hypocritical : talking the talk without walking the walk

March 31, 2005

Good marketing communications: Somewhere between psycho stalker and couch potato

Sometimes, my mind wanders about marketing.

You see, I don't know about you, but I spend a great deal of time thinking about how I can explain what I do to normal people in the most simple manner possible. It's not that I find myself talking to simple people on a regular basis. Although that would be welcome. It's more that what I do is so amorphous that I'm often seeking my own meaning. So playing these little head games helps.

That said, I think a great deal about how I can create analogies that cause my simple-person target market to smile and nod happily and say "Oh! I get it now." Because that makes me happy. And it makes me happy when I can translate the passion I feel about the completely nebulous world of marketing into something tangible for someone who couldn't truly care any less about marketing. And it makes me feel like I do something worthwhile.

But that's just me. I like a challenge.

So here's what was running through my head today: what is the appropriate level of communications?

And that's when it dawned on me: Good marketing communications is considerate. On a variety of levels.

One level is frequency. Even if your brand or the message being delivered is rude, communications is considerate. That is, good communications arrive when and where the target market wants them and is ready to accept them, not before, not after, not too often, not too little.

Considerate is a tricky balancing act. It's somewhere between the psycho-stalker-I-will-have-it-for-you-before-you-ask-even-if-you-don't-want-it-right-now communications and the I-really-don't-care-what-you-want-Sanford-and-Son-is-on communications.

Most, if not all, companies fall into the latter category. I don't know that I've ever run into a company that fulfills the requirements of the former category, but I needed it for comparison. And, come to think of it, there are those folks who call me incessantly that are coming awfully close to treading on the stalker angle.

Where was I? Oh yes. So consideration involves timing. Not too overt, not too detached. But it also involves voice. Ah ha. Another level. You need to communicate to the market in the language and voice it wants to hear.

Now, I don't know if you've heard it, but the latest radio campaign for "Green Foo" makes me laugh. Every time I hear it. It's a parody of a Kung Fu movie with English voice over. Sure. It's been done. But for some reason, just that childhood memory of watching Kung Fu movies on Saturday afternoon, or that teenage memory of watching Commander USA's Groovy Movies on Saturday afternoon, or that recent... oh well, you get my point.

There's something about that commercial that accesses the "happy" part of my brain in a very considerate way -- with the appropriate voice. And it's very acceptable for my brain to consume Mountain Dew's message. Now, if Ford were attempting to access that part of my brain that way, for say the Ford Focus, that would be inconsiderate. Because I do not like the Ford Focus and I would not like Ford trying to trick me into liking it. But I'm not the Ford Focus target market, so I'm not too worried about that.

So, it's good for Mountain Dew. Bad for Ford. Ford using that tact would seem like a stalker: I know what you like. I know what you want. That would be off-putting. I know Ford doesn't understand me. But, for Mountain Dew, I believe that they do. I believe it. I'm willing to trust Mountain Dew, because while their commercials have let me down from time to time, their brand has been fairly supportive. There's trust there.

Which brings me to the third level of consideration: intimacy.

Good brands seem to know what you want without being incredibly overt about it. It's because you're their market. They should be studying you. They should be understanding what makes you tick. And they should be crafting their messages in ways that sound like the appropriate way for that brand to talk to you. Seems a little stalkerish, huh? I know. That's the balance.

Marketing types like to use the word "resonate" to describe this ability to effectively interact with the market. While I don't exactly start vibrating at the prospect of the Mountain Dew brand, I do start shaking a bit after I've ingested 4 or 5 of them. Oh wait, I mean, the voice of the brand does seem to speak to me. And it keeps me attracted and interested in the product. Brands that do not have this semblance of intimacy become very offensive, very quickly.

In fact, you can probably name five or ten companies who have offended you this way in the last week, alone. They took it too far too fast. They assumed too much. Maybe they tried to get intimate. Maybe they tried the wrong-voice cheesy pickup line. Or maybe they just kept hammering you with the same message over and over through a medium where you would rather they weren't. Like those annoying mortgage banner ads that have the strange animals covered with pocks and boils that reference US states all over them. You know the ones. Where did those come from? And who, in their right mind, clicks on those things?

Okay, before I trail off on too many tangents, back to the point: If you're trying to communicate to a market be considerate. Don't be an ugly American who, when faced with a confused market, shouts louder and louder in an effort to make them understand. Don't get in their face. And don't ignore them. Be considerate. Even if your brand is rude, consider how your market wants to receive that rude behavior.

And with that consideration, that understanding, you'll begin to truly understand your market. And, if you're lucky, they'll allow you a new level of intimacy to continue the conversation.

Are you a considerate communicator, an over-communicative stalker, or the couch potato who just ignores the market? Or are you some other type? I, and the other readers here, would love to hear about it. Well, okay, maybe just me. Please comment. And please return.

 

 Good marketing communications: Somewhere between psycho stalker and couch potato

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 30, 2005

Don't recreate the wheel that has already been created: The fine art of creating a satirical marketing site (and using the word "create")

UPDATE (April 9, 2005): Unfortunately, word around the campfire is that the software is no joke. Or it is an elaborately developed joke. Or something. Fear not, gentle readers, our heroes at have prepared for a battle royale.

UPDATE (April 6, 2005): If you haven't seen , yet, please go spend some time there. If it is a joke site, then it's genius. Satirical marketing at its best. And a software tool to boot. If it isn't a joke, then it is just plain scary. And worth a look, anyway. Thanks to for the link.

ORIGINAL POST

I can feel them coming. A whole new crop of satirical marketing sites. So, I'm making preparations. Stockpiling supplies. Preparing for the worst. But most of all, I'm hopeful that the people building these things look to those who have gone before them. Otherwise all the energy they spend on funny may be for naught.

Back in the day, the granddaddy of them all was , ' satirical treatment of the vapid world of dotcom identities. At the time, the site often served as a means of relieving my pain through humor, and it remains the first thing that pops to mind when I see three-word taglines, punctuated by periods.

And then, of course, there's , which continues to run strong as your premiere source for demotivating your employees. Any type of demotivational paraphernalia you're seeking is likely to be found here. The has always been one of my favorites.

I tend to throw Pinch in there, as well. This was Brad Johnson's (co-founder of Second Story, one the premiere interactive shops in Portland, Oregon, and arguably, the world) original interactive showreel, from 1994 (!). While not a direct jab at marketing, this truly brilliant piece does a fantastic job of selling you a wooden clothespin. Heady stuff for an outdated concept. I keep my Macintosh LCIII around just so I can watch it from time to time. It really is an amazing piece.

But the rest of the satirical sites were few and far between. And apparently, not that memorable. Why didn't they stick? Where did they go? They certainly were a breath of fresh air. Especially for a young, impressionable marketing type. And this is the very type of influence and fame you should be seeking, young grasshopper. The memorable ones, not the others. Stick with me.

I am giving you these links, because it appears that the sites of this ilk are making a bit of a rebound. No doubt, you've considered building one yourself. I am not surprised. In my estimation, the pervading sense of ennui here in the United States coupled with the general distaste for continually poor marketing is again taking its toll. The satirical sites are beginning to spring up again. Ah, halcyon days.

The one that seems to be getting the most ink is . I first caught wind of this little gem in the "Off topic" portion of the San Jose Mercury News' daily email. Their tagline really says it all: We do stuff (tm). But as usual, I felt a little late to the party. My research showed that it had been around for quite some time. 2002 to be exact. Where was I?

Yet, I see it making the rounds, even today. Even B.L. Ochman, who I like to think is a bit more in the know than I, just blogged about the site a couple of weeks ago. I mean, she's been on Oprah. She should know about this stuff. And so should you Mr or Mrs I'm-going-to-make-a-funny-ha-ha-marketing-site.

So that got me to thinking. And that got me to worrying. Maybe I'm not so out of it. Maybe some people don't know about these sites. Maybe there is a reason to write them down. Lucky you. You get to read this filler. And you get to see what's already been done so you don't redo it.

But I digress. Back to Huhcorp. The site, developed by Element, is a very sharp critique of marketing consultants, pulled together in a extremely well-designed and well-written way. To wit:

Our creative team will come up with design and marketing ideas you never even thought of. How could you? You don't have the talent we do. Don't take it personally. That's our job. That's what we do. We do stuff.

Most consulting companies just provide regular marketing solutions. Not us. We provide groundbreaking solutions. Our marketing solutions are newer than anyone else's, and they sound better because we give them cool titles like "Global Awareness Paradigms," and "Market Consciousness Philosophies," and "Creative Product Re-development Support."

The other satirical site that has been getting a great deal of well-deserved praise as of late is 's Manure Madness/. Filled with the same wit as Why business people speak like idiots, the site pits hyperbolic annual reports against one another to find the one that stands above all others as the "Shining Beacon of Business Idiocy." It's a perfect example of why I say these people are geniuses, even though some of the book falls flat. Well worth the trip. (UPDATE: For a concise summary of Manure Madness and the Final Foul, see "Vacuous and Idiotic Annual Reports" over at .)

And today, I stumbled upon Herring & Waffleman. While it feels a bit forced, it's still worth a trip. You'll at least get a chuckle or two. And they deserve a few hits for trying. I'm sure it will get better with time.

No doubt, there are innumerable other such sites currently under development. I am fearful that they will become as prevalent as blogs. So, read ahead, kiddies. See what's been done. Learn from past mistakes and steal well from those memorable sites that continue to bring people in droves. Because, honestly, what good is a satire if no one ever sees it? Or worse yet, if your brilliant satire is only a dull copy of something much better?

Have some satirical sites that make you gasp for breath? I'd love to hear about it, as would the other readers. After reading this drivel, we could all use a good laugh. So please comment, and when you've created your own marketing satire site, please return.

 

 Don't recreate the wheel that has already been created: The fine art of creating a satirical marketing site (and using the word "create")

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 29, 2005

When was the last time a good communications tool sprung out of a marketing need?

I hate it when people pose questions in a headline or a subject line and then don't repeat them in the context of the message, so to be clear: when was the last time a good communications tool sprung out of a marketing need?

Seriously. I mean it.

Part of the reason that marketers have such a bad name with the technology folks is that we take over everything. We're a bunch of lecherous latchers-on. Sidling up to any newcomer and asking its sign. Any time a new technology is released, every time something starts gaining favor, we have to start mucking with it. What's the marketing angle? How can we make money off of it? Does it support branding? Does it support advertising?

It's in our very nature. It's in our blood. We, as marketers, ruin things. It's what we do. And because of that, we are indeed drivers of technology. Not because we drive the technology, but because we drive people away.

I'm willing to bet marketing Neanderthals told Og to sign his name to his cave paintings. Otherwise, our sloping-browed predecessors warned, no one will want you to come paint their cave walls. People love horses and hunting scenes. Sign your name.

And Og soon started looking for a way to get out more. To find other ways to communicate where the marketers weren't.

Literature spawned advertisements. Mail spawned junk mail. Telephones spawned telemarketing. Radio and television spawned sponsorships and "the spot." Email spawned spam. The Web spawned untold amounts of evil.

Marketing doesn't have a need for new technologies. Quite the opposite in fact. We have the need to consume and control new technologies for our own benefit. We are like a fungus. Like mold. We begin small and then spread, making whatever we touch useless. Unless, of course, it's cheese. Marketing, like mold, is always good at making cheese. Or intoxicants. Marketing, like fermentation, is effective there, as well.

The market, however, does have a need for new technologies. And that need is to escape marketing. We're Pepe Le Pew. Following the poor folks wherever they run to escape. We're the crazy uncle you try to avoid at the family reunion. You know we're going to embarrass you. You know we're going to aggravate you.

And now we're doing it with RSS feeds. How do we use these newfangled things for marketing? How do we profit by using RSS feeds?

We're horrible.

But don't think that someone isn't already trying to figure out the new way to avoid us. And don't think we aren't already driving the next spam filter, or caller ID, or ad scraper, or new delivery technology. Because we are. We are the negative driver. And technology will always improve in an attempt to escape.

Can you name one positive technological, or even communication-based advancement that was driven by marketing? If so, please comment, because I'd love to hear it. If not, that's okay. I'm as cynical as you. Why not return and continue to wallow in it with me?

 

 When was the last time a good communications tool sprung out of a marketing need?

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 28, 2005

Why business people speak like idiots

Since I have been experiencing so much angst about the misuse of the English language, as of late (and my cease and desist orders didn’t seem to be working), I decided to purchase a new book that would tell me I was right. The book was Why business people speak like idiots.

Why business people speak like idiotsIt’s by the same folks who brought you the little Bullfighter application that you can add to Microsoft Word and PowerPoint. It serves as a sanity check on your language, helping you remove fluffy nonsense phrases. Remember that one? A spellchecker for bull. Brilliant.

Smart folks. Good ideas. So I bought the book. And for the most part, I am very happy with it.

It’s a quick read. And at times, it’s laugh-out-loud funny for anyone who has ever had to edit copy in the corporate environment. What's more, it made me self-conscious about my own writing. Which was good. I need to feel more self-conscious.

Do I recommend it? Absolutely. It’s well worth the jacket price. And it’s filled with incredibly poignant insight on not only what is bad, but why it is bad. And why we’ve fallen into such a pit of incredibly officious language. To that end, Why business people speak like idiots is very, very good.

I know. You’re feeling it aren’t you? You can sense the complaints. Yes, yes. You know me far too well. It’s a very good book, but… But I have one major complaint.

But Seth Godin and Fast Company recommended it, you say. How can there be a downside? I’m sorry to shatter your dreams, little one. But even those who provide pithy promotional quotes for books have to overlook flaws, at times. This is one of those times.

So, buck up. Steel your gaze. Here it is: Skip the examples.

I know. I know. Telling you not to read the examples is going to cause you to read them. I’m sorry. But don’t. I mean it. Do you need a time-out?

If you feel a desire to read the examples, you know what you should read instead? Read the Fight the Bull blog, because it’s very, very good and filled with the same smartass humor that makes the book a good read. But don't just take my word for it, the folks over at Brand Autopsy and PR Machine agree. And there's no way we could all be wrong.

But why can’t I read the examples, I hear you whining. And I can see you scrunching up your face. Examples, you say, bring the book to life for me. I’m lost without examples. I can’t think on my own. I’ll never be able to implement ideas without examples. They’re my lifeblood.

Not in this case, sister. In this case, the examples (especially the examples concerning the use of “humor” and those examples about livening up PowerPoint) will cause you to second-guess what heretofore has been very good guidance. It will make you think the authors aren’t as smart as you thought they were. It will make you think you’ve been duped. It will make you think you’ve fallen in with the idiots. Because the examples, bless their little hearts, are filled with exactly the same kind of useless excrement that the book is trying to help us expunge from corporate copy.

To be quite blunt, the examples tend to be trite, forced, and uninspired. The examples are bull.

But I don’t fault the authors for this. I know they were put up to it. I can almost feel them winking at me. But you know what? Most people won’t get the wink. So we’ll be subjected to a new wave of equally crappy presentations featuring their “movie analogy” examples. We will. Trust me. It happens every time one of these books captures the business imagination. Remember when pithy quotes were all the rage? Remember when clipart took a firm hold? I’m telling you.

But, as I said, I don’t fault the authors. I know the editors put them up to it. We need real life examples, the editors always say. (I know. I used to be one. And “find or create some real-life examples” was one of my favorite requests when I couldn’t find enough errors in the copy.) It’s a detention slip for making an editor feel useless. “Add some examples,” means “You’re not going to screw up the writing, so I’m going to impugn your creativity with the reader.” It’s a power thing.

When the writers are writing, doing what they do, the copy is lively and humorous. And Why business people speak like idiots soars. Full of wit and style. Really good. But when it hits the examples, it falls dead. Lifeless. And it makes you stop and wonder if you’re the idiot or they are.

That’s why you have to ignore the examples. Please. Because the authors are very good. And very smart. And very, very, very right. Something needs to be done about the language in business, today. And these bright, funny folks offer some very insightful suggestions on how to fix it. They cause you to examine the way you communicate. And they inspire you to change for the better.

They just don’t perform well under pressure outside of their element. They’re not PowerPoint designers or stand-up comedians. They’re writers.

So, read their writing. Take the theory and run with it. But ignore the examples. I mean it. Don’t make me come over there.

What did you think about Why business people speak like idiots? Do you agree with me or do you think I sound like an idiot? Both? Comment, critique, and return to see me weeping openly.

 

 Why business people speak like idiots

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 27, 2005

Sunkist: A not-so-hidden logo sin (the overwrought-with-hyphenated-adjectives post)

One of my less annoying look-how-smart-and-observant-I-am habits is that I tend to feel the need to highlight whenever I notice a logo or mark that has been updated. No matter how small or insignificant.

"The dry cleaner updated their logo," I will say. Or "Did you see the new UPS look? A travesty! Degrading Rand's work."

It's just one of the holier-than-thou, uppity things I do, which I tend to tell myself is an outward display of my intelligence and one of the things I must do, as a genius.

No one else, however, tells me this. They generally nod, sometimes smile, and brush me off with a "Who cares?" or "Um, yeah." Cretins.

So I guess, this time, I was a bit taken aback when my usual, look-at-me observation about an updated logo stopped me mid-sentence, and then my wife at mid-sentence. A new occurrence, to be sure.

I had just cracked open an orange pop, in an effort to parch my thirst without the ingesting a great deal of caffeine. As I stared at the can in my hand, I casually said to my wife "When did Sunkist update their..." and I trailed off.

"Update their what?" she said, feigning interest.

Quickly trotting (yes, I trot) over to where she was sitting. "What do you see here?" I asked.

"Sunkist," she said.

"No, really read it," I said.

"Oh my. Is that a mistake?" she said.

And it couldn't have come at a more interesting time. Less than 24-hours after I had completed my tirade on . About how it was a shame that a nonprofit had wasted money for that horrible logo. About how it would have been so much funnier if a for-profit company had wasted money on a logo.

And there it was. Right there in my hand. A shining example of that very thing.

Sunkist or Sinkist?. Or, as the logo says Sin-kist. Or Sink-ist. One of the two. (I swear I haven't mucked with this. Here's a larger image.)

When did this update occur? And who, to quote an Adam Sandler character from Saturday Night Live, were the ad wizards who came up with this one?

Was it the company, itself? Was it the Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. people who licensed the name for the soda? Maybe it was the folks at "Britain's most admired company," , who owns the whole shooting match? (And tangentially, isn't that a pleasant, happenstance Easter tie-in?)

No matter who it was, there is no doubt in my mind that they spent thousands upon thousands of dollars to create that logo. And no one seems to have bothered to check the spelling. I mean, sure. Everyone has heard of Sunkist. There's a sun behind it. A quick read causes your mind to bridge the gap. The "u" and the "n" kind of meld together.

I understand how it could have happened to one person. I make typos all the time. I'm sure half the people I hope to impress quit reading my blog because I do. But, I constantly re-read, trying to catch them. And if I were to engage in millions of dollars of production, you can be very sure I'd have a number of people proofing this thing.

But this happened to multiple people. It happened to multiple companies.

And I thought 's waste of money was bad. Who knows how many untold bottles of Sinkist are out there?

So then the worm starts to turn. Maybe this is a sinister plot? Maybe it was intentional? Maybe it's a stipulation of the licensing agreement? Maybe advertising has moved beyond the subliminal to just being right there in the liminal? Maybe my wife bought Sinkist instead of Fanta because of this creative technique?

Doubt it. Bet it's a big mistake. Or something that no one really noticed until it was far too late for anyone to do anything about it. Maybe if you leave a bottle of Sinkist under your pillow, the Cadbury clucking bunny will replace it with the right logo?

An even worse thought? It was intentional. It was a concept. And the creatives that pitched the concept sold it right up the chain. If that's the case, I'd love to see that pitch. That's a one-in-a-billion pitch. A selling-a-ketchup-popsicle-to-a-lady-in-white-gloves kind of pitch. One from which we could all learn something. I'd love to meet the people who pulled it off.

Just make sure my pockets are empty and my driver's license is out of reach.

Would you pay good money for a logo that misspelled the name of your company or product? Would you still pay money for it if you were already paying someone else a license fee to use the name? Would you pay for me to misspell more words in this blog? Comment, critique, and always return. It's good for you.

 

 Sunkist: A not-so-hidden logo sin (the overwrought-with-hyphenated-adjectives post)

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 26, 2005

RSS: TiVo for the Internet

I like to think that I'm beginning to understand RSS. And as I approach it, I try to think about both the benefits of the technology and how it can be used in different ways.

Since I'm sure I'm just barely scratching the surface, I tend to be tuned-in to the concept. I look for new applications. I look for new thought. I try to understand it. And I keep my eyes open for new articles on RSS.

Usually, I don't get much. But, every once in a while someone comes up with such a simple way of describing things, that it stops me dead in my tracks. And this time, the article containing that beautiful simplicity just happened to be about RSS.

What is RSS? It's "TiVo for the Internet." (There's also a good comment string over on Blogcritics.)

Brilliant.

The description might not be for everyone. But for anyone who knows TiVo, this description is perfect. Thanks to Chris Ellington for capturing the concept.

 

 RSS: TiVo for the Internet

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 25, 2005

Arlington Pediatric Center: Volunteers needed

Okay. This is bad. Sometimes, a mark can really make or break an organization. And, unfortunately, I think it's going to do more of the latter, this time. It's even worse that it's all over the building, and likely the literature, and everything else.

At first, it causes a snicker. And a shaking of your head. Maybe even an incredulous exclamation. And no doubt, some bursts of laughter. Clearly, someone at Arlington Pediatric Center was a bit too Pollyanna in their view of the world. Because, I'm not that incredibly depraved (okay, I can be crude) and it's pretty obvious to me. I'm sure it's obvious to you, as well.

So we all had a really good laugh.

But then I started to think about it. And now, I'll get all serious. Because that's what I do. When you're ready for the downer, continue reading.

This whole thing would be a great deal more humorous if it were a commercial (for profit) organization that made this mistake. (Like, for instance, .) If they paid good money to have someone develop this logo. That would be funny. And worth a few more chortles. Some more finger pointing. But, given that it's for a non-profit, it stops being funny and starts being kind of sad.

I don't know if they paid to have this monstrosity created. But they definitely paid for the signs on the building. And the literature. And other stuff. And that's wasted money. Extremely wasted. And that's sad.

I'm fairly certain that this organization doesn't have extra cash to throw away. And that's money that's going to be taken away from other programs to fix this grievous error. So someone is going to suffer ill because of this stupid mistake.

Think design can't hurt anyone? Think again.

Look at me. Boo hoo. But it's true.

So, here's the deal. It's a call to action. Non-profits have bad design because they don't get offered good design. They generally have to take care of things in house, or take the low bidder. Offer them some good design. Offer them a new sign. Offer them some new literature. For free even. Please stop this from happening again.

I'm not a designer. Maybe you are. Maybe you're a printer. Maybe you'd like to offer the center your services. I'll definitely offer my services to consult on positioning (no pun intended), language, and visual concepts before they're sent to the client. Because, that's where my skills lie. And clearly, the client needs some help in this case. And I'm more than happy to help.

And keep in mind, it can be this organization (although I'm sure they're overwhelmed with offers):

Judy Fox
Executive Director
(703) 271-8195


3045-A Columbia Pike
Arlington, VA 22204

Or it can be another nonprofit in your area. Or any nonprofit for that matter. Anywhere. Give them some time. Give them some design.

Let's do our best to save all the bad design for companies who can afford to pay for it.

 

 Arlington Pediatric Center: Volunteers needed

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

Stiffing Starbucks, et in terra Pax

As I sit here, finishing my whiskey sour and starting on my quad con panna, I'm a little peeved.

As you may or may not know, I'm a fan of and I'm a fan of . So, imagine my joy when I heard the two were working together to create a coffee liqueur. How interesting, I thought. (Actually, I believe "I wonder if they need a product marketing manager to lead that product?" was my first thought.) Stimulant and depressant. And likely tasty, at that.

So it turns out that not everyone was as in love with the idea as I. In fact, one company, Pax World Funds, decided to make a big stink about dropping from their "socially responsible" fund. They decided to do that now. Months and months after the announcement that this thing was going forward.

covered it. And I'm sure the discussion boards are all a twitter. Intrigue. Scandal. Outrage.

Phooey.

Yes, alcohol can be bad. I know. Trust me, I know. I have had family members killed by drunk drivers. Alcohol can be bad, but so can anything else. Have you tried reading through this entire blog on a bender? That will make you ill, as well. Everything in moderation.

What upsets me is not the action that Pax World Funds took. Or even their jumping on the demonizing-of-liquor bandwagon. Good for them. I respect that. They have developed a guiding principle for choosing investments and they stand by it. I appreciate the Pax World folks remaining true to their cause.

The aggravating part is that they decided to make a big news splash out of the most negative of news items. Shame on you, , says Pax World Funds. Shame on you for expanding your product line of luxury drinks to a different market. For shame. For shame. Shame on you for adding another drug to your portfolio.

Here's the thing: If you're so concerned about sustainability and social responsibility, why, in the name of all that is good, would you invest in a coffee company in the first place?

Let's just completely ignore the environmental impact of coffee and focus on the qualities of the bean. Coffee contains a stimulant. That is, a drug called . It has addictive qualities. To wit, "continued consumption of caffeine can lead to tolerance. Upon withdrawal, the body becomes oversensitive to adenosine, causing the blood pressure to drop dramatically, leading to headache and other symptoms."

Why was it socially responsible for Pax World to fund the promotion and sale of one drug, but not to promote another? Because it was helping them make a great deal of coin, no doubt. And most likely because their investors didn't start asking that very question until alcohol entered the picture.

Quick, they thought. Drop and make it look like we're doing it out of the goodness of our hearts.

So now, to move beyond my griping and land upon the little marketing lesson this one taught me...

You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

I had never heard of Pax World Funds before today. And, now, I don't like them. I like the idea behind the company. I like their principles and their cause, but I don't like the sniping they did. I don't like the people there. And I don't think I'm in the minority. This was a poor choice of ways to put themselves on the map. And, while on the surface it seemed like the right thing to do, dig a little deeper and it smacks of hypocrisy.

It's an emotional reaction. Not logical. Kirk not Spock. Welcome to the world of branding.

I'm an investor. I try to be responsible in my investing. Why have I never heard of these people before? I should be their target market. Why would they choose to make this their initial introduction to me?

Rather than get all uppity, why not work to enlighten people on all of the positive things Pax funds do? Tell me about the positive investments Pax World supports. And share some positive stories about the role Pax plays in a generally evil society. That's a socially responsible stance.

Instead of going for the quick-hit splashy negative story, why don't they talk about the programs Pax World supports? Do they have a literacy program that's as effective as '? Are they working to improve working conditions in third-world countries?

I mean, sure, this goody-two-shoes line of news will take longer to payoff, but you've gone 34 years without an introduction, what's one more? Besides, you're the one who chose the socially responsible stance. That's your brand. Work within your brand.

What is Pax World doing that is so good? I'm sure there is plenty, but I just don't see it. And being a tattletale isn't helping their case. Unless that's the definition of social responsibility these days.

Something tells me there is something more here than meets the eye, and that this was just a hypocritical means of covering their tracks. And that's what their press release did for me. Negative negative negative. Ah, social responsibility.

Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe this is a great move. Maybe I just need some more coffee. What do you think? Please feel free to comment, critique, and, by all means, return.

 

 Stiffing Starbucks, et in terra Pax

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 24, 2005

Cease & Desist: Blocking & Tackling

Dear Sirs & Madames,

Re: Use of the phrase "BLOCKING & TACKLING" to describe roles in a organization

It has come to our attention that you have made a (rather bad and annoying) habit of using the phrase "BLOCKING & TACKLING" to describe roles in the organization, as if it were a sporting event in which you were all participants. For example, the "I will handle the strategic stuff. Bob will handle the blocking & tackling."

Our primary issues with your use of this phrase in a business setting are as follows:

1. Even if, at some point, the employee you describe possessed the ability to physically or analogously "block" or "tackle" another individual or problem, he or she has long lost the ability to do so, today. Asking them to perform this function, especially if they previously had the ability to do so, is demeaning and rude.

2. You have continually used the word as a means of describing a way to "move things forward" or "achieve an end goal." Blocking and tackling prevent progress. They are defensive postures. They do not move things forward. In fact, they often move things backward.

You have 24 HOURS to remove the offending language from corporate literature, Web pages, internal email, instant messages, meetings, conversations, and urinal/restroom banter. Please confirm in writing that you have done so.

Failing this, we will apply for an injunction, and will also seek to recover costs and damages (plus interest) for your tortious and torturous acts and conduct.

This is our final communication to you on this matter. We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency and sanity.

Sincerely,
Those concerned about the English language

cc: The Oxford English Dictionary, Webster's Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk, White, NFL, NCAA

 

 Cease & Desist: Blocking & Tackling

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 23, 2005

What Blogger through yonder window breaks? Or wherefore art thou, Google?

I've thought about posting this a number of times. But I didn't. Because has been good to me. I've used it since early 2000. Since the early days. And I've always loved its ease. And the "Blog this!" button. I like .

And you know how I feel about .

But I can't hold back any more.

is broken. It needs to be fixed. It's getting ridiculous. And if doesn't dedicate some real resources to it, soon, it's going to tarnish 's brand. Severely.

For those of you who haven't heard, has been sucking proverbial wind lately. It's crashing more often than not. And while some folks seem to be concerned about it, the fixes don't seem to be coming with much speed. Or communication.

About two weeks ago, I noticed I was having more problems than usual with a couple of my blogs posting efficiently. They were timing out or crashing. I thought it was just me. And then I started to see the posts. Stuff was being done. Great.

But nothing has been resolved. It's still crashing. It's still haphazard. And I still see the griping posts. Like this one, I'm writing right now.

Do you get the irony here? isn't listening. And if they are, they're behaving like every other company. One of the most influential instruments in blogging, one of the original tools for having a blog conversation, doesn't appear to be listening. And it isn't blogging about it either. Because it can't. employees use . So they're just as tongue tied as the rest of us. Or so they say.

I can hear you. I can. " isn't for real bloggers. It's for a casual blogger. There are real tools for real bloggers. Quit using a free tool and put some skin in the game."

So what if it's free? So is every other service offers. Is not a real search tool? If their Web search crashed every few attempts or timed out, how happy would you be? If gmail suddenly said "inbox full" at 10k, how would that feel?

I want to use . I like . I like it because I know it. Sure it's lacking in some ways, but I like it. I've recommended it. I'm a champion for it. And let me let you in on a little secret: I'd be willing to pay for to be more reliable.

"Go to ," you say. "You can pay them for more reliable service."

I don't think you're hearing me: I like . I have a great deal of respect for the folks and the folks and the bevy of others who offer for-pay blog hosting. I do. But I like . I want to use . Why won't let me use it?

I latch things on to so that it works like other blogging tools. I hack code so that is more kind to the search engines (another bit of irony there: isn't exceptionally search friendly). I work hard to stay with .

Why won't work to help me?

What's promising a service and then not delivering? It's evil. And needs to realize that. They're starting to perturb a very, very vocal minority.

What's not blogging about the issues surrounding your blogging tool? Ironic.

Are you having problems with ? Is it affecting your perception of ? I'd love to hear your comments. Is some other tool so much better that I should switch? Tell me. But, in any case, please return.

 

 What Blogger through yonder window breaks? Or wherefore art thou, Google?

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 22, 2005

The real problem with RSS feeds

UPDATE (April 3, 2005): If you aren't already reading Stephan Spencer (and you should be), here's yet another reason to go and do it. His "RSS: Hot or Not for Marketers?" offers some incredibly thought provoking concepts for tracking RSS subscriptions and reader use. Well worth the read. And well worth subscribing to his RSS to see if he's tracking you.

UPDATE (March 23, 2005): The Blog Herald covers a Slashdot survey on RSS use, which indicates the adoption of RSS is likely to increase "dramatically." This is an indirect contradiction of the Direct Marketing News' assertion that RSS adoption (for marketing purposes) will remain relatively flat for the next 2 years. Let's see, for new technology issues, whose opinion do I trust more? If the audience is going there, the marketers won't be far behind.

ORIGINAL POST

There is great deal of hubbub circulating in regards to an article in Direct Marketing News.

It seems everyone, including me, has an opinion on this one. And if you want to read others (who are likely to be far more eloquent than I), run, don't walk, over to Marketing Studies. They have a great collection of blogs covering the matter.

Oh. You're still here? Fine. I mean, great, I'm honored. So what's my take?

First, here's the gist of the article: RSS feeds and blogging will not be the road to easy riches for marketers looking to turn a quick buck.

To wit:
"RSS is not well suited to promotional-offer-oriented content because it does not offer the targeting and personalization capabilities of e-mail, the report said. However, even for use as a supplemental or alternative e-mail broadcast tool, the adoption of RSS for marketing purposes will remain low during the next 24 months."

Shocking. I mean incredibly revealing. People won't voluntarily consume spam and hype? Strange. Seriously.

That highlights the real problem for the direct marketing folks: RSS is pure content. There's no hiding behind cheese. There's no dazzling with useless tchotchkes. There's no way to blast it out to 100,000 people who really don't care to find the one that does. There's no accidentally opening the feed and accidentally continuing to read it, time and time again. There's only pure, unadulterated personality and content. And it's pretty stark. And that makes it difficult for the majority of marketing types. Really difficult.

In fact, I equate RSS to going back to the gray-background Web in 1996 or so. Or maybe even earlier Internet communications. It's telnet, truly.

But you want to know what? That's the beauty. For those who know how to use it effectively. And for everyone who wants to "improve it" or "add to it," I say this: Whoa, tiger. There is no need for it to evolve to the congested levels that the Web has. Why? Because the Web is already there. RSS was designed to simplify what was already there. To make it more digestible, more quickly, when the reader was ready to consume.

Making RSS more and more complex defeats the purpose. Making RSS more complex would be like AOL trying to run its own version of the "Web" on top of the actual Web without ever allowing people to leave the confines of AOL space. And how silly would that be? I mean, really.

And besides, the acronym can't be RSS if it's complex, can it?

Here's the other thing. I know this may come as a shock to you, but deep breath: Everything doesn't have to generate revenue.

I'm all over the place. Do I have a point? I do. You see, kids, here's the deal: RSS could, potentially, be the most effective branding vehicle ever created.

I see you screwing up your face. Knock it off. I'm serious.

But there are no images, you say. There's no pithy tagline. No logos. No content besides, well, content. I can hear you whining from here.

That's why it's so effective for communicating brand. It's pure content and personality. That's why it's more effective than noisy attempts at branding. Because it lacks any formal construct. Because it lacks the places to hide. And because, if you don't do it right, people are going to tune out.

But if you do it right, and your target market appreciates it, it can be more powerful than any "branding campaign" you've ever tried.

You see, the real problem with RSS is not that it's not an effective marketing vehicle. It's not that it's not capable of generating revenue. The real problem is that people are trying to use it the same way they've used every communication vehicle ever created. Or they're trying to use it as the whole, and not a part. Or they just aren't thinking. Wait a second. Actually, that's the main reason.

And the problem with RSS is that it isn't different. It's a hybrid of press release and journalism. Of talking and printing. Of columnist and conversation. Letters to the Editor in real time. And all of you know how I feel about hybrids.

So here's the meat of the post: Long story short, like brand, the real impact of RSS occurs somewhere, out there, beyond our control. With the reader. The reader has to make the choice to subscribe. The reader has to make the choice to read. And the reader has to make the choice to return. And if the content isn't there, nothing is going to save that.

The emperor has no clothes. That's the real problem with RSS.

You scoff. But think about it. Besides, if you think this view of RSS is a stretch, you should read my other RSS-themed post, An Immodest Proposal: Where blogging and RSS are headed (or everything old is new again) .

In any case, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Please feel free to comment. Or just revel in your anonymity. But please return.

 

 The real problem with RSS feeds

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 21, 2005

Cease & Desist: Ecosystem

Dear Sirs & Madames,

Re: Use of the word to describe a market or company

It has come to our attention that you are continually using the word to describe a market or company, as if it were a collection of living and breathing organisms, flora, and fauna. For example, the "blog ."

You have 24 HOURS to remove the offending language from corporate literature, Web pages, internal email, instant messages, meetings, conversations, and urinal/restroom banter. Please confirm in writing that you have done so.

Failing this, we will apply for an injunction, and will also seek to recover costs and damages (plus interest) for your tortious and torturous acts and conduct.

This is our final communication to you on this matter. We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency and sanity.

Sincerely,
The English language

cc: The Oxford English Dictionary, Webster's Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk, White

 

 Cease & Desist: Ecosystem

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

Home Depot: A procrastinator's dream

UPDATE (April 4, 2005): Terry Storch provides an even more compelling argument for abandoning Home Depot: Lowe's does a better job. Terry may just be "one little person blogging about this," but I have to thank him for doing the research.

ORIGINAL POST

Last weekend, as with many weekends, I spent some quality time at . And every second of the eight hours I spent there was a veritable joy. Not to mention the endless hours I spent traveling back and forth to return faulty products I purchased of my own volition or products I purchased based on misinformation from one of the oh-so-helpful staff. What a service they provide.

I love , because when I go there, I never have to do anything around the house. Guaranteed. I am confident that the lack of service will translate into a 90-minute excursion, minimum, even if it's only for one item. My wife, apparently, is not as happy with this level of service. But I am. Because I didn't really want to do anything, anyway.

I live within 10 minutes of two s. I like to alternate my trips between the two, just because I'm amazed at the consistency of service. Thumbs up to the management. These s, like every other I've ever visited, are right in line with the service standards. Consistently slow. Consistently uninformed. Consistently disrespectful. Brilliant.

Did you know that claims to employ more Olympic hopefuls than any other company? It's true. All I've deduced is that they must not employ any sprinting hopefuls. And it's painfully apparent that there is no Olympic event focused on customer service. Either that or they're all out back, practicing their craft, instead of wandering the floor like their cohorts, chanting, "This isn't my section. I can't help you with that."

Maybe I'm just building the wrong stuff? Maybe if I wanted to build a triple-jump pit or a bobsled, I'd get better service at the good old ? Maybe they should rename it Olympic Depot?

And I must admit, none of this lack-of-service would have seemed out of the ordinary, last weekend, as I've grown all too used to this level of service, or lack thereof. But I blew it. Yes, all of 's hard work to make me feel worthless and insignificant was for not. See, I also made another quick trip to a local hardware store. A-Boy Hardware. It's an Ace Hardware affiliate. And it's not all A-Boy's, mind you. It's the one in Tigard, Oregon, on Main Street.

Now, my little A-Boy doesn't have the selection of . And its hours aren't always agreeable to my home-improvement schedule. And its prices may be a touch higher. But when I can go there, I do. And here's why:

1) I'm greeted at the door.

2) The person who greets me welcomes me and asks why I'm there.

3) If I need assistance, they walk me to the item(s) I need, and remain there until all of my questions are answered.

4) If they can't answer my question, they find someone who can, even it means calling someone to whom I can speak on the phone.

5) If they don't carry it, they give me a variety of options for ordering it, or they suggest other hardware stores in town that carry it.

6) If I've purchased something in a box, they ask me to open the box and check it before I leave.

7) If it's a large item, they ask me if I need help loading it.

And this isn't a random occurrence. It happens every single time I'm there. The only problem is that it's a small hardware store. So, more often than I would prefer, I'm forced to go to one of the large "home improvement" stores, like .

And in all honesty, some days (read most) I'm lazy. I don't want to do anything. And that makes my first choice. If only there were a TV to watch while I was waiting for someone to tell me they don't know anything, I would be in procrastinator's bliss.

Unfortunately, my wife has discovered my secret A-Boy resource and she has grown tired of my excuses. So my days of wasting untold hours at may soon be over. Alas and alack.

In fact, after last weekend's adventures, we've decided to hire a contractor to finish the job. I figure the money I save on gas, not driving back and forth to return items, will pay for most of the bill.

I just hope they're not billing me for the time they spend at .

 

 Home Depot: A procrastinator's dream

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 18, 2005

Public Service Announcement: New stove needed for Belmont area (Portland, Oregon) Loaves & Fishes Centers

UPDATE (March 21, 2005): Thanks to all those who participated, the goal has been reached. Nice work.

ORIGINAL POST

This request was so well done, I had to share it. It even has a graph online that tracks the progress of the campaign. Nice nice nice. So nice in fact, that I was motivated to ask you to consider helping by donating to this worthy cause.

The situation
The Belmont (Portland, Oregon) Loaves & Fishes Center is in desperate need of a new stove for their kitchen. Each day this busy center serves 80 seniors on site and 170 through Meals-On-Wheels delivery. Belmont is also home to our Weekend Meal Program, ensuring that seniors who have no other resources for obtaining food do not go hungry on the weekends. Its current stove is 15 years old, out of commission and beyond repair.

With your support we can raise $1,738 to purchase a new stove for this active center. The Southbend 400 Series Restaurant Range features fast cast iron top burners, saving fuel and speeding service. More importantly, the stove will allow the Belmont Loaves & Fishes Center to make the noontime meal even more inviting for on site diners with scratch-prepared pies, ethnic meal options and more.

Make an investment in this growing center by contributing online today. 100% of your donation will go to the purchase of a new stove for the Belmont Loaves & Fishes Center. And because every donation will be critical in reaching our goal, we invite you to track the campaign's progress.

 

 Public Service Announcement: New stove needed for Belmont area (Portland, Oregon) Loaves & Fishes Centers

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

Ca Ca Ca Co Co Co: New typography from Microsoft

I saw today, over at , that Microsoft has plans to release six new screen-legible fonts.

"Beginning in 2006, Microsoft says it will ship with its operating system and other software products six brand new typefaces created especially for extended on-screen reading."

Obviously, I am very happy to hear this. Near misty about it, in fact.

The last major launch of this sort was the Microsoft "Core Fonts for the Web" release, way back in the mid-nineties, that contained , , , and the most overused and poorly implemented typeface of all time (in my opinion), .

Aside from Comic Sans, the other fonts are still seem to be gaining traction in common use on the Web. But they are a welcome addition to most designers' font folders. They are easier to read, onscreen, and they do make create a different impression.

The more we can do to move away from the Times New Roman heavy Web, the better. The more we can do to differentiate, the better. The more we can make things prettier, the better. And while, this is a PC issue, it is always my hope that the Mac folks use those fonts, as well. And I'm sure they will. Because who doesn't want more fonts?

The weird thing about this whole release, however, is the naming strategy. They may look different, but they all sound exactly the same. Currently, the typefaces are called Calibri, Cambria, Candara, Consolas, Constantia, and Corbel. Hunh? Oh well. Maybe these are just code names for the time being. Who knows? I'm willing to let it go, because this is such welcome news. (That is, I'll remember to complain about this again, later.) I wonder how well they print...? Okay, okay, I'll stop.

All I can really say is co-ngratulations.

What do you think about the new typefaces? Will you use them? Maybe I will. But you'll never know, unless you return.

 

 Ca Ca Ca Co Co Co: New typography from Microsoft

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

Flashback: In a giving and sharing mood

Bear with me. I'm digging through old portfolios and files looking for something. And I keep stumbling upon stuff that I find humorous. Maybe you can make some use of it...

June 3, 1998

In a giving and sharing mood

Diversity is entering its new fiscal year with attitude and confidence. The company has spent numerous hours devising a new customer relations program, examining its mission statement, reconfiguring its equity to shareholders formula, and bringing its corporate image in line with the new philosophy.

Now, Diversity’s management has come to a startling conclusion:

We need a cleansing... a superfluous appurtenance downsizing.

Our loss is your gain! Our boss is crazy! Everything must go! No credit needed, we offer merchandise to anyone the law allows. We haven’t lost our lease... but we must make room for new inventory.

YOU HAVE ALREADY WON. Simply respond to this email in the next 96 hours and you will win a fabulous prize... a piece of Diversity’s past.
  • Show off your confidence with the infamous “No Problem” 9 X 12 envelopes (in white only). 27 count.
  • The “limited edition” kitchen sink key chain with real running water sound. Batteries included.
  • ViewMaster Super-Show Projector with 3 reels featuring that ever-popular Toy Story. And you thought PowerPoint was entertaining!
  • Happy Fun Ball Multi-color Pen. Rick doesn’t leave the office without it. It’s the only pen to make it on Oprah’s Book Club. Need we say more?
  • The commemorative roll of stickers documenting Diversity’s 20th anniversary (1974 to 1994). Handsomely boxed, self stick… a real piece of history here folks.
  • You’ll never have network problems again, after you impress your IT department with this vintage J45 10-base T cable, 1 piece, 1 foot long in PMS 290 sheath.
  • You deserve an award! Sales award trophy with solid brass (blank) plate. A handsome award by any sane person’s measure.
  • Show your support for ballot measures that won years ago! Winning campaign yard signs, assorted.
  • An autographed copy of the movie Speed. VHS format. (Losers receive Speed 2 and a party with the three remaining members of the Speed 2 Fan Club.)
  • Protect your stuff with the “DO NOT BEND” stamp w/o ink pad. Disco era vintage. A rare find.
  • Shark and Dolphin salt and pepper shakers with real flesh tearing and squealing sounds when used. Quaint, but still weird. A conversation piece for any lunchroom. (Quite frankly, they frighten us. We want them out of the office.)
  • Deafula Souvenir Theatrical Program autographed by the director/star. Guaranteed authentic. Just don’t ask to see the film.
  • Frog tie. Jovial and frisky green frogs (rumored to be cousins of the famous “Budweiser Frogs”) on a black background with frog pod prints tastefully varnished on the background. A must for beer parties. Imported silk. (Imported from Toledo, Ohio)
  • Quasi-accurate Campus maps. Tektronix. Beaverton & Wilsonville. Some buildings not shown. Some buildings no longer present. Others owned by someone else.
  • Doorway draft puppets. Hillary and Bill. They hang or spread. Indicted or not, both are priceless and guaranteed to bring big dollars in a few decades.
  • Number your stuff! Ecton Automatic Numbering Machine Model 188, Numbering starts with 960138. There’s no turning back!
  • And a lot more crap stuff merchandise.

Rules:

  1. Respond via e-mail that you wish to enter. If you wish to send your entry, use the blue envelope.
  2. You’ve already won.
  3. What more do you want to know? See rule 1
  4. We will deliver.

 

 Flashback: In a giving and sharing mood

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 17, 2005

Flashback: Web Design Yields Second Creative Award for Portland-Area Marketing Firm

Seven years ago? Oh my. Ah. Halcyon days...

March 17, 1998

For Immediate Release
Contact: Rick Turoczy

Web Design Yields Second Creative Award for Portland-Area Marketing Firm

Beaverton — For the second year in a row, Diversity Corporation has garnered a bronze in the Summit Creative Awards, a creative competition among smaller marketing & advertising agencies. This time, however, Diversity played the role of both creator and client, winning the award for its corporate web site, www.diversitycorp.com.

"We designed our web site along the same principles we apply to our client's marketing communications work—sound marketing and effective design," said Rick Turoczy, Diversity’s "interactive architect." "We know it’s a winning combination... but it's always nice to have an award to echo your opinion."

For the last eight months, the firm has improved its web-based marketing and creative services, acquiring burgeoning technology and pursuing online knowledge to complement its marketing expertise.

"We're planning to fill a very important niche," said Gary Holstrom, Diversity's President. "Most web sites have fantastic design or pertinent marketing information. Very few have both. We're looking to expand our work in the interactive market, providing the same exceptional level of content we’ve provided in print and other media."

In fact, the world of printed materials landed the company its first Summit Award, last year, when Diversity won a bronze for its work on a line of product brochures for local, high-profile, software developer, MedicaLogic.

MedicaLogic’s product brochures—and its companion corporate brochure—also translated into some early web exposure for Diversity, when portions of the brochures were used as content on MedicaLogic’s corporate web site (www.medicalogic.com).

The Summit Creative Awards began in 1994 as the only awards competition of its kind, recognizing excellence in smaller creative companies. It is exclusively for organizations with annual billings less than $10 million. The number of participants has steadily increased to include entries from every state and province. Judges for 1997 included representatives from Young & Rubicam, Weiden & Kennedy, Hal Riney & Partners, and Borders, Perrin and Norrander.

Diversity Corporation has been providing marketing, sales communications, and advertising services for 23 years. Its current list of clients includes MedicaLogic, AMX Systems, INSPECT, and Tektronix.

 

 Flashback: Web Design Yields Second Creative Award for Portland-Area Marketing Firm

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

St. Patrick's Day, an increasingly vulgar brand that continues to remain popular

Let me start by saying that I am a fan of ritual and tradition. I think it's part of what makes humans human. I think understanding the needs and mores behind those rituals helps us understand ourselves. And what good is understanding humanity? In this case, one of the benefits is that it gives you more power to market thoughtfully. I'm not talking about a "let's use our powers for evil" stance. I'm talking about more effective communications and a better understanding of the market's needs. That said...

So along comes St. Patrick's Day. And I think, is there any holiday that has devolved into such a negative, yet respected brand? How did this come about? And why do we gravitate to its banal and Bacchanalian enthralls?

I mean, Patrick, bless his heart, drove the snakes out of Ireland (so they say). And, as if that weren't enough, I hear he also pushed for the abolition of slavery. The abolition of slavery! In the 5th century, no less. It only took the United States another fourteen hundred years or so to pursue that line of thinking. And as far as Patrick goes, I haven't even touched on what he did for the religious following of Christianity in Ireland.

But you know what? I honestly don't think dear Patrick's accomplishments spring to mind, anymore, when we, as a society, are puking on the curb on March 17 or ogling tinted rivers for the next few months. Feel free to disagree with me here. But I think I'm right. In fact, I doubt most people in the United States, who are of drinking age, have any idea who Patrick was. (I certainly didn't know that he was a proponent for the abolition of slavery until I started digging a bit.)

Do you think Patrick would have wanted it that way? Probably not. But you know what? He never had the ability to control that. Because, that's what brands do. They evolve, or devolve, or revolve. And they do this in the mind of the audience. The brand, therefore, is always beyond anyone's control. It becomes what the audience wants it to be.

So why try? Because we can influence brands, but we can't force them. And that's the fine line which we have to walk.

St. Patrick's Day started out as one thing, but the brand continued to shift, little by little. The audience caused it to shift to a more and more celebratory mode. It's still shifting today. Just wait. Girls Gone Wild St. Patrick's Day is not far behind.

So I guess the strangest part about this whole thing is that I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm just saying it has happened. More importantly, I find it extremely interesting. St. Patrick's Day, which started as a celebration of a martyr, survives with a rude, unkempt brand, and we love it for that.

And here's another bonus epiphany. That thought led me to the realization that, by and large, the common perception of "brands" is that they are these buttoned-up, kempt objects of goodness and light. Common or not, that's a misperception.

Brands are not necessarily nice. Or clean. Or proper. Some brands are vulgar and rude, like punk. Some are cheeky, like Virgin. Because they have to be. Because that's what the audience wants. That's what the audience makes them. And that's how the audience wants them to remain. And when it comes right down to it, the more those brands try to remain true to the ideal the audience wants, the better chance they have of surviving and succeeding.

Interesting. I thought I'd just think about beer, today.

Maybe it's time for you to influence a not-so-proper change in your brand? Who knows? Go tie one on, and then return to comment. Or don't comment. But please, by all means, return.

 

 St. Patrick's Day, an increasingly vulgar brand that continues to remain popular

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 16, 2005

Aggravated by acronyms

For the longest time, I couldn't put my finger on it, but for some reason, I had been getting more and more aggravated by . They're really the bane of the industry in which I work. Everything, it seems, needs an acronym or it doesn't truly exist.

And the more cutesy the acronyms the better. Anyone can throw a few uppercase letters together. But it takes a real acronym pro to season them with some lowercase letters for that certain je ne sais quois (pun intended).

And yes, I do admit with much chagrin, that even I have been guilty of forming my own acronyms when forced to do so. I am not proud, but I felt I had to come clean. This however, as you well know, will not cause me to take leave of my high horse.

Speaking of said horse, you probably also realize that I'm not one to shy away from a tantrum. I throw them quite well. And I have, at times, thrown my fair share of tantrums about the use of acronyms. But I never really had anything more than personal opinion as my basis. I realized that they were confusing, and that they cluttered writing. But other than that, I didn't have much.

What usually was thrown back in my face was the "but they make sense to the industry" defense. And sure, there are some acronyms that are so widely accepted that they have attained a prominence that belies their humble beginnings. These rare instances do not seem to aggravate me. I am willing to accept them as words, more or less. (Yes, yes. Hypocritical. I get it.) I, for instance, am practically in love with "RSS" and "XML." And I do not turn beet red and clench my teeth when someone says "NASA" or "PC."

But I do for the vast majority of acronyms. The ROIs and the FUDs and the PDAs and the IMs and the IMHOs and the ROTFLMAOs. Or the endless string of VoIP and RFID and WiMAX and WiFi to which I've been subjected, as of late. Who knows? Suffice it to say I'm turning beet red and clenching my teeth on a regular basis these days. No, I haven't tried Sanka. Move on.

I realize there are several factors at work here. One, for instance, is that there is no doubt in my mind that the world of wireless personal digital assistants and instant messaging are partially to blame for this onslaught, as are the personal computers. Because, quite frankly, people do not like to type. Plain and simple. And it is much easier to type a string of letters than a string of words. But, it's a wasted effort to type a string of letters that don't say anything to the majority of people who read it (current post excluded), isn't it?

So, I propose that when it comes down to it, communications -- marketing communications especially -- should work to divest itself from this overabundance of acronyms. And what is my reasoning behind this? Crocodile tears and confusion? No, not anymore. Now, I have something solid. Now, I have a basis for my tantrums, and my resolution to curtail my use of acronyms. And it's one of those reasons that, for once, actually makes sense. Ready? Here it is: Acronyms will kill your search engine optimization efforts.

Think about it. When you have very little knowledge of a subject, how well do you know the acronyms associated with that subject? Not very well, I think. When you're searching for a resolution to a problem, do you often run to your local search engine and throw a bevy of acronyms into the search box or do you type in whole words that describe the concept you're seeking? If you do the latter, you're not alone.

Just for argument's sake, let's take HCM. Now, if you sell HCM software, you should probably have HCM on your Web site a few times. Some people will actually search for the acronym. No argument there. (They'll most likely search for it because some yutz has used it in an article or a piece of collateral, but that, gentle reader, is a discussion for another time.) But you should have a proliferation of "human capital management" and "human resource management" and so on and so forth.

I'm not saying don't use HCM, but I am saying don't just use "human capital management" once and then resort to the acronym the rest of the time. Because it won't help people find you using search engines. And if it won't work for your Web copy, then it probably won't work for your other copy. Because your collateral and public relations and Web copy should maintain a certain consistency... well you get my point.

In short, you should always strive to have solid, clear content that is intelligible by someone who has no experience with your product or the industry in which it plays. And acronyms defeat that clarity. Worse yet, they may be hammering your precious search engine rankings. And no one wants the boss to hear that, do they?

Have I convinced your kind soul to join me in hating the lowly acronym, or have I insulted your finer acronym-forming sensibilities? The only way to let me know is to comment. Well and of course, to return, to see me in my shame.

 

 Aggravated by acronyms

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 15, 2005

Please won't you help your RSS feed find a home?

UPDATE (April 4, 2005): Thank you, thank you, thank you (and throw in my undying admiration, as well) to Molly E. Holzschlag of for raising the visibility of, well, the raising-the-visibility-of-XML-feed-links issue. (Now, if she could only do something to cure me of hyphenated adjective run-ons.) Something tells me her critiques, questions, and insight will get a wee bit more coverage than my ranting and raving (read whining) here at little ol' hypocritical. It's nice to see that the thought leaders, who have followings that tend to listen, are recognizing this as an issue.
UPDATE UPDATE: Molly was kind enough to stop by and comment. Go to her site now. Quit wasting your time here.

ORIGINAL POST

Dear proud parent of an feed:

I have really enjoyed reading your insight, your pithy verbiage, and your unique view on the industry as a whole. I would very much like to add your feed to my feed reader, perhaps even my blogroll. However, your RSS feed link is buried so far down the page in 2-point font that I'm having a difficult time finding it.

Now trust me, you're not alone in this respect. Some of the best bloggers with the most popular feeds are guilty of the same offense. But, quite honestly, if we're trying to gain acceptance for this whole "feed" thing, don't you think it would be wise to make it as brain-dead obvious as possible about how to get to the feed? Because, readers, bless their hearts, aren't always willing to work hard enough to find it on their own.

And I know, some of the blogging services have developed your template. And I know that the feed is located somewhere down in the nether-reaches of that template. And I know that if you're really "in the know," you've coded the alternate link information into all of your pages for auto-discovery. I know all that, and I'm still writing this.

It's your job to give your RSS feed more visibility -- the visibility it deserves. It needs above-the-fold exposure to survive. So get to work. Grab an orange chicklet. Or go get another promotional graphic at FeedBurner, or the other feed reader services. Do something.

I can guarantee that if I find you interesting, thousands of other people will, too. But only about one in a thousand is going to take the time to scan your page for your feed link. And I think I was the one.

Please, please, please won't you give your RSS feed link more visibility? Please? (Insert tear rolling down cheek and puppy-dog eyes here.) Sniff sniff. Your public deserves it.

Thanks in advance,
Rick

 

 Please won't you help your RSS feed find a home?

| | Subscribe: Subscribe to the hypocritical RSS feed RSS, Bloglines

March 14, 2005

An Immodest Proposal: Where blogging and RSS are headed (or everything old is new again)

UPDATE (March 24, 2005): In "Bloggers have rights, too : Congressman John Conyers," Kevin O'Keefe of Real Lawyers Have Blogs provides an interesting assessment of the impact that the "blogger as journalist" argument may have on first-amendment rights and marketing blogs. Well worth the read. As is the original entry, "Bloggers have rights, too," that spawned the summary.

UPDATE (March 17, 2005): Se