A few weeks ago I read an article from Fast Company called, “The Future of Advertising” that made me feel unnecessarily anxious about the future of marketing, rather than amazed by the transforming industry.  If you made it through the whole article (or if not) you may also feel this concern that seems a bit melodramatic in response to the digital age’s heavy influence on the future of advertising.  Let’s take a deep breath and dissect this down to the basics:

• Some marketers are freaking out (honestly) because of digital technology altering the way we advertise.  Former CEO of ad agency Marsteller, Andy Nibley[DW1]  stated, “Is there any industry I get involved in that doesn’t get destroyed by digital technology?”  Here is where the problem lies for all of the beyond-stressed advertisers out there- digital technology is not destroying the advertising industry, it’s changing it.  Mind you, these are big changes and a great amount of learning and resilience involves the success of moving through the transformation.  But acceptance is the key.  Digital technology will not destroy advertising, but it will force agencies to think on their feet and use raw creativity.  As opposed to destruction, the ad industry will expand and reach new possibilities that clients can only dream of, while marketers bring them to life.
• “The death of mass marketing means the end of lazy marketing.”  This statement leads me to question, when was lazy marketing ever okay?  And, not to be harsh, but good riddance to those who just wanted to squeak by, providing only the minimal services to clients.  The digital age has opened up the marketing industry to social media, websites, online ads, search, applications, and many other options now available for implementation.  With so many choices, visibility is not necessary on all fronts, just those that are effective.  Rather than mass marketing, the industry is moving into mass customization where marketers must determine what mediums work best for business and apply those practices, rather than spreading their budgets too thin.  Digital technology also enables consumers to be marketers, which can be rewarding or disastrous depending on the way marketers use the information.  Active marketers (as opposed to lazy ones) will find consumer reviews and leverage them by presenting the good and addressing the bad head on.  Anyone thinking Domino’s?
• It’s time to tighten up.  Not only as a result of the economy, but also the new tools available to marketers, cost-free.  Social media leaves many executives wondering why marketing budgets must increase, and feel a need to scale back on activities and talent.  Now more than ever is it vital for marketers to expose their creativity, as much of the industry scare is related to older, dare I say outdated and outmoded advertising (and thinking) models that haven’t kept up with the times.  Marketing as a whole is changing as digital grows stronger and stronger.  Creativity, talent, practicality and adaptability will be allowed to thrive.  Marketing isn’t a profession that requires formal continuing education, but the most successful are those who keep themselves ahead in the game.

 So, are you still anxious or do you feel a bit better?  Marketing and the advertising industry are certainly taking a drastic turn, but there is so much to take advantage of through the use of great new tools that simplify tasks and new ways to satisfy customers through social media.  Leveraging change, rather than rejecting it will be the ultimate divide between those who succeed and those who sink under the pressure of the digital revolution.

Tina Walsh
Marketing Coordinator

Tweet This Post

Aside from the traditional media attacking The Gap as a result of its sudden and drastic logo change, social media tops off the attack with @GapLogo and @OldGapLogo, parody Twitter sites stirring up buzz by arguing their sides of which logo should come out on top.  The uprising against the new logo became so strong that Gap finally went back to its original logo, tweeting,

“We’ve heard you.  We only want what’s best for Gap.  No crowd sourcing, but the Blue Box is back”

The respective responses from @GapLogo and @OldGapLogo:

“This is for you, @Gap.  Take me back!  Please! Listening to Take That – Back for Good ♫ http://blip.fm/~xcfd3”

“Well…looks like my work here is done.  Peace.  I’m out”

Parody accounts on Twitter are not new to the world of social media, but their targets and uses continue to transform into tools for voicing concern and distaste with many large corporations aside from the Gap.

Two examples of parody Twitter accounts that target corporations include @BPGlobalPR and @ceoSteveJobs.  @ceoSteveJobs pokes fun at issues that Apple faces, including iPhone4 complications, mediocre service from AT&T, and the highly intimidating persona of Steve Jobs.  @BPGlobalPR is much graver, as it eerily makes jokes from the point of view of BP executives, such as

“In Space, nobody can hear you scream. So quit hollering and taking pictures you stupid astronauts! http://ow.ly/21saV”

While humorous, does the account move beyond the zone of poking fun and spreading awareness to simply using fear and dark sarcasm to inform?

I do not follow any parody Twitter accounts at this time, nor have I begun to follow any of the parody accounts discovered from the creation of this post.  While humorous, it’s unsettling to me to participate in the negativity that such accounts promote.  I stand behind the idea related to @ceoSteveJobs and @GapLogo and @OldGapLogo that if you don’t like the product, then don’t use it.  Regarding more serious issues, such as that of the gulf crisis, I would rather focus my energy on efforts that directly foster progress and improvement. 

The flip side of such accounts is that they offer informational content.  Viewing a parody account informs the reader of all activities taking place for the corporation—and none of the information is sugar coated.  Rather than searching through news sites, viewers can simply click on articles within tweets to learn more about the corporations’ latest happenings.  The same can be said of shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.  Both shows use satire and comedy to inform people to stir thought and engagement in current events.  These Twitter parody accounts can serve they same purpose, but I wonder if sometimes the snarkiness takes away the value?

What is Twitter’s take on the creation of such accounts?  They fully support users’ self expression, so long as they do not abuse the Terms of Service and make an effort to follow the guidelines for parody accounts.  Guidelines include creating a username and profile name that are not exactly similar to the parodied item, the bio distinguishes itself from the real identity, and communication with followers and users is not intended to deceive or mislead.  This is where the difference between Twitter parodies and shows like The Colbert Report lies; there is transparency with the shows, and the honor system with a policy for good behavior on Twitter.

What does this mean for corporate executives of medium to large sized businesses? Businesses will have to monitor the popularity of parody accounts, or perhaps avoid their creation in the first place by satisfying customer grievances before they assemble/congregate into hate groups.  For companies like BP, the issue goes far deeper (pun intended) than customer service, but following social networks that parody the company are a good place to connect to what people think and feel about their brand.

Tina Walsh
Marketing Coordinator

Tweet This Post

I recently attended a webinar and read an article that took somewhat opposing sides about today’s marketing: a need for measurement and too much of a science.  Both arguments leave me wondering; Didn’t marketing always have both?  It’s not a one trick dog. 

David Lavenda, blogging for Fast Company, wrote that marketing today is too much of a science, and new methods of measurements have limitations.  He believes the marketing budget can only be reduced so much, and breakthrough innovations require “radical ideas to difficult problems.”  Lavenda stretches this argument too far, pointing out that descriptions for marketing job positions now include words, like “metrics,” “track,” and “measure,” but marketing positions involved in analysis and measurement are not new or any emerging trend.  There certainly have been breakthroughs regarding marketing analytical tools, such as the previously described Twitter analysis dashboard, HootSuite.  But CEOs aren’t suddenly concerned over a company’s budget allocation; marketing departments have always been required to provide some sort of results, or they wouldn’t be able to provide evidence of their budgetary needs.

Marketo held a webinar titled, “What the CEO Needs from Marketing,” featuring the opinions of Phil Fernandez, CEO of Marketo, and Umberto Miletti, CEO of InsideView.  Fernandez felt marketing currently lacked the proper measuring tools to confidently inform CEOs of revenue results from campaigns and admitted to trusting his sales team more as they “have the metrics.”  He suggested that for marketers to build stronger trust with CEOs, they should propose to reduce the marketing budget, and find ways to measure revenue resulting from marketing efforts.  Fernandez makes a marketing department sound like a detached part of the business- the artsy cool kids who won’t share details and simply express themselves through their work. 

I’m painting a stereotype of course, but for a business to be successful, its executives and departments must work cohesively towards similar goals.  Marketing naturally should provide certain measurements depending on the tactics implemented, but even more vital is the communication between marketing (and sales executives and customer service) and CEOs, so that all parties are aligned on programs, expected outcomes, and the metrics that matter most to the business.  Proper communication enables CEOS and marketing executives to strike a balance between science, art, and accountability to satisfy both sides.

Tina Walsh
Marketing Coordinator

Tweet This Post

Today I was reading an article on Mashable.com about a WTFJeans, an innovative style of jeans made to hold all of your gadgets. The target audience is “geeks”, as they put it on the website. But I think the creators are underestimating the amount of consumers who would buy these. Right now they only have one style for men and one style for women. I wouldn’t be surprised if WTFJeans starts expanding the collection after these are all sold because they are so practical for everyone.

The jeans feature a pocket to hold your iPhone or iPod Touch and a hidden pocket to carry a memory stick. Not only do they have a pocket to protect your iPhone, there is micro-fiber lining the pocket to clean your phone when you take it out. They’re making a limited amount that you can order online in 3 stages. The BETA version is the first 100 sold in March. The Early Bird sale starts right after the BETA, only 400 pairs available. The last set of WTFJeans doesn’t come out until August or September apparently, and people can only order whatever sizes are left.

They are only promoting the jeans online, because that’s where their customers are, obviously. There’re using a combination of blogging, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to show everyone the creative process of making the jeans.

It’s very interesting how fashion and technology are becoming integrated. Obviously technology is a huge part of a lot of peoples’ lives, and that’s not going to change anytime soon. I know I’m not the only one who feels disconnected from the world when I forget my cell phone. These jeans make carrying your phone or iPod a lot more convenient. I don’t know how many times I was going somewhere and had to carry a purse just because my phone doesn’t fit in my pockets.

I’m curious to see if features like this will start popping up in other clothing pieces. Have you seen any other companies creating clothes with technology in mind? Did you or do you plan on buying WTFJeans?

Julie Novak
Marketing Coordinator
RedZebraWorks

Tweet This Post