernovitz and Joe Chernov. Unsurprisingly, their calm appeals fall on the unlistening ears of the author and his devotees.

With all the available books and ground-breaking research, I often feel behind the curve in the WOMM revolution. However, threads like Hespos' assure me of gainful employment for the rest of my marketing career.

technorati tags: WOM; WOMMA; Buzz

2005-11-11T07:55:00.000-07:00

Is IBM hiring?

“Other companies have fired people for blogging, but IBM is encouraging it,” said Christopher Barger, Big Blue’s unofficial “blogger in chief.”

Ad Age has the goods on IBM’s new employee blogger program.

technorati tags: IBM; Employee Blog; WOM

2005-11-09T17:05:00.000-07:00

The sound of one room napping.

Presentation Zen contrasts the understated presentation of Steve Jobs to the muddled PowerPoint of Bill Gates. I first noticed this article on the blog of one S. Godin of Buffalo, N.Y. Seeing Seth's presentation at the WOM vs. Advertising conference, I can assure you he practices what he preaches. His slides were the only ones I still remember. Well, besides that one dude's belly.

I'm very new to the presentation world, with my much feted debut at the same conference. Still, I wanted to be memorable somehow... So, since I was the last of about 164 speakers, I went escuela vieja by offering no PPT. I figured everyone was sick to death of bullet points and I wanted them to pay attention to my breathtaking visage for the full seven minutes alloted. As the day progressed, I was surprised that I was going to be the only unplugged act. Ergo, I became Un Vaca Púrpura.

Brilliant, no? "No" is the correct answer, because I didn't know what I was doing. Nevertheless, I've sat through 7,493 presentations that sucked and about 12 that didn't. And what stood out among the greats was:
1) Few to no PowerPoint slides, and
b) A speaker directly engaged with the audience.
I knew that if I was fiddling around with an unfamiliar laptop, I wouldn't be interacting with the crowd and would therefore suck. QED.

I'll need to fling some slides for future presentations, but I'll keep this Presentation Zen blog handy as I prepare.

technorati tags: Presentation Zen; PowerPoint; WOMMA

2005-11-08T21:31:00.000-07:00

Big Blue Meets Buzz.

Item: "IBM said it is developing an application to analyze how discussions on blogs and other Web sites are affecting a given corporation's image."

Hat tip: Organized Individualists

technorati tags: WOM; IBM; Buzz; Factiva

2005-11-08T17:04:00.000-07:00

Subservient Sales.

The NY Times (reg. req'd.) focuses on the growth of ad agency and media darling Crispin Porter & Bogusky. This is the firm that created the oft-discussed (disgust?) Burger King campaigns featuring a guy in a chicken costume and a guy in a king costume.

The BK campaigns have been innovative, WOM-friendly and very viral. Of course, I haven't visited a BK in about six months.

Before CP&B begins any campaigns for VW, let's remember ADV 101. The purpose of an ad isn't to impress marketers, win awards, or appear in the Times. The purpose ultimately is to move units. From the article:

"Our success with Burger King proved there wasn't a problem with the client, but there was a problem with the ad agency," [Andrew] Keller said. Burger King had used five lead ad agencies since 2000. But Burger King's franchisees have recently turned against the Crispin-designed campaign after sales slipped over the last few months, according to the trade publication Advertising Age.

That is one ugly paragraph. First, "there wasn't a problem with the client?" Are you kidding me, Andy? Since 2000, franchisees have been in a growing state of revolt against the BK corporate office. Their dwindling market share, atrocious quality, and hideous operations were cited for years in the QSR trades. But your ad campaign and that alone changed this overnight? It wasn't the hard work of the franchisees or HQ staff or their impressive new leadership? Wow, is that arrogant. And wrong.

Not surprisingly, the franchisees are again ticked because the ads they're buying aren't getting the job done. I work with franchisees and this is their livelihoods on the line. They spend 12-hour days fixing the deep fryer, coaching crewmembers and giving samples to their strip mall neighbors. They want -- and deserve -- results from the massive ad budget they fund.

When Subservient Chicken arrived, I thought it was brilliant... because I completely misunderstood its goal. At the time, I thought the groundbreaking campaign was aimed mainly at the media, embittered franchisees and shareholders to communicate, “hey, the BK brand isn’t dead yet!”

But based on their Dr. Angus campaign, the Hootie deal, the so-censored-it-became-irrelevant Coq Rock campaign, etc., it seems like they’re trying to create buzz about unconventional ad strategies rather than the BK experience. I’m not surprised that long-suffering franchisees are wondering if these expensive experiments should continue.

So, good luck with the VW account. Perhaps they can create a "Subservient Customer Service Rep" so angry customers can vent some frustration.

technorati tags: WOM; VW; Franchisees; Advertising; CP&B; Burger King

2005-11-08T11:35:00.000-07:00

You want metrics?

I got your stinkin' metrics right here.

technorati tags: WOM; Metrics; WOMMA; eMarketer

2005-11-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

Educational and entertaining.

“Hey did you see that commercial where Paris Hilton rapes a hamburger?” Hell hath no fury like The Basement scorned.

technorati tags: WOM; VW; Basement

2005-11-01T07:52:00.000-07:00

Adweek measures WOM.

Adweek has written a feature story titled "Measuring Buzz" (A PDF of the story is available at the Brand Autopsy blog). The article is a great introduction to WOM metrics, offering a survey of the field with little snark. Good job Adweek, and thanks to Brand Autopsy for making the story available to us all.

technorati tags: WOM; Measuring Buzz; Brand Autopsy; WOMMA

2005-10-25T21:55:00.000-07:00

A brush with greatness.

I often talk of brand evangelism on this site. Now's the time to practice what I preach.

If you are a guy past puberty, buy one of these:

This is the Vulfix #2233 Super Badger Shaving Brush, lovingly hand-crafted on the Isle of Man. The first time I used this baby, my face was smoother than a snooker ball.

It was recommended in a detailed article on attaining the perfect shave, so I gave it a try. Now I'm talking about this thing so much, my wife thinks I've joined a Tantric shaving cult.

I procured mine from the link above, ClassicShaving.com, and they were extremely responsive. I also picked up an old-fashioned shaving mug, soap, and a Merkur safety razor which I have yet to get the hang of. (That's why I also bought a styptic pencil.)

But you must get this brush. Rush out now in a buying frenzy!

technorati tags: WOM; Shaving; Vulfix; Merkur

2005-10-25T21:21:00.000-07:00

Sympathy for the Record Industry.

Record label marketeers are nervous. They should be terrified.

The Times (London) offers a great peek into the implosion of the rickety RIAA promotion machine. A band of nobodies called the Arctic Monkeys knocked much-hyped media vamps the Sugababes (think Spice Girls without the artistic integrity) from the UK's #1 slot.

The unsigned Monkeys set up a Web site and gave the songs away for free. They also used their site to steadily chat with their fans, destroying the artificial barrier between artist and listener. Fame and fortune followed as their legion of fans began taping live shows, concert tickets were being scalped for about US$175, and a record label snapped them up.

Meanwhile, RIAA sues its customers. Oh, it'll be a pity to see these clowns in the unemployment line.

PS: It is always a wise move to include the word "monkeys" in your band name.

PPS: The Arctic Monkeys play "grok rock" ("grok" meaning "dirty" in Brit slang). I've only heard a couple of songs, but they sound a bit like the White Stripes in a crowded Yorkshire pub.

PPPS: The article also quotes Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins, Zwan) as saying music Web sites have created “a new paradigm". Wouldn't you expect a tool like Corgan to use the word "paradigm"? Gads.

technorati tags: WOM; Arctic Monkeys; RIAA; Music industry

2005-10-21T07:23:00.000-07:00

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

Earlier this month, a brilliant writer opined, Why is it SO difficult for so many to say, "we messed up?" It's not a big deal; we all make mistakes. And whether it's Dell providing lousy computer service, a politician rapidly switching positions or a NYT columnist getting the facts wrong, just say "whoops" and briefly (but thoroughly) explain yourself.

Yesterday, the way-cool Greenville, S.C., agency Brains on Fire clearly demonstrated how this is done. Lofty kudos to Robbin Phillips for brilliantly practicing what we all need to do more of.

Hire these folks -- they get it.

technorati tags: WOM; Apology; Brains on Fire

2005-10-17T17:05:00.000-07:00

Words that must die.

Recently, Mr. Galloway (highly recommended!) detailed his loathing for the term “actionable.” This word is just one of many examples of what I call “Dilbert-speak”: business terms designed not to communicate, but to make the speaker seem more intelligent.

Matt’s post reminded me of all sorts of linguistic ticks around the meeting table. Since the readers of this ~~impotent~~ important site are deeply interested in making my life less stressful, would you kindly stomp down co-workers using these terms? My public gratitude shall be your reward (I don’t have any “The Inkling™” coffee mugs or leg warmers to give away just yet).

Utilize: The over-long replacement for “use” when a person wants to sound smart or high-tech. I once tried to thin out a large stack of resumes by removing every one that used this word. The problem was that EVERY ONE used it. Or should I say “utilized” it.

Very unique: Unique means “unlike anything else” or “one of a kind.” It’s binary. Something IS unique or NOT unique. There are no degrees. Can someone be “kind of pregnant?” Same with “unique.”

A whole nother: Rarely written, but ubiquitous in speech. “Nother” is not a word. Say “another whole” or “a whole other.” Or I’ll slap you.

Tentative: Another spoken gaffe – even academics and NPR types regularly get this one wrong. There is a second “T” in there that gets angry when forgotten. Ten-TA-tive, not ten-a-tive.

Leverage: See “utilize.”

Implement: To paraphrase Nancy Reagan, “just say ‘do.’”

Actionable: As in “actionable information” – why not just say “information?”

Out of the Box: We’re all sick of this one. I actually heard myself using this in a big meeting last week. I felt so… dirty.

Authenticity: Never use this self-referentially. It’s like the word “humble” – the adjective no longer applies if you use it about yourself.

110 percent: You can give 100 percent. That’s all. More annoyingly, offices are in the midst of metaphorical percentage creep. Since 110 percent is now expected, now employees are giving 150 or 200 percent. Until human cloning is commonplace, never cross the century mark.

Deliverables: I once bludgeoned a middle manager with his stapler for using this thrice in one paragraph. Stop me before I kill again.

technorati tags: WOM; Marketing; Copywriting

2005-10-16T20:36:00.000-07:00

Pop quiz!

Figure 1:

Word of Mouth Marketing has either:
A) Arrived.
B) Jumped the shark.

Extra Credit Question: Has the phrase "jumped the shark" jumped the shark?

technorati tags: WOM; Buzz

2005-10-13T21:41:00.000-07:00

The customer ain't always right.

Extraordinary customer service is crucial, but let's face it: sometimes a customer is full of crap. We've all seen a shrill harridan demeaning a trembling soul at the register, or a dyspeptic lout demanding the physically impossible. In cases like that don't be afraid to stand up for your employee.

CMO has a great read on FedEx and Southwest's employee-focused strategies. Happy workers make happy customers. And happy shareholders. Southwest President Colleen Barrett shares her philosophy:

"If we practice the Golden Rule every day, then employees feel good about what they're doing. They're apt to smile more and be warmer. If that happens often enough and passengers feel that proactive customer service, then they, in turn, are happy and come back more," Barrett explains.

And here's FedEx's attitude:

...FedEx's primary means of engaging employees is by encouraging what the express delivery service calls "Discretionary Effort." That means encouraging employees to use their own judgment during tricky customer-relations issues. "We encourage them to do what they think is correct," explains (Bob) Bennett. "If they have an unhappy customer and they need to send them flowers, they can. We had one courier who had a flat tire. Fifteen minutes later, he rented a cab [and delivered the package]. We didn't question it."

Your employees will be associated with your organization a lot longer than that poltroon who abused them last week. Don't be afraid at times to fire the awful customer and pat your employee on the back.

technorati tags: FedEx; Southwest; Customer; Employee; CMO; WOM

2005-10-12T22:21:00.000-07:00

Bob Garfield has an intriguing piece in the Oct. 10 AdAge about what he calls "Listenomics":

Advertising as we know it might not quite work anymore.
Now there’s a thought.
If the conversation is dominated by consumers themselves, and they’re paying scant attention to the self-interested blather of the marketer, who needs ads -- offline, online or otherwise? This raises the question of what agencies are left to do.
Maybe the answer is obvious: to manage, focus, exploit, maybe even co-opt the open conversation. The real question may be whether the agency world is culturally equipped for the task. (emphases mine)

Ben McConnell takes Garfield to task while Owen Mack offers an understanding defense.

I think Garfield means well and is seriously trying to understand the terra incognita of the new marketing world. However, even with his language he reveals that, deep down, he just doesn't get it.

"Consumers" are things (see units, widgets, etc.). "Customers" are people. When you can honestly call these people "clients" or "partners," that's even better. These seem like simple semantic differences, but they reveal what we really think about the folks that pay our salary.

Agencies should "exploit" and "co-opt" consumers' conversations? Yeah, good luck with that. I love when my phone is exploited by a dim-witted fishwrap saleswoman at dinner time. And I adore the fact I can't use my cable Internet email account because it's been co-opted by Viagra pitchmen and Hungarian exhibitionists.

Sure, "exploit" can be a neutral term, but it usually means (or is inferred to mean) that someone is cynically taking advantage of another. Instead of commandeering a discussion, how about engaging in your customers' conversations? How about listening more than you talk? Do you think a person might like that approach? Would you?

technorati tags: WOM; Bob Garfield; AdAge; Marketing

2005-10-09T19:25:00.000-07:00

Kevin Creighton over at the Organized Individualists blog is taking a well-deserved paternity hiatus. Congratulations to Kevin, Bonnie and beautiful little Dylan James!

2005-10-04T11:37:00.000-07:00

Following on the tremendous financial outpouring for Hurricane Katrina relief, Marc Sirkin has a great question about donations. Since less than one percent of all donations are given anonymously (according to the NYT), “is an anonymous gift better” in some way? And if it is better, how can we as individuals even make gifts anonymously?

I am surprised by the “less than one percent” figure, but I’m unclear how it is possible to donate anonymously these days. Everything online requires a debit/credit card, everything by mail requires a personal check, and any regular gift (monthly donation, religious institution tithe, etc.) usually requires a special account or a paycheck deduction. As Marc mentions, the only way to give anonymously is to drop a C-note in a tin cup.

I think a major reason for giving non-anonymously (that’s a clunky phrase. Can I just say “nonymously”?) is the tax code. Years back, as an enthusiastic 18-year-old I was surprised that people gave money to their church in envelopes with their name and address. I remember thinking, “aren’t we supposed to give in private?” Then a middle-aged gentleman kindly reminded me of that thing (still new to me) called taxes. I used to give anonymously as a young adult, but now that I’m 38 with a family and a mortgage, I save receipts for every stray buck I give to anyone or anything. I’ll render unto Caesar, but not one red cent more than I have to.

So if you want to give anonymously, I would cram a roll of $20s into the donations box for the Ronald McDonald House or Habitat for Humanity or The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. But your accountant wouldn’t recommend it.

technorati tags: nonprofit; Donation; Charity; altruism

2005-10-02T10:42:00.000-07:00

Why is it SO difficult for so many to say, "we messed up?" It's not a big deal; we all make mistakes. And whether it's Dell providing lousy computer service, a politician rapidly switching positions or a NYT columnist getting the facts wrong, just say "whoops" and briefly (but thoroughly) explain yourself.

No rational person is going to hold this against you. No one but the most strident partisan will mock your admission. In fact, the vast majority of your so-called enemies will be forced into respecting your forthrightness.

Enter the NY Times editorial page. Widely read econo-columnist Paul Krugman has apparently made a series of errors -- some large, some minor -- about various issues of the day. In one particular column, he apparently misrepresented crucial facts about the tangled 2000 Florida recount. But instead of just saying "whoops" and moving on, he has offered a series of tortured "yeah maybe, but" semi-retractions which hide any correction behind Byzantine technicalities and lashing out at perceived foes.

His obstinance was so extraordinary, that NYT Public Editor Byron Calame publically rebuked both Krugman and his editor, Gail Collins. In response, Collins today offered more ornate spins, dodges and pirouettes to avoid that apparently painful term, "whoops."

On the Decision '08 blog (linked above), I jokingly offered an inducement to Krugman:

Maybe getting a correction out of Krugman would be easier if the NY Times put it behind another, more expensive subscription wall. Call it TimesSuperSelect — for just $69.95, you get not only TimesSelect, but you also have access to the weekly “For the Record” corrections warehouse. The offending columnist will then get a $4.95 kickback from each subscriber every time he admits a whopper, boner, howler or gaffe. Press honesty is at a premium; Shouldn’t the pay structure reflect that?

Jokes aside, this whole situation reminded me of the obstinance by Dell when called out by Jeff Jarvis. Whether you run a company or a column, just say "whoops" and move on. You'll be happier, wealthier and have more time to avoid making another mistake.

technorati tags: Gail Collins; New York Times; Paul Krugman; WOM

2005-10-01T01:00:00.000-07:00

This is BRILLIANT. A video post-production house has decided to make new movie trailers for older films. Showing the power of good editing, they are making the movies seem VERY different than they should. Here is their heartwarming take on The Shining. Did I say "brilliant?"

2005-09-30T09:35:00.000-07:00

Matt Galloway lists a myriad (or is it a panoply?) of great quotes from the WOMMA conference. As I mentioned in my previous post, there was so much content, it was hard to absorb everything in the first pass. I look forward to the CD of the proceedings which should be completed soon. (I’m disappointed in the audio medium, btw. Why can’t I get an eight-track? How about an Edison cylinder?)

One quote in Matt’s list that jumped out was the following:

George Silverman, Author of The Secrets of Word-of-Mouth Marketing
"I have a client that is coming out with a product that will have lots of PR. He doesn't want to do blogs because he is afraid it will undermine the PR. I think this is so insane that I cannot answer." (paraphrased slightly) I think it's insane to Mr. Silverman. I have several discussions in which people used the world "fear" in association with blogs – I think that's insane too.

The fear is irrational and counterproductive, but completely understandable. A major source of human fear is a feeling of a loss of control. Traditional marketers are used to complete control over their brand. They own the message and they buy the medium. This “information is power” mentality has permeated their entire self-worth – they believe they are worthy of a six-figure salary because they know stuff that you don’t.

Now, we WOM geeks are telling them to turn over the marketing reins to the gabbing grannies at Viv’s Beauty Salon in Topeka, or the Philly cube dwellers on their lunch break, or some pimple-ridden reviewer posting under the name WyldKatt347(at)yahoo.com. It’s unsurprising that VP of Marketing at AutoSludj International is furious at this career-shaking turn of events. “This is an outrage! I have a friggin’ MBA from Northwestern! I AM SOMEBODY!!! ::arrgh!:: They’ll never take away my Lexus… you do know that don’t you?”

Although it is painful for some, please know this: You have already lost control of your brand, your message and your medium. The customer owns all three and will never give them back. So I suggest you voluntarily release the few remaining trappings of control you still have left. It’s difficult to do, but easier than seeing WyldKatt347 rip it out of your hands.

technorati tags: WOMMA; WOM

2005-09-29T22:04:00.000-07:00

I just returned home from a rousing engagement at the WOMMA Word-of-Mouth vs. Advertising Conference They asked me to share my experience with Cold Stone Creamery's Word of Mouth initiatives which was a great deal of fun. I had never presented to more than a handful of people and this room topped 250 by my estimate.

Was I adored? Most assuredly. But more important was the amazing amount of knowledge I gained from every other speaker. I don't even know where to begin since the agenda was so thick with genius. It will take my sizable brain a few days to process the volume of case studies, examples, research, quips, etc., into any cogent grand strategy about WOM vs. ADV.

The first thing I got from the conference was unexpected. As I listened to the AM speakers, a bit-torrent of WOM tactics I could use for my brand just popped into my mind. Just being in that room seemed enough to break down my mental cubicle walls which held me to traditional marketing. Time once again to annoy my work associates with my stellar insights.

All kudos to Andy Sernovitz, Michael Rubin and the rest of the WOMMA team for arranging this exceptional conference. And thanks to every speaker who contributed -- you've helped a lot of us out here!

technorati tags: WOMMA; WOM

2005-09-29T21:59:00.000-07:00

I'm Jon Gabriel. (Yes, THAT Jon Gabriel!) I long ago set up this blog but finally decided to begin sharing my extraordinary wisdom with an desperate, expectant world.

Oh yes, you're welcome.