Michael Vick: The Greatest Marketing Story Ever Told?

AdAge wrote an interesting piece yesterday on Michael Vick's signing with the Philadelphia Eagles, who plan to pay him $1.7M this coming year, and an option for $5M the following year, provided that Mr. Vick acts like a good little fallen sports star and represents the Eagles organization - and the league - in the best integrity and intentions. The article goes on to discuss the various scenarios with advertisers, but I think the real question is, what will Mr. Vick do to prove his worth to us, the members of society who he has so sorely disappointed? Further, how will marketers empower this shift? 

Here was my comment:

Stories of forgiveness and redemption can be as powerful and influential as the critical mistakes that were made preceding them. Public contempt towards Mr. Vick is completely understandable, and I am one of those folks who is incensed by athletes and other privileged celebrities who have foregone their position as role models for self-indulgent excesses and political grandstanding. However, most people deserve a second chance, and if Mr. Vick can prove his worth to society, his athletic achievements - as well as his marketability - will fall in line.

You see, Mr. Vick is sitting on a mole hill that could slide further into a spiritual and financial abyss, or bring him into a light that resembles some of the luster of Jesus Christ Superstar. 

Now don't get me wrong, the man has only just begun his repentant journey, but he did spend 23 months in federal prison, paid exorbitant fines and pretty much lost anything and everything that was dear to him. 

And this precisely where organizations like PETA should come through the darkness to see the light.

Think about it: as altruistic marketers (yes, they exist), and the believers behind our messages, we look for two primary things:

1. Undeniable truths

2. Converts

Using PETA as an example, Mr. Vick's actions - and subsequent counter-actions - provide a contextual backdrop that could amount to one of the greatest stories ever told. It has all the elements: corruption, temptation, benediction and redemption. More importantly, organizations like PETA have an opportunity to use Mr. Vick as someone who represents all the people they've been trying to convert (and believe it or not, he's not even one of the harshest examples) for years.

Even if Mr. Vick was thrust into this position, it doesn't matter. His personal development is, unfortunately, not the focus. However, what comes of his involvement in his public story may prove to be as cathartic as any... and may produce the kinds of revelations that we don't see every day in the more manufactured campaigns we're fed from marketers at large.

What do you think?

Twitter, A.M. Turing & The Brain in the Vat (the new Google?)

Sometimes it's good to go back in time before we can move forward.

The way the semantic web (artificial intelligence) and The Cloud are shaping up is rapidly calling into question our individual and collective positions in the digital universe, and ultimately, the real world. We've touched upon topics in earlier posts such as sensory marketing and how we put our social personalities into application, but now we are seeing a profound shift in how we aggregate our intelligence... and the prospective methods we will use to mine it, cultivate it and optimize it.

This week's announcement that Facebook acquired FriendFeed (a real-time social search & aggregation platform) brought to light a very alarming truth: our souls are beginning to show.

Think about it: the emotional self is loud and often illustrious. The spiritual self is quiet and often unwavering. In between is the layer of our existence that is almost entirely subject to interpretation, yet one that is almost readily identifiable - and in some ways, predictable - in patterns. Granted, these patterns constantly change, but nonetheless they tell a story about who we are, both as individuals and as whole tribes of people.

So back to the possibilities.

My guess is that as Google looks under its own hood (as it has been for a while) its algorithmic next step is to provide us with a solid, qualitative and quantitative look at this 'intermediary layer'.

Of Google's current algorithm, A.M. Turing predicted it outright: that a purely logistical view of mathematics is inadequate. He also talked frequently in his essays about the problems of word association in compact or niche groups. The point is that probability on the web - which, in conversation, shows a categorical emphasis and proximity to activation - is not entirely an extraction of content, but rather the combination of content and its interpretation and all the variants (or sub-variants) in between.

Here's where Twitter fits in. And where Google may benefit.

Twitter never claimed to be a content aggregator. Twitter is a true microblog - a conversation engine - that has served its purpose, and continues to serve this purpose, as a relatively straight-forward measuring stick for sentiment and topical evaluation (among other things). Google is refining is indexing methodology to include not only the extractions mentioned above, but the variants used to determine adoption and sentiments amongst users and tribes of users.

So the relationship is simple: Facebook/FriendFeed control the ebb-and-flow of content aggregation, and Google ala Twitter facilitate the perception management of these offerings into more finite and digestible bits... those that are more organized and more scalable.

fixed patterns > | new semantic layers | < infinite variables

We must remember that people do not fundamentally change, technologies do, so ultimately, where we go and how we get there is determined by our own doing.

As for the brain in the vat, well, you're in it right now, so only time will tell...

More Social Currency Evolving... (Like Swine Flu)

Our friends from TRÜF discovered an interesting follow-up to the Obama/Joker poster. This street campaign seemingly goes on the offense against some folks’ favorite right-wing bag of gas, Rush Limbaugh. Fair or not, and after comparing Obama and Pelosi to Nazis, spewing hate on a daily basis and being guilty of nothing short of inciting violence, semantics seem to point to just about anything that links him to the word "swine". Unlike the Obama/Joker poster, this one seems to have a more pointed message. One guess is that it is something about the viral and toxic nature of certain right-leaning commentators. Or maybe something bigger: is true mass influence sourced from good intentions, or evil ones?

Which begs the question: who will adopt this currency as their own, and what new statement will they make of it?

Further, are we ready for the street campaign battles that are about ensue?

Perhaps are collective conscience is taking hold of itself and revealing different faces in the process...

Oh yeah, and if you’re curious and ready to spread the conversation, be sure to remember the hashtag #H1N1 in your tweets... Gotta be true to a viral phenomenon.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Role of the Agency: Business Shrink

Assuage me.

This is the telepathic message every marketer cries out to a prospective vendor. Sure, some are more confident than others in their ability to build new relationships with consumers, but we all know that the game is changing so rapidly that, well, historical precedents and benchmarks are few and far between.

Psychologically, we can use specific keywords to ease the conversation, words like 'listening', 'advocacy' and 'brand loyalty', but these often fall into a rhetorical place that has no logical return, particularly on investment or intent.

So perhaps we need to get real about the landscape. 

Service layer bundling is already a necessary function of any agency. Either you play in the same sandbox with folks in your peer group, or you run the risk of being shut out by virtue of your resource pool. You can't really hold your cards all that tightly to your chest, because if you do, you'll lose out on critical business opportunities.

Regarding the business opportunities themselves, you can run a separate P&L, but the fact remains that your bottom line has to be tied in some way to that of the client's. Gotta have some skin in the game, son. Especially if we're dealing with outreach strategies and devices that are largely experimental in nature.

We're already at the tipping point. Soon, we will arrive at the transformative point. 

My guess is that we - as in our collective media mass - will be whittled down to publishers, networks and portals, in which we create conversational loops between marketers and consumers and fulfill very specific market needs. 

What is and what will continue to evolve is a new marketplace. What goes in it can be anyone's guess, but rest assured, it will be dictated and navigated by the stakeholders in brands.

Good luck to us all, the future is careening around the corner, Godspeed.

Inside the Frenetic Social Mind: Creative Technology Development

In the ongoing effort to tie commerce with common interest, creative technology development demands the navigation of an often paralyzing conflict: the balance between sensibility and unpredictability.

From a logistics or methodological standpoint, those of us who choose this path must blend UX with UI and AI and any other fairly useless designations I can’t think of at the moment.

From a business standpoint, elements of the supply chain rear their ugly head. Then scalability bellows into the left ear, for the right brain to somehow process.

From a cultural standpoint, identifying and assuming behavioral patterns are fleeting. It’s easy to miss the important details, such as a purchaser’s bluff.

All the for the pursuit of profit. But to whose gain? Ours?

Then all the color, the lines, the interconnectivity reveal themselves in a conflagration of possibility. We then resign ourselves to the notion that it doesn’t matter what comes of the creation, just that we’ve created it and it stands for something. Or anything.

Match up our thoughts. Bid on our feelings. Sell pieces of ourselves. And if we ascribe a higher purpose to it all, then the meaning can’t get lost.

Or will it anyway?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Evolving Our Social Currency (Whether Objectionable or Not)

An interesting thing happened today on the ThinkState Facebook fan page. Manolith.com had posted a propaganda image of Barack Obama (on his birthday no less), depicting him as the Joker (Batman's nemesis) along with the label of 'socialism'. I happened to find the image via my friend Charlie Ferguson's posterous page. The image is certainly evocative, but what really struck me was the power of individual use to convey a sentiment that, regardless of its basis in fact, had a perceptible impact that transcended the words themselves.

The thought arose: if we label people - especially public figures - we should be prepared to visualize them in that context. In other words, imagery can shape semantics and can impose a cultural value system upon us, no matter how small or self-contained.

So my longtime friend and colleague, Adam Goldberg, responded: "We should also be prepared to suffer the consequences of our own labeling and lies. And if need be, own them. If slanderous propaganda, God forbid, incites some kind of vigilantism against Obama, do you think that those who disseminated those mistruths will hold themselves accountable? No way. Freedom of expression should be a two-way street."

Then he posted an augmented image of his own to the comment thread and labeled it 'racism' - the image you see above.

This through me for a loop, because now there was a clear and conflicting relationship between the words and the image. It jumped right out at me. 

Was this new augmentation suggesting that Obama represented racism, or was he the victim of it? Was it saying that he was two-faced, or the victim of party posturing?

This is just one example - where the possibilities can reach epic proportions - of how media influence and social currency can shift perceptions in an instant. Looking at this hypothetically, imagine if the images had reached a wide, long-tail net of users. Further, imagine the lengths to which people could attack and counter-attack using these productions of words and imagery. Who knows, they may by tomorrow, or sometime in the next hour. We can never underestimate a groundswell of elicit conviction and perceived moral fortitude.

Ultimately, it forces all of us to ask ourselves about the role we play in sharing the responsibility of our messages and their subsequent actions.

Going forward, what role will you play?

Campaigns: Serving the Needs of Marketers, Not Consumers

The rapid-fire shifts within the media landscape are forcing us to think differently. And while we have done a much better job of listening to consumer passions, desires and interests, we are, by and large, still trying to shoehorn our own ‘media solutions’ into their daily agendas. Quite frankly, this needs to change, and perhaps we can start by retooling our deployment methodology.

Let’s dive into theory for a moment.

A campaign construct is based on in-points and end-points which lend to a relatively short lifecycle. Sure, you can run a campaign for an extended period of time, but by default, we essentially ascribe a time crunch on what we hope is the development of conversations around a brand offering. But this seems entirely antithetical to engagement: how can we generate conversations on our timetable, not those of the consumers we hope to reach? Further, how can conversations be generated organically within fixed environments?

The concept of transmedia storytelling provides an interesting context – it represents a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience (via Henry Jenkins and his Confessions of an Aca-Fan blog).  Perhaps it is a context in which we can make more sense of how to turn messages into conversations, primarily because the timelines for engagement and adoption are indefinite.

There are two fundamental parts to transmedia: the marketing functions and the development functions of a rollout strategy. This requires a bit of reverse engineering, to say the least.

The marketing functions would serve to optimize a media plan or spend (in other words, reduce waste), or, from the ground level, would build out a framework that serves a market need – in effect, putting the consumer front and center. The idea behind this is that we would actually brand markets, not market brands per se, so that common interests would supersede age or economics. So, in this sense, we are talking about developing initiatives in a true psychographic and technographic capacity as opposed to a mere demographic one.

The development functions would serve to build a mythology around IP. Imagine taking your favorite CPG or electronics brand and building a storybook around its core DNA that is rich in lore, Platonic soft text, amazing iconography and a suite of virtually endless outcomes (think of video annotations without a set number of ‘second’ or ‘third’ acts). Now imagine taking tools that are already on offer within the semantic web (artificial intelligence) and building layers that extend these stories out into the world, free of dictation, compartmentalization or even language barriers... Subsequently creating a seamless, organic and collaborative experience.

We cannot expect brand advocacy to be furtive and ongoing if we continue to bastardize our relationships. For those on the brand side – marketing directors and CMOs – it may be daunting to present something that is quantitatively challenging to a board of skeptics, but by the same token, all the time that is spent pouring over numbers can be used to develop business plans (not marketing plans) predicated on market insights that are measurable and open to adaptation. In other words, if you treat the consumer relationship as your business, you can remove much of the guesswork that goes into predicting behavior – a central component of campaign development that seems to fail.

Food for thought. What do you think?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous