I just finished reading Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell's latest book, and like his previous books, The Tipping Point and Blink, it's a fascinating look into why things are the way they are (one of my favorite subjects!) In Outliers, Gladwell debunks the myth that people are successful because of their "individual merit." Using established research and case studies, he shows that culture, family, luck and timing are powerful factors in whether a person is successful. It's very interesting and it made me think quite a bit about my own culture, family, luck and timing. It's not a self-help book so there isn't a chapter on "What to do if you didn't get the right combination of the four factors" but he does demonstrate that knowledge is power and if you understand who you are and how you came to be that way, the more you can change the outcome.
Here's an example from the book, very briefly encapsulated. In the nineties, Korean Air had three times the number of fatal accidents of any other airline and was on the brink of being shut down. It was discovered that because of the culture and the language, the co-pilots were not able to directly tell the captain when there was a problem. Here was an issue that would seem to stem from mechanical or technical problems but was actually a cultural problem. It was solved in two ways. One, the roles were switched so that the captain was in the co-pilot's seat and the junior pilot would fly the plane. That way if there was a problem, social protocol did not prohibit frankness. Two, the language of flying became officially English. Without the social stratification built into the language, it was easier for everyone to speak plainly without fear of offending.
As you might expect, people who are nurtured in their talent and interests while young, tend to be successful in those areas especially if culture, timing and luck were also on their side. It can be difficult, if not impossible, as an adult to put yourself in a situation where you can get the practice and confidence necessary to be good at something new. If that pursuit goes against how you've been raised or your culture, it is also more difficult. Or if you're born in a time when that field is extremely competitive, it will take more luck to get in. Luck is what you call all of those times when you were given access to equipment, training, contacts, information, money, a mentor or some other leg up that other people didn't get.
It's probably not a coincidence that I started this blog at around the time that I stopped acting and went back to work in marketing. I knew that I wasn't yet on the right path and must have known that the blog would help me focus on that quest. In another stop on the journey of self-discovery, I've just this week turned down what is basically the best job offer I've ever had. The non-profit that I had been working for pro-bono asked me to be their Director of Marketing and Communications, a brand new position. I had presented a plan for how to strengthen the brand, establish processes for the company and develop a strategy to grow the business over the next couple of years. I would have worked with some of the brightest and nicest people I've ever met and been able to make a tangible difference in education.
The problem is that marketing is not the path I'm supposed to be on. It's something that I'm naturally good at but no matter how much I accomplish, I never get any satisfaction from it. At the same time my inner critic keeps wondering why, if I was meant for something else, I'm not already doing it. Why is it so hard for me to know what I really want? I found the answer in Outliers. People who are successful are assisted by external forces in such a way that they don't have to wonder what they are supposed do with their lives. Mozart, Bill Gates, Michael Phelps and almost every movie star there is, were doing what they do when they were children. They had discovered their talent -- or it had been discovered for them -- and the four factors colluded to put them on a path to success before they were even old enough to ask what they wanted to do. In reviewing my life, I realize I've been all over the map, and back again.
Here's a synopsis:
Child: Wanted to be a teacher, Shirley Temple or the President of the United States; my mother wanted to take me to auditions but my dad said no.
Jr. High/High School: Wanted to take drama but was not allowed.
Jr. College: Took engineering classes because my dad made me; thought I might want to be an attorney (to blend my love of issues and performing) and got a job at a law office; considered acting school but believed I should be properly educated; started taking improv and acting classes on my own.
College: Dropped engineering for Women's Studies (which cost me the financial support of my dad); thought I might want to be a politician but continued to act; considered getting a masters in education; got feedback from professors that whatever I did should involve writing.
Post-college: Worked at creative agencies as a project manager (and although good at it, I was miserable); enrolled in acting classes and started performing in plays and short films.
Late 20s: Quit my job to be an actress, moved to Los Angeles and planned to give it five years before re-evaluating.
Early 30s: Worked in marketing and got laid off twice and felt like every interview and offer was a death sentence; continued to write scripts and make short films.
Obviously, I have three strong interests: Politics, education and filmmaking. Politics is too nasty for me and frankly I'm not very good at saying the right thing at the right time. I'm also quite happy expressing that part of me on the blog. I decided long ago that I didn't want to be a teacher but the job I'm turning down would have allowed me to make a difference in education with my marketing skills. That made the decision very difficult because unlike other jobs in marketing, this one might have actually fulfilled me.
Filmmaking, though, has definitely persisted as the strongest interest. I remember seeing Goodfellas and Thelma and Louise in the early nineties (Jr. College era) and saying to myself "I'd do anything to make movies like that!" The reason I didn't plunge into it then or at every other opportunity is because of my upbringing, which is a very valuable thing to know. I also noticed something else in my list. All of the careers I've been interested in utilize the skills of communication, performance and persuasion; Teachers, politicians and attorneys all need these skills in abundance. Despite his misguided advice, my dad has told me he recognized these things in me at a very young age.
Of course, even a person who already knows what their talent is and has been put on the path to success could mess it up. What I think is the biggest obstacle to success, however, is fear. I can't imagine what fears might have sabotaged the success of Mozart or Gates or Phelps but I know that I am a long-time victim of fear. Fear is what has kept me in marketing and away from what I really love! I've been hiding in jobs instead of taking the plunge into the unknown, where the things I know are scarier than the things I don't know. The two layoffs might, in retrospect, be seen as the luck and timing I needed because they've made it more difficult for me to hide.
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Saturday, July 19, 2008
I have a plan
My friend Natalie called me yesterday, distraught. "You're leaving San Francisco?!" It was only an hour and a half after posting my blog. I had already told most of the people here and many people in Los Angeles that I was thinking about it but not everyone knew.
"Yes," I said, "but I'm moving back to L.A., I thought you'd be happy. Why are you upset?"
"Because San Francisco is just so YOU!" she said.
I laughed. "Well, San Francisco isn't going anywhere, I can come back anytime!" Of course I love it here, of course I'd love to stay but I need to make a transition right now and can't do it while I'm paying $1,885/mo. rent. It's an expensive place to live. I could live more cheaply and have roommates but I don't want to. I was willing to do that when I lived in L.A. because I was pursuing something I was passionate about. That's the problem. In order to stay, I have to get a job that pays enough to afford the lifestyle of a single person in the city and with the money running out, I don't have the luxury of time to find the right opportunity.
Today, while on this call, I realized that none of these jobs will allow me to do what I enjoy. I also understood why I keep being drawn to marketing but find myself constantly disappointed by the jobs I've had. This morning I wrote down all the aspects of marketing that I like. Amazingly, they're all the reasons that I love filmmaking! I like telling a story, creative problem solving, collaboration and tapping into something that is meaningful to people. I love organizing information, research, using logic and intuition to come up with a strategy, testing my theories, seeing them work and making them better. No job is going to let me do all that. Even if companies SAY they want a person to do those things, in reality the job will be waiting for projects to start or be approved, fighting to keep a project from being ruined by the short-sightedness of other people, maintaining the lame status quo, putting together Powerpoint presentations that fabricate the effectiveness of the project or spending money in useless but high-profile ways.
See, I want to make an impact. The reason I like volunteering is because the people I'm working for need me. They WANT strategic marketing and they're willing to let me do what I'm good at. The fact is, I assured Natalie, I have a plan. I'm launching a company that provides a service to small businesses that will make a real and immediate impact for a relatively low cost. This is a simple, down-to-earth idea that provides a necessity. No bullshit, no fluff, no ego, or waste of time and money for something "cool" that means nothing. This is a company that I'm uniquely qualified to run, working for companies that I feel passionate about. I'm so excited about it. It started to come to me over the last few months when I found myself pitching and selling this idea in my interviews, more effectively than I was selling myself! While on the phone with Natalie, it all came pouring out of me, clear as day. Of course! I even thought, maybe I should write a book about it: "My year at mom's."
"Yes," I said, "but I'm moving back to L.A., I thought you'd be happy. Why are you upset?"
"Because San Francisco is just so YOU!" she said.
I laughed. "Well, San Francisco isn't going anywhere, I can come back anytime!" Of course I love it here, of course I'd love to stay but I need to make a transition right now and can't do it while I'm paying $1,885/mo. rent. It's an expensive place to live. I could live more cheaply and have roommates but I don't want to. I was willing to do that when I lived in L.A. because I was pursuing something I was passionate about. That's the problem. In order to stay, I have to get a job that pays enough to afford the lifestyle of a single person in the city and with the money running out, I don't have the luxury of time to find the right opportunity.
Today, while on this call, I realized that none of these jobs will allow me to do what I enjoy. I also understood why I keep being drawn to marketing but find myself constantly disappointed by the jobs I've had. This morning I wrote down all the aspects of marketing that I like. Amazingly, they're all the reasons that I love filmmaking! I like telling a story, creative problem solving, collaboration and tapping into something that is meaningful to people. I love organizing information, research, using logic and intuition to come up with a strategy, testing my theories, seeing them work and making them better. No job is going to let me do all that. Even if companies SAY they want a person to do those things, in reality the job will be waiting for projects to start or be approved, fighting to keep a project from being ruined by the short-sightedness of other people, maintaining the lame status quo, putting together Powerpoint presentations that fabricate the effectiveness of the project or spending money in useless but high-profile ways.
See, I want to make an impact. The reason I like volunteering is because the people I'm working for need me. They WANT strategic marketing and they're willing to let me do what I'm good at. The fact is, I assured Natalie, I have a plan. I'm launching a company that provides a service to small businesses that will make a real and immediate impact for a relatively low cost. This is a simple, down-to-earth idea that provides a necessity. No bullshit, no fluff, no ego, or waste of time and money for something "cool" that means nothing. This is a company that I'm uniquely qualified to run, working for companies that I feel passionate about. I'm so excited about it. It started to come to me over the last few months when I found myself pitching and selling this idea in my interviews, more effectively than I was selling myself! While on the phone with Natalie, it all came pouring out of me, clear as day. Of course! I even thought, maybe I should write a book about it: "My year at mom's."
Monday, April 14, 2008
Fun sucking, time wasting, age discriminating technology
I am seriously about to shoot my computer. Is it just me or is anyone else having trouble with Gmail? I swear I have to quit it constantly, try it in another browser, it just doesn’t load or when I click an email it “refreshes” but nothing happens. My browser gives up. I force quit. After I while I get a message that the program has stopped responding, do I want to force quit? YES! Damn it, I just told it to do that. Grrr. I restart. I try it again, after five minutes of trying, I am finally able to login again. There are seven new emails since I last had access an hour ago.
I’ve been at the computer for three hours already. First I discovered that my move of my iTunes music from my computer to an external hard drive didn’t quite work. It was loading an old library. I replace it with the new library. Now the old songs aren't in it. I recopy the songs, now I have 4,000 duplicates. OMG. It can’t find the original songs now, just the new ones. WTF? I have to delete the duplicates but oops, my favorites are not marked on the new imports. I have to manually mark them first.
I get that done but now I have to rebuild my set lists. That was relatively painless and I finally update the iPod for my impending trip to the UK. I still haven’t figured out how I’m going to recharge the thing after my 11 hour flight…can I plug it into someone else computer and charge? After that, I upload the photos from yesterday’s brunch. I tweak color. I export. I upload to Flickr. I rename, I tag, and I organize. This is about the time my browsers want to poop out. I have about 12 tabs open of links I want to include in blog posts. I copy the links into a Word document. Oh lord, I think Word is about to give up too. I’m just going to restart.
It’s a good thing I’m unemployed. Otherwise, how would I possibly have time for all this technology? Then it occurs to me that half of my workday must have been spent wrangling with technology. Skpying with friends and coworkers, usually about nothing, reading and responding to emails, setting up my Pandora stations, and trouble shooting performance problems. But I was getting paid!
Since Saturday, I’ve written three blog posts in my notebook but they haven’t shown up on my blog yet because of the pain of sitting down and wrangling with technology to get them done. I can’t think with all this wrestling going on. Last week I spent several joyous hours shuffling video files and music from various hard drives to make room for a new video project. Technology has the maddening dual effect of making things much more accessible while also sucking the fun out of them: for me, filmmaking, writing and marketing.
There’s nary a profession these days that isn’t affected by the technology fun sucking phenomenon. My dad became an engineer because he wanted to build things but found himself instead, 20 years later, a programmer who hadn’t built anything. That’s when he quit and starting building houses. He draws the designs on the computer but it’s still a world barely touched by technology. Hairdressers are one of the rare few professions that haven’t changed. People will always have hair and it will always need cut. It’s pretty basic.
But even worse than fun sucking is the experience invalidation. A woman told me in an interview that she’d rather hire a person with two years experience with widgets than a person with ten years marketing experience (me). Seriously? I think it’s probably always been like this but I’ve always been on the receiving end of that short sighted discrimination; the belief that young people are naturally more able to understand what’s going on in the world. I can’t think of anything more preposterous. I suppose the same people who ten years ago thought the person with the most experience was the most knowledgeable are the same ones that think a 24-year old with two years experience is the most hip.
Here's the truth, there are people who are naturally curious, clever and are always changing. It doesn’t matter how old they are or how much experience they have, they are the ones who will do the job well.
I’ve been at the computer for three hours already. First I discovered that my move of my iTunes music from my computer to an external hard drive didn’t quite work. It was loading an old library. I replace it with the new library. Now the old songs aren't in it. I recopy the songs, now I have 4,000 duplicates. OMG. It can’t find the original songs now, just the new ones. WTF? I have to delete the duplicates but oops, my favorites are not marked on the new imports. I have to manually mark them first.
I get that done but now I have to rebuild my set lists. That was relatively painless and I finally update the iPod for my impending trip to the UK. I still haven’t figured out how I’m going to recharge the thing after my 11 hour flight…can I plug it into someone else computer and charge? After that, I upload the photos from yesterday’s brunch. I tweak color. I export. I upload to Flickr. I rename, I tag, and I organize. This is about the time my browsers want to poop out. I have about 12 tabs open of links I want to include in blog posts. I copy the links into a Word document. Oh lord, I think Word is about to give up too. I’m just going to restart.
It’s a good thing I’m unemployed. Otherwise, how would I possibly have time for all this technology? Then it occurs to me that half of my workday must have been spent wrangling with technology. Skpying with friends and coworkers, usually about nothing, reading and responding to emails, setting up my Pandora stations, and trouble shooting performance problems. But I was getting paid!
Since Saturday, I’ve written three blog posts in my notebook but they haven’t shown up on my blog yet because of the pain of sitting down and wrangling with technology to get them done. I can’t think with all this wrestling going on. Last week I spent several joyous hours shuffling video files and music from various hard drives to make room for a new video project. Technology has the maddening dual effect of making things much more accessible while also sucking the fun out of them: for me, filmmaking, writing and marketing.
There’s nary a profession these days that isn’t affected by the technology fun sucking phenomenon. My dad became an engineer because he wanted to build things but found himself instead, 20 years later, a programmer who hadn’t built anything. That’s when he quit and starting building houses. He draws the designs on the computer but it’s still a world barely touched by technology. Hairdressers are one of the rare few professions that haven’t changed. People will always have hair and it will always need cut. It’s pretty basic.
But even worse than fun sucking is the experience invalidation. A woman told me in an interview that she’d rather hire a person with two years experience with widgets than a person with ten years marketing experience (me). Seriously? I think it’s probably always been like this but I’ve always been on the receiving end of that short sighted discrimination; the belief that young people are naturally more able to understand what’s going on in the world. I can’t think of anything more preposterous. I suppose the same people who ten years ago thought the person with the most experience was the most knowledgeable are the same ones that think a 24-year old with two years experience is the most hip.
Here's the truth, there are people who are naturally curious, clever and are always changing. It doesn’t matter how old they are or how much experience they have, they are the ones who will do the job well.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
A post I started in December
I watched Local Hero the other night, a fantastic little Scottish comedy from 1983. It was kind of a cult-favorite of my parents and for some reason I don't remember having ever seen it. I think I refused to watch it as a teenager out of some kind of protest. If they liked a movie, the only way you could get them to stop trying to get you to see it, was to watch it (and love it). I held out for 24 years but turns out, it's a great film - simple and totally ahead of it's time. A rally cry for what makes us happy in this world; it isn't money, it isn't power, it isn't prestige. It's friends, love, nature and a sense of belonging in the world.
I've never been much of a consumer. My dad was the king of what we didn't need, he actually had his priorities straight in a lot of ways. He spent money on travel and experiences for us, but we never got the jeans we wanted, the toys we wanted and we were were the last ones on the block to get a microwave, VCR and a host of other things deemed necessary by our neighbors. That dialogue ran in my head to the extreme until the last couple of years when I've let myself buy things that make my life better. But I still question my need for everything. Even things I already own.
In 1998, I made a decision that I couldn't live my life making people buy stuff. That's when I moved to LA to be an actress. One of the pinnacles of success in that pursuit is getting a commercial agent. Imagine my surprise to realize even in this endeavor, I was hoping to make a living off of selling stuff. It's nearly impossible, working in the U.S. to NOT have a job that makes people buy stuff, because that's what we do. A friend of mine sent me a short film to watch, The Story of Stuff, that while it sounds like it's made for seventh graders (and maybe it is) makes a really good point: We made this culture and this economy and we can unmake it.
Then I heard an interview on the radio with Judith Levine, who published Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping about the year that she and her husband decided not to be consumers. It reminds me of the day in Seattle, more than ten years ago, that my boyfriend and I decided to try not eating for a day. It was a spontaneous thing, we woke and up and said, let's fast! We lasted about three hours. We wandered around town and literally couldn't think of anything to do that didn't involve eating. So we went to our favorite vegetarian cafe and had our usual lunch but it tasted better that day than it ever had. See, even going without for a short period of time raises our enjoyment level when we do consume. Clearly our national hobby of consumption has not made us the happiest nation on earth.
I don't think we need to stop purchasing altogether but I do think we can should be much more conscious of what we think we "need" and recalibrate. Even "green" has become consumerized and we're being encouraged to offset our guilt by green things that we clearly don't need. It's like they've just replaced the heroin with morphine. The catch for me is that I love marketing. I think I'm good at sharing information and changing people's perceptions and behaviors and it's easier to make a living using that skill in advertising than anything else. One of these days, though, I would like to try my hand at marketing for something good.
I've never been much of a consumer. My dad was the king of what we didn't need, he actually had his priorities straight in a lot of ways. He spent money on travel and experiences for us, but we never got the jeans we wanted, the toys we wanted and we were were the last ones on the block to get a microwave, VCR and a host of other things deemed necessary by our neighbors. That dialogue ran in my head to the extreme until the last couple of years when I've let myself buy things that make my life better. But I still question my need for everything. Even things I already own.
In 1998, I made a decision that I couldn't live my life making people buy stuff. That's when I moved to LA to be an actress. One of the pinnacles of success in that pursuit is getting a commercial agent. Imagine my surprise to realize even in this endeavor, I was hoping to make a living off of selling stuff. It's nearly impossible, working in the U.S. to NOT have a job that makes people buy stuff, because that's what we do. A friend of mine sent me a short film to watch, The Story of Stuff, that while it sounds like it's made for seventh graders (and maybe it is) makes a really good point: We made this culture and this economy and we can unmake it.
Then I heard an interview on the radio with Judith Levine, who published Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping about the year that she and her husband decided not to be consumers. It reminds me of the day in Seattle, more than ten years ago, that my boyfriend and I decided to try not eating for a day. It was a spontaneous thing, we woke and up and said, let's fast! We lasted about three hours. We wandered around town and literally couldn't think of anything to do that didn't involve eating. So we went to our favorite vegetarian cafe and had our usual lunch but it tasted better that day than it ever had. See, even going without for a short period of time raises our enjoyment level when we do consume. Clearly our national hobby of consumption has not made us the happiest nation on earth.
I don't think we need to stop purchasing altogether but I do think we can should be much more conscious of what we think we "need" and recalibrate. Even "green" has become consumerized and we're being encouraged to offset our guilt by green things that we clearly don't need. It's like they've just replaced the heroin with morphine. The catch for me is that I love marketing. I think I'm good at sharing information and changing people's perceptions and behaviors and it's easier to make a living using that skill in advertising than anything else. One of these days, though, I would like to try my hand at marketing for something good.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Change as the safe option
At the risk of sounding old, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s easy to be young. A young person, company or government has lots of fresh and original ideas, something to rebel against and a clean slate on which to build. As we get older, choices have been made that can’t be undone and the consequences of those choices color every decision made since. Deciding to have a baby, building a website in .net or funding rebels in a war against Communism all become part of an elaborate house of cards in which one mistake could topple the whole thing. It’s no wonder then, that for all of our talk about change we are addicted to the status quo. Change cannot happen for established people, companies or government without taking it all apart. Even if long-term results make the most sense, the short term could be disastrous. It’s impossible to predict whether we can survive the change.
I’ve experienced this phenomenon a lot over the past couple of years, working for mature online companies (10+ years in a coon’s age on the Internet). As a marketer, I’m the most painfully aware of a product’s shortcomings since it’s my job to differentiate it in the market and win over (or retain) customers. So much marketing happens online that product and marketing are virtually indistinguishable. I’ve found that it’s easy to rally the troops for change because it’s easy to see how things can and should be different (once it’s pointed out) but if taken to senior management, these great ideas suffer a quick death. No. No way! Change costs money, jobs, disrupts nepotistic relationships, upsets the stock price and is just too damn hard. Only a company that is founded on change and remains committed to it, because innovation IS their product, can avoid the crippling effects of Cronyism.
Reading about the presidential race, I find it really interesting that Barack Obama is doing so well despite his lack of experience. In this arena, he is youth. But is the U.S. still a young country? Hilary’s close rivalry suggests that people understand that despite the allure of youth and change, they understand that in reality, we are deeply entrenched in our past and in things that cannot be undone and they aren't willing to be the guinea pigs. Eventually, however, all mature organizations discover that the long-term effect of the status quo is far worse than the consequences of short-term change. By many perspectives, this government has already been run into the ground and the time for change is here. But are we really ready or is it just talk?
I’ve experienced this phenomenon a lot over the past couple of years, working for mature online companies (10+ years in a coon’s age on the Internet). As a marketer, I’m the most painfully aware of a product’s shortcomings since it’s my job to differentiate it in the market and win over (or retain) customers. So much marketing happens online that product and marketing are virtually indistinguishable. I’ve found that it’s easy to rally the troops for change because it’s easy to see how things can and should be different (once it’s pointed out) but if taken to senior management, these great ideas suffer a quick death. No. No way! Change costs money, jobs, disrupts nepotistic relationships, upsets the stock price and is just too damn hard. Only a company that is founded on change and remains committed to it, because innovation IS their product, can avoid the crippling effects of Cronyism.
Reading about the presidential race, I find it really interesting that Barack Obama is doing so well despite his lack of experience. In this arena, he is youth. But is the U.S. still a young country? Hilary’s close rivalry suggests that people understand that despite the allure of youth and change, they understand that in reality, we are deeply entrenched in our past and in things that cannot be undone and they aren't willing to be the guinea pigs. Eventually, however, all mature organizations discover that the long-term effect of the status quo is far worse than the consequences of short-term change. By many perspectives, this government has already been run into the ground and the time for change is here. But are we really ready or is it just talk?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
A new brand promise
I'm constantly amazed that world is full of hope and beauty despite overwhelming evidence that our existence on this planet – a struggle to survive despite ourselves – is about to come to an end. I know this because history has shown us that everything eventually ends although our reign here so far has been but a blip on the billion-year timeline of our incredible planet. Despite knowing this and a little else, we’re still rubbish at predicting the future. Even things that we think we know and control are beyond us. So we’re in a curious place right now, a moment in time when we’re being asked to believe two incredibly difficult things: 1) That the way we live is destroying the one place that makes life possible and 2) That we can do something about it.
An unbelievable amount of change has happened in public opinion in the last couple of years. People now accept, at least in part, that we are a complicit partner in global warning. But it is still a very ambiguous concept to most people and it is only part of the picture. The bigger picture is a shift in perception, a belief that the world gives us life and that we should be grateful for that gift. It’s gratitude not entitlement that should drive our interactions with our planet and our fellow inhabitants. I'd wish the Christian Right were half as diligent about protecting plants and animals as they are unborn children, and would like to see corporations caring at least half as much about keeping people safe as they do in raising their profits, and wish government kept half a mind on how to create a new world economy while they send people to die for the old one.
I think the big picture has not been effectively branded or marketed. The focus has been on what will happen if we don’t stop what we’re doing, the effects of what we’re doing, and how we can replace what we’re doing with something else. What I think we really need is a brilliant future to believe in. Why are we bothering to save the wretched institutions we have like cars and freeways instead of committing to high-speed rail, for example?
I swear, if I read one more article about how scientists are working around the clock to make a car that doesn’t use gas I’m going to puke. What about all the other bad things about cars: #1 cause of death for young people, huge waste of natural resources, loss of farmland to build roads and parking lots, and loud crowded cities with poor public transportation infrastructures? Even if we build a car that uses no oil, China will have to pave over their food source to drive them!
We need to think much bigger than just keeping what we’ve got because if we really can mobilize the entire planet for change, why stop at the status quo? I’d like to imagine a world where animals aren’t kept in cages for our entertainment or experimentation, where rivers are sacred and not a place to dump toxic waste, where people understood the purpose and origins of food – real food that comes out of the ground and off the trees – and grew it for themselves, where forests and oceans were considered riches as they as are and not as they can be exploited and destroyed, where people’s senses became finely tuned to the natural life buzzing around them and preferred it to loud cars, strong chemicals and a flood of artificial light.
The difficulty, I suppose, is imagining people wanting to take better care of their planet than they do themselves, or to have a more daring vision for the world than they do their life. But I think we’re a product of our environment and even though we’ve created it, it shapes us, which is why this idea is so empowering. We have the ability to re-imagine our entire universe. All we need is something we can all believe in, and just like every marketing piece supports a brand promise, every action will support our belief.
In thinking of a brand promise for this movement, I came up with this: “I believe the world is a beautiful miracle, created by God or by accident, and as long as humans are given life I believe it is our duty to care for this planet and all of its inhabitants.” Greenpeace and
the United Nations both have pretty compelling mission statements, by the way. The truth is, we probably aren’t clever enough to care for this planet but if we measure all of our actions against this promise, we can at least say that we did our best.
An unbelievable amount of change has happened in public opinion in the last couple of years. People now accept, at least in part, that we are a complicit partner in global warning. But it is still a very ambiguous concept to most people and it is only part of the picture. The bigger picture is a shift in perception, a belief that the world gives us life and that we should be grateful for that gift. It’s gratitude not entitlement that should drive our interactions with our planet and our fellow inhabitants. I'd wish the Christian Right were half as diligent about protecting plants and animals as they are unborn children, and would like to see corporations caring at least half as much about keeping people safe as they do in raising their profits, and wish government kept half a mind on how to create a new world economy while they send people to die for the old one.
I think the big picture has not been effectively branded or marketed. The focus has been on what will happen if we don’t stop what we’re doing, the effects of what we’re doing, and how we can replace what we’re doing with something else. What I think we really need is a brilliant future to believe in. Why are we bothering to save the wretched institutions we have like cars and freeways instead of committing to high-speed rail, for example?
I swear, if I read one more article about how scientists are working around the clock to make a car that doesn’t use gas I’m going to puke. What about all the other bad things about cars: #1 cause of death for young people, huge waste of natural resources, loss of farmland to build roads and parking lots, and loud crowded cities with poor public transportation infrastructures? Even if we build a car that uses no oil, China will have to pave over their food source to drive them!
We need to think much bigger than just keeping what we’ve got because if we really can mobilize the entire planet for change, why stop at the status quo? I’d like to imagine a world where animals aren’t kept in cages for our entertainment or experimentation, where rivers are sacred and not a place to dump toxic waste, where people understood the purpose and origins of food – real food that comes out of the ground and off the trees – and grew it for themselves, where forests and oceans were considered riches as they as are and not as they can be exploited and destroyed, where people’s senses became finely tuned to the natural life buzzing around them and preferred it to loud cars, strong chemicals and a flood of artificial light.
The difficulty, I suppose, is imagining people wanting to take better care of their planet than they do themselves, or to have a more daring vision for the world than they do their life. But I think we’re a product of our environment and even though we’ve created it, it shapes us, which is why this idea is so empowering. We have the ability to re-imagine our entire universe. All we need is something we can all believe in, and just like every marketing piece supports a brand promise, every action will support our belief.
In thinking of a brand promise for this movement, I came up with this: “I believe the world is a beautiful miracle, created by God or by accident, and as long as humans are given life I believe it is our duty to care for this planet and all of its inhabitants.” Greenpeace and
the United Nations both have pretty compelling mission statements, by the way. The truth is, we probably aren’t clever enough to care for this planet but if we measure all of our actions against this promise, we can at least say that we did our best.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The truth is better than the lie
I find myself thinking a lot about terrorism lately as if I’m going to solve the problem. The way we’re going about it isn’t working, and it doesn’t even make sense. It’s like the 58-year old calling the teenager sick for getting whacked out over their affair. He takes no responsibility for her state and will further destroy her in his “defense.”
I think there most definitely is a problem. As we near doubling our population, our world grows increasingly smaller and I for one don’t want the human race to go out in a hail of gunfire. It’s romantic in the movies but in real life, it’s just sad if we can’t find a way to get along. But real change requires understanding, work and sacrifice; it’s not just a matter of pushing someone back in line and telling them to shut up. If we wanted to make an impact on those who finance Al-Qaeda, we should have stopped the flow of money. Immediately. Stop driving cars if we have to and spend the billions of dollars being spent on the war to float the economy.
My family went overseas for the first time in 1984. I was just about to start high school when I met my English family. My cousins, a couple of years younger than me, wanted nothing more than to go to America. They thought it was the coolest place on earth. Twenty something years later, the Brits no longer love America and after decades of being our biggest fans outside of ourselves, they don’t even like Americans anymore. They think we’re ignorant, selfish, stupid and lazy and our President is all the proof they need.
When my friend was visiting from London, we were talking about something and I said, “people always think they’re doing the right thing.” I said that even George Bush thinks he’s doing the right thing. “Really,” he asked, “because I think he’s just taking a piss.” He referenced the comments he makes and how flippant and arrogant they are, how it seems he just doesn’t even care. I was too embarrassed to admit that I don’t listen to him anymore and because, frankly, it's difficult to imagine the magnitude of lying and deceit if he knows what he's doing.
I read an article in the New York Times a while back about plastic surgery in Iran. It’s so prevalent, apparently, that even men now are getting multiple surgeries done: nose jobs, chin implants, and cheek implants. A Persian friend of mine commented on it during her last trip there. She said every woman had a nose job and no one was the least bit bothered by a girl with bandages and bruises. There was a photo in the article of a woman, a beautiful woman, whose whole family has had a nose job. She didn’t even look Persian, she looked like a generic white woman. It was sad.
If I were Iranian, I think I would be livid. I would be outraged by the idea of a whole culture changing what makes them unique, succumbing to the idea that there is an ideal beauty, and that it is Western. I don’t want to live in an American world. Droves of people move here from other countries, looking for a better life, but they are all loyal to their homeland, their culture, their language, their food, their music, and their country. What would America be without that diversity?
Even Canada, our neighbors to the north, and the country that is probably most like ours in language, culture and history, is sensitive to not becoming Americanized and losing their identity. It’s easy then to imagine how massively offensive and threatening the export of our culture is to countries that share none of those things with us. Our culture isn’t just television and clothes. It’s language, policy, business, and yes, even our ideals. Just because we say something is important, doesn’t make it so. It has to appeal in a way that’s relevant and it has to be translated.
I remember reading in college about the family planning movement in Bangladesh. It was a critical program designed to reduce the poverty by decreasing the birthrate but it would require female empowerment, something just as new and delicate. While Western organizations could provide support, education and resources, it was essential that the actual outreach be done by local Bangladeshi women. Women who understood the culture and what they were up against but also, why it would work. And it did. Between 1975 and 1994, the fertility rate dropped from 6.3 to 3.3 and is now at 3 (children per family).
My mom told me a disturbing story that she read in the paper. The government of the Dominican Republic, in an effort to make their country more appealing to tourists, is cutting down hundred-year old shade trees that line their streets and replacing them with palm trees. The idea is that the tourists expect palm trees in a tropical country and they're trying to justify this massacre by saying the trees they're chopping are non-native. Meanwhile, the poor residents lose shade, cooler temperatures, fresh air and oxygen that these trees create, in addition to their history and the beauty of their town. Once again, a whole country suffers in the pursuit of a false ideal.
Europe, perhaps because of its smaller size, has always been much more concerned about keeping things clean, quiet and efficient, than the United States. In Sweden, apartment buildings have grass on the roof to contribute oxygen to the air and help insulate. In Britain, gas lawn mowers have been made illegal because of the noise and everyone uses nearly-silent electric mowers. In Paris, an electric train and public bicycles provide everyone with clean, quiet and efficient transportation. The cars are smaller, the houses are smaller, appliances are compact, and it’s always been like that.
Yet they have managed to mind their own business when it comes to America’s disgusting obsession with size and waste. Our compact cars of the same make and model are larger than their European counterparts and use more gas. But most of us aren’t even trying to be fuel-efficient. Our toilets use too much water, our water heaters heat water all day so it’s hot for the half hour that we need it, our food is too big and we throw most of it away. And yet, you don’t hear them telling us how we should live, though I wish they would. It's only a matter of time before the rest of the world starts imposing their views on us.
In the real world, we can’t force an employer to want to hire us, we can’t force a person to fall in love with us, we can’t force our children to be what we want them to be, and we can’t force people to buy our products. So why do we think we can force people to share our beliefs? The only thing we can do is make ourselves the best we can be and hope to be liked for who we really are. In marketing, we focus on making sure the product is something that people want and then making it relevant. If we want to sell democracy and freedom, we first have to practice what we preach and then find a way to make it something the rest of the world wants to buy.
I liken the "War on Terror" to the "War on Drugs," a similarly misguided attempt that failed spectacularly, increasing drug use, increasing drug profits and otherwise making the unwanted behavior more attractive and rewarding. The U.S. government allowed or otherwise participated in drug smuggling in order to fund other covert operations, no doubt justified by saying the actions were "good for the American people." Meanwhile, this country waged war on its own citizens. The land of "freedom lovers" has more people in prison than any country in the world, and nearly a quarter are there on drug charges.
I think there most definitely is a problem. As we near doubling our population, our world grows increasingly smaller and I for one don’t want the human race to go out in a hail of gunfire. It’s romantic in the movies but in real life, it’s just sad if we can’t find a way to get along. But real change requires understanding, work and sacrifice; it’s not just a matter of pushing someone back in line and telling them to shut up. If we wanted to make an impact on those who finance Al-Qaeda, we should have stopped the flow of money. Immediately. Stop driving cars if we have to and spend the billions of dollars being spent on the war to float the economy.
My family went overseas for the first time in 1984. I was just about to start high school when I met my English family. My cousins, a couple of years younger than me, wanted nothing more than to go to America. They thought it was the coolest place on earth. Twenty something years later, the Brits no longer love America and after decades of being our biggest fans outside of ourselves, they don’t even like Americans anymore. They think we’re ignorant, selfish, stupid and lazy and our President is all the proof they need.
When my friend was visiting from London, we were talking about something and I said, “people always think they’re doing the right thing.” I said that even George Bush thinks he’s doing the right thing. “Really,” he asked, “because I think he’s just taking a piss.” He referenced the comments he makes and how flippant and arrogant they are, how it seems he just doesn’t even care. I was too embarrassed to admit that I don’t listen to him anymore and because, frankly, it's difficult to imagine the magnitude of lying and deceit if he knows what he's doing.
I read an article in the New York Times a while back about plastic surgery in Iran. It’s so prevalent, apparently, that even men now are getting multiple surgeries done: nose jobs, chin implants, and cheek implants. A Persian friend of mine commented on it during her last trip there. She said every woman had a nose job and no one was the least bit bothered by a girl with bandages and bruises. There was a photo in the article of a woman, a beautiful woman, whose whole family has had a nose job. She didn’t even look Persian, she looked like a generic white woman. It was sad.
If I were Iranian, I think I would be livid. I would be outraged by the idea of a whole culture changing what makes them unique, succumbing to the idea that there is an ideal beauty, and that it is Western. I don’t want to live in an American world. Droves of people move here from other countries, looking for a better life, but they are all loyal to their homeland, their culture, their language, their food, their music, and their country. What would America be without that diversity?
Even Canada, our neighbors to the north, and the country that is probably most like ours in language, culture and history, is sensitive to not becoming Americanized and losing their identity. It’s easy then to imagine how massively offensive and threatening the export of our culture is to countries that share none of those things with us. Our culture isn’t just television and clothes. It’s language, policy, business, and yes, even our ideals. Just because we say something is important, doesn’t make it so. It has to appeal in a way that’s relevant and it has to be translated.
I remember reading in college about the family planning movement in Bangladesh. It was a critical program designed to reduce the poverty by decreasing the birthrate but it would require female empowerment, something just as new and delicate. While Western organizations could provide support, education and resources, it was essential that the actual outreach be done by local Bangladeshi women. Women who understood the culture and what they were up against but also, why it would work. And it did. Between 1975 and 1994, the fertility rate dropped from 6.3 to 3.3 and is now at 3 (children per family).
My mom told me a disturbing story that she read in the paper. The government of the Dominican Republic, in an effort to make their country more appealing to tourists, is cutting down hundred-year old shade trees that line their streets and replacing them with palm trees. The idea is that the tourists expect palm trees in a tropical country and they're trying to justify this massacre by saying the trees they're chopping are non-native. Meanwhile, the poor residents lose shade, cooler temperatures, fresh air and oxygen that these trees create, in addition to their history and the beauty of their town. Once again, a whole country suffers in the pursuit of a false ideal.
Europe, perhaps because of its smaller size, has always been much more concerned about keeping things clean, quiet and efficient, than the United States. In Sweden, apartment buildings have grass on the roof to contribute oxygen to the air and help insulate. In Britain, gas lawn mowers have been made illegal because of the noise and everyone uses nearly-silent electric mowers. In Paris, an electric train and public bicycles provide everyone with clean, quiet and efficient transportation. The cars are smaller, the houses are smaller, appliances are compact, and it’s always been like that.
Yet they have managed to mind their own business when it comes to America’s disgusting obsession with size and waste. Our compact cars of the same make and model are larger than their European counterparts and use more gas. But most of us aren’t even trying to be fuel-efficient. Our toilets use too much water, our water heaters heat water all day so it’s hot for the half hour that we need it, our food is too big and we throw most of it away. And yet, you don’t hear them telling us how we should live, though I wish they would. It's only a matter of time before the rest of the world starts imposing their views on us.
In the real world, we can’t force an employer to want to hire us, we can’t force a person to fall in love with us, we can’t force our children to be what we want them to be, and we can’t force people to buy our products. So why do we think we can force people to share our beliefs? The only thing we can do is make ourselves the best we can be and hope to be liked for who we really are. In marketing, we focus on making sure the product is something that people want and then making it relevant. If we want to sell democracy and freedom, we first have to practice what we preach and then find a way to make it something the rest of the world wants to buy.
I liken the "War on Terror" to the "War on Drugs," a similarly misguided attempt that failed spectacularly, increasing drug use, increasing drug profits and otherwise making the unwanted behavior more attractive and rewarding. The U.S. government allowed or otherwise participated in drug smuggling in order to fund other covert operations, no doubt justified by saying the actions were "good for the American people." Meanwhile, this country waged war on its own citizens. The land of "freedom lovers" has more people in prison than any country in the world, and nearly a quarter are there on drug charges.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Stop in for a Squishee at the Kwik-E-Mart!
I was driving down Venice Boulevard, on the way back from a friend's house, when I noticed a bunch of people taking pictures of a 7-11 while I was waiting at a red light. Some were standing next to some Simpsons characters and getting their photo snapped. I noticed there were more characters on the roof.
"Ha, cool," I thought, "they've got The Simpsons..." But HOLD THE PHONE, it's not a 7-11, it's a KWIK-E-MART! The whole building was made to look like it was from the cartoon. Some bike riders came by and couldn't peel their eyes off of it even though they clearly needed their eyes on the road. I didn't have my camera and didn't even think to stop and go inside but the entire experience has been faithfully documented on Flickr.
There are only about a dozen stores throughout the country so many cities don't have one, DOH!, but check out the list to see if you're on it. The movie better be good, I'm getting tired of promotions that are better than what they're promoting.
"Ha, cool," I thought, "they've got The Simpsons..." But HOLD THE PHONE, it's not a 7-11, it's a KWIK-E-MART! The whole building was made to look like it was from the cartoon. Some bike riders came by and couldn't peel their eyes off of it even though they clearly needed their eyes on the road. I didn't have my camera and didn't even think to stop and go inside but the entire experience has been faithfully documented on Flickr.
There are only about a dozen stores throughout the country so many cities don't have one, DOH!, but check out the list to see if you're on it. The movie better be good, I'm getting tired of promotions that are better than what they're promoting.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Experience is more important than information
Last week I was invited by a friend (thank you!) to a sneak preview screening of A Mighty Heart with Angelina Jolie, about the kidnapping and execution of Daniel Pearl. I don’t usually bother with film critiques but this movie had huge gaping holes where moments should have been and it made me think of a parallel to marketing. A marketing piece, like a film, has three distinct parts: a hook, the message and a call-to-action. The film equivalent would be the premise, the journey and the resolution. The effectiveness of these parts relies on moments – what screenwriters call turning points. My argument is that ultimately, these moments and the effect they have on the audience are more important than the context.
The trap that filmmakers fall into is the same problem that marketers fall into. They worry more about the details than the experience. The content is almost meaningless. It doesn’t matter if he’s been missing for 17 or 70 hours. It doesn’t matter if your product is $5 or $50 off. What matters is how the audience experiences the information. It’s not information that motivates them to buy or tell their friends to see the film.
What’s more enjoyable? Walking out of a movie that moved you, that made you feel something but not knowing exactly what happened and having to sort it out later, or walking out knowing exactly what happened but not feeling anything? You feel even more cheated, you have all the information and yet, you still don’t care. Clarity is meaningless if your audience is not moved.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD
What I wanted to see was a story about a woman dealing with her helplessness and inevitable tragedy. I never felt like we got to share her pain. We never even saw the world. There was one instance in which the news erroneously reported that his body had been found but we never saw let’s say, the people of the United States watching it! What about when Mariane is on the phone with Daniel’s mother and she says, “You know it’s not true right?” Is she consoling her? What’s happening on the other end? We don’t know. How powerful would it have been to see Daniel’s mother having a breakdown and Mariane having to be the strong one, consoling her from Karachi? The ironic cruelty of that would have been too painful to watch.
Here are three missed moments and how I would have created them.
1) This movie was like CSI: Karachi. The whole focus was on the chase, the investigation and not on Mariane and her journey. We never see the moment in which Mariane realizes for the first time that Danny might never be found. This is a huge moment, possibly the most important moment of the movie. Where was it? She’s stoic the whole time – and maybe that’s how she really was – but as an audience we need to know why. Is she inside thinking about what it’s going to be like to raise a child without his father but stuffing her grief? Putting on a good face? Or is she in total denial and believes 100% until the end that he’s coming back? We’re not sure.
This should potentially be the most memorable moment of the movie. We already know what’s going to happen, we know how it ends but Mariane doesn’t. The moment should have been when she realizes that the kidnapping was planned and not spontaneous. She gets it, intellectually. She's the one that tells us but did she feel it? She should have changed from that moment on – from matter-of-fact dealing with a situation to suddenly feeling very small or angry, or whatever. The shift should have been dramatic.
2) The film begins with Mariane Pearl’s voiceover from after the event is over. She drives through the city and the camera pans out to show her amidst the chaos and immensity of Karachi and she says something like “How can you find one man in all of this.” Now, that moment is completely wasted. They just gave away the second turning point!
It should start in the details of her life with Daniel. Their work, the pregnancy, the home. We don’t need to know why they were there or for how long or even when. It’s not relevant. What we need is to feel his absence from her life and then see events unfold in a landscape so large and so chaotic that we feel her helplessness.
Thelma & Louise starts small, in the mundane details of our characters’ lives. Geena Davis puts the Snickers bar in the freezer over and over, only to keep taking it out for another bite. Susan Sarandon washes the dishes with inordinate care and attention. As we go on their journey, our perspective gets wider and we are able to see them in context of the world. We gradually come to realize that they are powerless against the big wide world. It ends with a magnificent shot of the women driving off a cliff over the Grand Canyon as a tiny Harvey Keitel runs after them. One man, all that space.
What I would have liked to see is the Karachi scene later in the film. It should be the first time the audience fully realizes what she’s up against and the utter futility of the search. Maybe Mariane spends the night driving around the city in a taxi looking for him. It’s a ridiculous, desperate move but now that we understand the situation, we can be floored by her strength and the fact that she doesn’t give up.
3) When the group confronts Mariane to tell her that Daniel is gone she says, “How do you know?” and someone replies, “There was a video tape.” I feel like I’m watching a movie made for idiots! We know there was a tape. We saw the tape. WE know, see? It’s not the character’s movie, it’s our movie, it’s my movie and what I want is for Mariane to SEE the tape. I want no one to speak but instead someone just hands her the tape. She looks down and realizes that her husband, the last moments of his life, all that is left of him, is her hands.
As an actress, Angelina Jolie should have thought of this and asked for it. All good performers think about their props and how they can physicalize their action, and a director should always be thinking how they can show instead of tell. Mariane takes the tape and goes into the room with it. She can still scream or cry but now she has the tape to react to. She can throw it or talk to it, cradle it in her arms or destroy it. Seeing a woman fall apart over a piece of plastic? That would have moved me.
After the film my friend asked if I would tell people they had to see this movie and I replied no. I thought it was okay. It was well shot, well acted and was reasonably interesting but there was no call-to-action, no takeaway. What was the point? I wasn’t left with an experience. How would I pitch it to my friends? And that’s what I think about in marketing. How will the consumer tell their friends about this? I start with the answer to that question and work backwards to make it happen.
I just read an article in which Asra Nomani, the good friend of the Pearl's whose house they stayed at in Karachi, criticizes the movie. Her critique is different than mine and probably more valid. Mine is that the movie failed at what I think it was trying to do - show Mariane's story. Hers is that the movie failed to do what it should have done - tell us who Daniel Pearl was. I couldn't agree more, it was a film that never found its purpose.
The trap that filmmakers fall into is the same problem that marketers fall into. They worry more about the details than the experience. The content is almost meaningless. It doesn’t matter if he’s been missing for 17 or 70 hours. It doesn’t matter if your product is $5 or $50 off. What matters is how the audience experiences the information. It’s not information that motivates them to buy or tell their friends to see the film.
What’s more enjoyable? Walking out of a movie that moved you, that made you feel something but not knowing exactly what happened and having to sort it out later, or walking out knowing exactly what happened but not feeling anything? You feel even more cheated, you have all the information and yet, you still don’t care. Clarity is meaningless if your audience is not moved.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD
What I wanted to see was a story about a woman dealing with her helplessness and inevitable tragedy. I never felt like we got to share her pain. We never even saw the world. There was one instance in which the news erroneously reported that his body had been found but we never saw let’s say, the people of the United States watching it! What about when Mariane is on the phone with Daniel’s mother and she says, “You know it’s not true right?” Is she consoling her? What’s happening on the other end? We don’t know. How powerful would it have been to see Daniel’s mother having a breakdown and Mariane having to be the strong one, consoling her from Karachi? The ironic cruelty of that would have been too painful to watch.
Here are three missed moments and how I would have created them.
1) This movie was like CSI: Karachi. The whole focus was on the chase, the investigation and not on Mariane and her journey. We never see the moment in which Mariane realizes for the first time that Danny might never be found. This is a huge moment, possibly the most important moment of the movie. Where was it? She’s stoic the whole time – and maybe that’s how she really was – but as an audience we need to know why. Is she inside thinking about what it’s going to be like to raise a child without his father but stuffing her grief? Putting on a good face? Or is she in total denial and believes 100% until the end that he’s coming back? We’re not sure.
This should potentially be the most memorable moment of the movie. We already know what’s going to happen, we know how it ends but Mariane doesn’t. The moment should have been when she realizes that the kidnapping was planned and not spontaneous. She gets it, intellectually. She's the one that tells us but did she feel it? She should have changed from that moment on – from matter-of-fact dealing with a situation to suddenly feeling very small or angry, or whatever. The shift should have been dramatic.
2) The film begins with Mariane Pearl’s voiceover from after the event is over. She drives through the city and the camera pans out to show her amidst the chaos and immensity of Karachi and she says something like “How can you find one man in all of this.” Now, that moment is completely wasted. They just gave away the second turning point!
It should start in the details of her life with Daniel. Their work, the pregnancy, the home. We don’t need to know why they were there or for how long or even when. It’s not relevant. What we need is to feel his absence from her life and then see events unfold in a landscape so large and so chaotic that we feel her helplessness.
Thelma & Louise starts small, in the mundane details of our characters’ lives. Geena Davis puts the Snickers bar in the freezer over and over, only to keep taking it out for another bite. Susan Sarandon washes the dishes with inordinate care and attention. As we go on their journey, our perspective gets wider and we are able to see them in context of the world. We gradually come to realize that they are powerless against the big wide world. It ends with a magnificent shot of the women driving off a cliff over the Grand Canyon as a tiny Harvey Keitel runs after them. One man, all that space.
What I would have liked to see is the Karachi scene later in the film. It should be the first time the audience fully realizes what she’s up against and the utter futility of the search. Maybe Mariane spends the night driving around the city in a taxi looking for him. It’s a ridiculous, desperate move but now that we understand the situation, we can be floored by her strength and the fact that she doesn’t give up.
3) When the group confronts Mariane to tell her that Daniel is gone she says, “How do you know?” and someone replies, “There was a video tape.” I feel like I’m watching a movie made for idiots! We know there was a tape. We saw the tape. WE know, see? It’s not the character’s movie, it’s our movie, it’s my movie and what I want is for Mariane to SEE the tape. I want no one to speak but instead someone just hands her the tape. She looks down and realizes that her husband, the last moments of his life, all that is left of him, is her hands.
As an actress, Angelina Jolie should have thought of this and asked for it. All good performers think about their props and how they can physicalize their action, and a director should always be thinking how they can show instead of tell. Mariane takes the tape and goes into the room with it. She can still scream or cry but now she has the tape to react to. She can throw it or talk to it, cradle it in her arms or destroy it. Seeing a woman fall apart over a piece of plastic? That would have moved me.
After the film my friend asked if I would tell people they had to see this movie and I replied no. I thought it was okay. It was well shot, well acted and was reasonably interesting but there was no call-to-action, no takeaway. What was the point? I wasn’t left with an experience. How would I pitch it to my friends? And that’s what I think about in marketing. How will the consumer tell their friends about this? I start with the answer to that question and work backwards to make it happen.
I just read an article in which Asra Nomani, the good friend of the Pearl's whose house they stayed at in Karachi, criticizes the movie. Her critique is different than mine and probably more valid. Mine is that the movie failed at what I think it was trying to do - show Mariane's story. Hers is that the movie failed to do what it should have done - tell us who Daniel Pearl was. I couldn't agree more, it was a film that never found its purpose.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Booties for babies needed
I was catching up with a friend last night that I hadn't seen in a while. We took a walk along the beach and I gave her a rundown of my job situation. She didn't even know I had started a new job two months ago so I was telling her about interviewing for the job I never got offered and that I've been thinking about starting some kind of non-profit. She gave me a great idea that seemed right up my alley so I decided to look into it.
This idea was perfect for me, she said, because I wouldn't have to choose a cause (since I'm so passionate about the women's rights, animals treatment and the environment). Argh, I'm still bemoaning the loss of what I'm sure were brilliant notes taken at the lecture the other night. Another point I remember being struck by was a comment that information will drive the change we need. I think this is a universal and indisputable claim - information drives change - but surely there are subtle complexities that determine the rate and effectiveness of that change.
In the early days of advertising, ads were nothing more than a way to disseminate information. Do you know about our product? It does this, this and this and is so easy to use! As the range of products grew and more information competed for consumer's attention, ads had to become more clever. They had to make claims, entertain and make an emotional connection that would drive people to buy. Eventually, even that wasn't enough and, as Seth Godin explains in The Purple Cow, a product or service now has to be remarkable to stand out. Meaning, you can't sell crap anymore, there's just too much competition.
In the same way, you can't just say "there's global warming" and expect people to get on board with your agenda. In order for the environmental revolution to succeed - and it really is a revolution in that it will completely change how we view and interact with our environment - the message needs to contain the truth, be entertaining, create an emotional connection AND offer a remarkable solution.
My friend and I were talking about how it seems that there is a lot of information out there about what's wrong with the world but it's difficult to find answers to "what can I do?" I've found that beyond giving money and sending letters online or signing petitions, it seems difficult to find ways to volunteer for a cause. You have to know the name of the organization and what they do first. Her suggestion was a site that compiled that information so people could easily find ways to volunteer in some way that was fun and meaningful to them. I thought it was a great idea but had a vague sense that maybe it had been done.
I started by Googling "take action." The phrased yielded 26,300,000 results. Scrolling through the list I realize this phrase has come to mean something very specific - do something to make a difference in your world. Volunteer, donate, write a letter. With over 26 million results, however, there's a lot of competition for our time, attention and passion.
VolunteerMatch.org organizes volunteer efforts in an easy to find format. Type in your area of interest and your zip code and it instantly brings up a list of organizations and the way in which you can help. In my neighborhood, for example, K9 Connection needs people to walk dogs with a sign that says "adopt me" and help find the dogs homes. You get to meet people and spend time petting a doggie, in the name of a good cause. Or spend the day at the Santa Monica pier volunteering at the aquarium and watch kids squirm when they touch the sea animals. The local hospital needs knitters to make hats and booties for newborns. Truly, making a difference is this fun and easy and there's something for everyone.
The revolution will be different in that it will require us to make a lot of changes at home and in our thinking, as well as out in the community. For it to be effective, it will have to be remarkable and the action required will have to be this fun and easy.
This idea was perfect for me, she said, because I wouldn't have to choose a cause (since I'm so passionate about the women's rights, animals treatment and the environment). Argh, I'm still bemoaning the loss of what I'm sure were brilliant notes taken at the lecture the other night. Another point I remember being struck by was a comment that information will drive the change we need. I think this is a universal and indisputable claim - information drives change - but surely there are subtle complexities that determine the rate and effectiveness of that change.
In the early days of advertising, ads were nothing more than a way to disseminate information. Do you know about our product? It does this, this and this and is so easy to use! As the range of products grew and more information competed for consumer's attention, ads had to become more clever. They had to make claims, entertain and make an emotional connection that would drive people to buy. Eventually, even that wasn't enough and, as Seth Godin explains in The Purple Cow, a product or service now has to be remarkable to stand out. Meaning, you can't sell crap anymore, there's just too much competition.
In the same way, you can't just say "there's global warming" and expect people to get on board with your agenda. In order for the environmental revolution to succeed - and it really is a revolution in that it will completely change how we view and interact with our environment - the message needs to contain the truth, be entertaining, create an emotional connection AND offer a remarkable solution.
My friend and I were talking about how it seems that there is a lot of information out there about what's wrong with the world but it's difficult to find answers to "what can I do?" I've found that beyond giving money and sending letters online or signing petitions, it seems difficult to find ways to volunteer for a cause. You have to know the name of the organization and what they do first. Her suggestion was a site that compiled that information so people could easily find ways to volunteer in some way that was fun and meaningful to them. I thought it was a great idea but had a vague sense that maybe it had been done.
I started by Googling "take action." The phrased yielded 26,300,000 results. Scrolling through the list I realize this phrase has come to mean something very specific - do something to make a difference in your world. Volunteer, donate, write a letter. With over 26 million results, however, there's a lot of competition for our time, attention and passion.
VolunteerMatch.org organizes volunteer efforts in an easy to find format. Type in your area of interest and your zip code and it instantly brings up a list of organizations and the way in which you can help. In my neighborhood, for example, K9 Connection needs people to walk dogs with a sign that says "adopt me" and help find the dogs homes. You get to meet people and spend time petting a doggie, in the name of a good cause. Or spend the day at the Santa Monica pier volunteering at the aquarium and watch kids squirm when they touch the sea animals. The local hospital needs knitters to make hats and booties for newborns. Truly, making a difference is this fun and easy and there's something for everyone.
The revolution will be different in that it will require us to make a lot of changes at home and in our thinking, as well as out in the community. For it to be effective, it will have to be remarkable and the action required will have to be this fun and easy.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Dumb is the new good
I'm a self-admitted avocado freak. In high school, I had a friend whose family lived in an avocado orchard and he used to give me bags of ripe avocados on a regular basis. The town I grew up in used to be all avocado and orange orchards (once upon a time) and it's not uncommon for people to still have one or two of those trees. I ate so much guacamole that my English grandmother (transplanted to Ohio) who was visiting one summer and thought avocados were the weirdest grossest thing she'd ever seen, remarked "better be careful or your face will turn green!" So although I have a soft spot for whatever the California Avocado Commission comes up with, I think this new campaign is hilarious.
Accompanied by the headline "Which is more irresistible?" I snorted despite myself and coined the term "dumb is the new good!" I'm taking some liberty with the word "dumb" to imply something that's simpler and less clever (rather than less sophisticated).
I could never get into the "dumb" frat boy humor - fart, dick and boob jokes (ala Wedding Crashers, etc) - that most ads are made of. Like those Bud Light challenges where the guy has to actually listen to his girlfriend? Maybe it's a difference between the advertising being dumb and calling the viewer dumb.
The marketing for this new campaign directs consumers to a very fun little site where you can upload your own irresistible images and enter a sweepstakes by accurately choosing the avocado as the most irresistible in a mock game show. It's just clever enough to be fun but dumb enough to be good.
Accompanied by the headline "Which is more irresistible?" I snorted despite myself and coined the term "dumb is the new good!" I'm taking some liberty with the word "dumb" to imply something that's simpler and less clever (rather than less sophisticated).
I could never get into the "dumb" frat boy humor - fart, dick and boob jokes (ala Wedding Crashers, etc) - that most ads are made of. Like those Bud Light challenges where the guy has to actually listen to his girlfriend? Maybe it's a difference between the advertising being dumb and calling the viewer dumb.
The marketing for this new campaign directs consumers to a very fun little site where you can upload your own irresistible images and enter a sweepstakes by accurately choosing the avocado as the most irresistible in a mock game show. It's just clever enough to be fun but dumb enough to be good.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Giving away the farm
Realtors have long known the power of words. Their descriptions of properties can spin a decrepit shack into the cottage of the Seven Dwarfs with just a few words. Savvy buyers are able to translate in real-time when they hear these descriptors:
"warm" means dark wood-paneled walls, "cozy" means less than 900 square feet, "quaint" means it's the tacky house on the corner the neighbors complain about, and "mid-century" means built in the 1960's and might still have the original avocado-colored tile, shag carpeting and gold-veined mirrored tiles.
So jaded have customers become that they often think the worst when hearing these words. Even universally appealing descriptions like "sunny" or "verdant" can conjure negative images. A "sunny" house could be completely exposed because the previous owners chopped down the majestic oak tree that used to shade it. It's surrounded by dry weeds and yellowed grass and the sun beats down on it 24-hours a day. You'll have to keep the blinds closed in the afternoon to avoid slow-roasting. A "verdant" property could make you think you're living in the tropics. Miss a week in the backyard hacking back the plants with a machete, and the green will engulf your house.
So it was a surprise when my mother conjured an image from a realtor's description only to find the property much different. While looking for land on the Oregon coast on which to build their retirement home, my mom and her husband met a local realtor that they hit it off with. She mentioned a "farm" that they had to look at. At over $100k more than what they had been looking at, my mom was not interested. "You'll LOVE the farm!" the Realtor insisted. A week later, she had worn my mother down and she consented to look at it.
Instead of boring flat land with a broken-down barn and bales of hay, she found five acres of green rolling hills dotted with trees on a bluff overlooking the prettiest part of the Oregon coastline. In a small artist's community only ten miles from the hippest beach town in Oregon, the property values have continued to climb here to 18% per year despite the rest of the country's real estate slump.
Noticing an attractive and fairly new-looking house, my mother thought, "too bad there's a neighbor RIGHT HERE." "Oh no," the Realtor corrected, "that house comes with the property! It was built in 1915 and has been completely redone by the professional woodworker who's selling the property." A sweet little two-bedroom cottage with a full-sized attic and ocean views from every room.
Luckily for them, other people wrinkled their noses at the "farm" and had not looked at it. They were the first to put in an offer. Turns out it is classified as a farm because it is home to several miniature burros and some sheep. My mom said the burros are the size of a dog, fluffy and very friendly. I can't wait to meet them. Look how cute!
"warm" means dark wood-paneled walls, "cozy" means less than 900 square feet, "quaint" means it's the tacky house on the corner the neighbors complain about, and "mid-century" means built in the 1960's and might still have the original avocado-colored tile, shag carpeting and gold-veined mirrored tiles.
So jaded have customers become that they often think the worst when hearing these words. Even universally appealing descriptions like "sunny" or "verdant" can conjure negative images. A "sunny" house could be completely exposed because the previous owners chopped down the majestic oak tree that used to shade it. It's surrounded by dry weeds and yellowed grass and the sun beats down on it 24-hours a day. You'll have to keep the blinds closed in the afternoon to avoid slow-roasting. A "verdant" property could make you think you're living in the tropics. Miss a week in the backyard hacking back the plants with a machete, and the green will engulf your house.
So it was a surprise when my mother conjured an image from a realtor's description only to find the property much different. While looking for land on the Oregon coast on which to build their retirement home, my mom and her husband met a local realtor that they hit it off with. She mentioned a "farm" that they had to look at. At over $100k more than what they had been looking at, my mom was not interested. "You'll LOVE the farm!" the Realtor insisted. A week later, she had worn my mother down and she consented to look at it.
Instead of boring flat land with a broken-down barn and bales of hay, she found five acres of green rolling hills dotted with trees on a bluff overlooking the prettiest part of the Oregon coastline. In a small artist's community only ten miles from the hippest beach town in Oregon, the property values have continued to climb here to 18% per year despite the rest of the country's real estate slump.
Noticing an attractive and fairly new-looking house, my mother thought, "too bad there's a neighbor RIGHT HERE." "Oh no," the Realtor corrected, "that house comes with the property! It was built in 1915 and has been completely redone by the professional woodworker who's selling the property." A sweet little two-bedroom cottage with a full-sized attic and ocean views from every room.
Luckily for them, other people wrinkled their noses at the "farm" and had not looked at it. They were the first to put in an offer. Turns out it is classified as a farm because it is home to several miniature burros and some sheep. My mom said the burros are the size of a dog, fluffy and very friendly. I can't wait to meet them. Look how cute!
Monday, April 16, 2007
365 days in Oregon
I clicked on an intriguing banner ad on NYTimes.com and found
this Travel Oregon site with a cool Ajax splash page. It gives you detailed information on all the activities (in a very attractive layout!) and lets you create a travel journal.
My brother lives in Oregon - I'm going to visit next month - and I'm totally excited to find some fun activities to do with the kids. Too bad the pirates arrive after I do, ARRRRR!
this Travel Oregon site with a cool Ajax splash page. It gives you detailed information on all the activities (in a very attractive layout!) and lets you create a travel journal.
My brother lives in Oregon - I'm going to visit next month - and I'm totally excited to find some fun activities to do with the kids. Too bad the pirates arrive after I do, ARRRRR!
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Who's delivering the message?
I was having breakfast with some ladies last weekend. A TV writer was telling me about teaching summer school algebra at an inner-city school in LA. She said there were two distinct groups of kids taking her class: freshman Korean kids who were hoping to get into a more advanced math class the next year and African-American seniors who were getting a last chance not to fail out of school. These kids, she made a deal with.
"I have no interest in failing you," she said, "it's in my best interest that you graduate high school." The only two requirements she told them, to passing the class are 1) Show up every day and 2) Don't prevent any one else from learning. They didn't do either of those things and almost all of them failed.
One kid, however, wanted to turn in his homework. He asked her if there was a way to do it without his friends seeing. See, it wouldn't be cool to turn in homework. They would accuse him of "trying to be white". In his culture, learning and doing well in school (and presumably getting a job and everything else that might follow) is equated with whiteness.
The Korean kids are raised in a Korean culture, here in LA, that has a very clear definition of success. Their definition of success does not threaten their culture, because it's defined by their culture and supported by their community in the United States.
Malcolm Gladwell, in Blink, talks about just how pervasive it is in our society to associate positive ideas with whites and negative idea with blacks. Even liberal, open-minded whites and enlightened, successful blacks are susceptible to the subtle associations between blacks and crime, drugs, and a lack of education.
In what I believe is a search for cultural identity, the kids failing out of school are rebelling against what they feel is an attempt by the dominant culture to absorb them. All they've done is develop a completely whacked definition of success that doesn't include getting an education or a job that requires an education and unless they have an entire community supporting them in some other type of endeavor, they aren't going to have a lot of options.
When this woman was telling me about her students, I thought to myself 'she got it all wrong'. She assumed if she set the bar so low, they couldn't possibly fail. But how can they rebel against the dominant culture when the dominant culture is constantly lowering the bar and expecting less and less of them? What would happen if a teacher demanded everything? Pushed them to succeed. Embarrassed them when they came unprepared and tracked them down if they didn't show. It's a lot of work, I know, and few want to do it but guess what? If you set the bar so high they can't possibly reach it, they can rebel without even trying and in the meantime, might actually turn in some homework.
A friend of mine who teaches in Jamaica, Queens, does just that. She's been attacked, her life threatened and kids in her classes have died - they live difficult lives that I can't even imagine. But she has students that have gone to Columbia and other universities because she tells them that they can and they should. She tells them they are wanted at those schools and the schools will pay them to come. She tells them every day because words have that kind of power.
My friend, like me, is white and although her message gets through, it's not easy because of who she is. Her school has several teachers who are graduates of that school and they, she said, are received very well by the students. They can say, "I'm you. I went to this school. I grew up this neighborhood. I'm not trying to change you, just give you options and a view into the bigger world."
I always say that everything is marketing and this is a perfect example. The three most important things to determine when selling anything are:
1) Who is your audience?
2) What is your message?
3) Who's delivering the message?
It's everything.
"I have no interest in failing you," she said, "it's in my best interest that you graduate high school." The only two requirements she told them, to passing the class are 1) Show up every day and 2) Don't prevent any one else from learning. They didn't do either of those things and almost all of them failed.
One kid, however, wanted to turn in his homework. He asked her if there was a way to do it without his friends seeing. See, it wouldn't be cool to turn in homework. They would accuse him of "trying to be white". In his culture, learning and doing well in school (and presumably getting a job and everything else that might follow) is equated with whiteness.
The Korean kids are raised in a Korean culture, here in LA, that has a very clear definition of success. Their definition of success does not threaten their culture, because it's defined by their culture and supported by their community in the United States.
Malcolm Gladwell, in Blink, talks about just how pervasive it is in our society to associate positive ideas with whites and negative idea with blacks. Even liberal, open-minded whites and enlightened, successful blacks are susceptible to the subtle associations between blacks and crime, drugs, and a lack of education.
In what I believe is a search for cultural identity, the kids failing out of school are rebelling against what they feel is an attempt by the dominant culture to absorb them. All they've done is develop a completely whacked definition of success that doesn't include getting an education or a job that requires an education and unless they have an entire community supporting them in some other type of endeavor, they aren't going to have a lot of options.
When this woman was telling me about her students, I thought to myself 'she got it all wrong'. She assumed if she set the bar so low, they couldn't possibly fail. But how can they rebel against the dominant culture when the dominant culture is constantly lowering the bar and expecting less and less of them? What would happen if a teacher demanded everything? Pushed them to succeed. Embarrassed them when they came unprepared and tracked them down if they didn't show. It's a lot of work, I know, and few want to do it but guess what? If you set the bar so high they can't possibly reach it, they can rebel without even trying and in the meantime, might actually turn in some homework.
A friend of mine who teaches in Jamaica, Queens, does just that. She's been attacked, her life threatened and kids in her classes have died - they live difficult lives that I can't even imagine. But she has students that have gone to Columbia and other universities because she tells them that they can and they should. She tells them they are wanted at those schools and the schools will pay them to come. She tells them every day because words have that kind of power.
My friend, like me, is white and although her message gets through, it's not easy because of who she is. Her school has several teachers who are graduates of that school and they, she said, are received very well by the students. They can say, "I'm you. I went to this school. I grew up this neighborhood. I'm not trying to change you, just give you options and a view into the bigger world."
I always say that everything is marketing and this is a perfect example. The three most important things to determine when selling anything are:
1) Who is your audience?
2) What is your message?
3) Who's delivering the message?
It's everything.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Give the customer what they want
It's surprisingly easy to give the customer what they want. First, think like a customer. Second, figure out what you, the customer, want. Third, find a way to make it happen.
I'm continuously amazed at how often businesses can't or won't do this. They defend their bottom line, they don't want to disrupt their current profit model, it's too much work they say, it's not necessary, or, even worse, they don't even know they aren't doing it.
One of the mobile projects I'm working on, was pitched by my agency, basically as a technology concept. It looks like a marketing concept or even a revenue idea, but it isn't. It's simply "we have the capability to do blah blah blah for you" and because "blah blah blah" is mobile, the company thinks we're hip and it's a cool idea.
Here's the stupid part. Instead of providing a MARKETING STRATEGY to justify the technology idea, my agency is allowing the CUSTOMER to dictate how this new technology should be incorporated into their product. How much sense does this make? The agency came up with the idea but has no backbone when it comes to making recommendations on how it should be executed. And the company, of course, has not the vision nor the guts to take a risk. But companies can be convinced, if you have a compelling argument. All you have to do is try.
So I wrote up an argument for how I thought this mobile app should be implemented at the theme park. It was so obvious to me when I heard it that there only one way that makes sense to the customer. Am I endowed with some kind of special power that I should know this and no one else does? No. It's just that I think like a customer, like a person, and not like an executive. I went online to find support for my idea and in a message board posting of a theme park, users were discussing exactly what I proposed as something they wished was available. Of course, we're not doing it that way.
Even worse, one of the posters says "They're probably working on a system now." Sigh!
I'm continuously amazed at how often businesses can't or won't do this. They defend their bottom line, they don't want to disrupt their current profit model, it's too much work they say, it's not necessary, or, even worse, they don't even know they aren't doing it.
One of the mobile projects I'm working on, was pitched by my agency, basically as a technology concept. It looks like a marketing concept or even a revenue idea, but it isn't. It's simply "we have the capability to do blah blah blah for you" and because "blah blah blah" is mobile, the company thinks we're hip and it's a cool idea.
Here's the stupid part. Instead of providing a MARKETING STRATEGY to justify the technology idea, my agency is allowing the CUSTOMER to dictate how this new technology should be incorporated into their product. How much sense does this make? The agency came up with the idea but has no backbone when it comes to making recommendations on how it should be executed. And the company, of course, has not the vision nor the guts to take a risk. But companies can be convinced, if you have a compelling argument. All you have to do is try.
So I wrote up an argument for how I thought this mobile app should be implemented at the theme park. It was so obvious to me when I heard it that there only one way that makes sense to the customer. Am I endowed with some kind of special power that I should know this and no one else does? No. It's just that I think like a customer, like a person, and not like an executive. I went online to find support for my idea and in a message board posting of a theme park, users were discussing exactly what I proposed as something they wished was available. Of course, we're not doing it that way.
Even worse, one of the posters says "They're probably working on a system now." Sigh!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Sharing leads to purchasing
Last night in my networking group, we got into a discussion of content rights and how companies are trying to protect themselves from unauthorized sharing (ala YouTube). Several people, including myself, made the argument that with the staggering amount of content available these days (online, radio, TV, cable, theater, video, mobile, etc) it's impossible for people to find content the old-fashioned way. We're often told about it by a friend. Given the right push, we can become serious consumers of this content but it sometimes takes a little bit of free content.
Today, I had lunch with an old friend and we were chuckling about how, sometimes, a whiff of something at a restaurant will take us back to our food service days (sometimes grossing us out). He sent me this hilariously relevant video, "Waiters Who Are Nauseated By Food."
I was almost in tears it's so funny, and at the end, I read some of the comments and found my proof of how a bit of free content can spawn a purchase.
Problem is, people aren't necessarily purchasing the content companies might want them to. The content actually has to be good and desirable. Maybe that's why many companies don't mind getting a little "free" publicity on YouTube. They know their users will spread the word, get hooked, and purchase. It's the ones with crappy content that should be worried.
By the way, remember what people said about cable back in the day? That people would never pay for television when they could get it for free. But they did pay. Then they said people wouldn't pay if there weren't any commercials. But they kept paying. People pay because cable has the best content. Ultimately, quality is all that matters.
Today, I had lunch with an old friend and we were chuckling about how, sometimes, a whiff of something at a restaurant will take us back to our food service days (sometimes grossing us out). He sent me this hilariously relevant video, "Waiters Who Are Nauseated By Food."
I was almost in tears it's so funny, and at the end, I read some of the comments and found my proof of how a bit of free content can spawn a purchase.
Problem is, people aren't necessarily purchasing the content companies might want them to. The content actually has to be good and desirable. Maybe that's why many companies don't mind getting a little "free" publicity on YouTube. They know their users will spread the word, get hooked, and purchase. It's the ones with crappy content that should be worried.
By the way, remember what people said about cable back in the day? That people would never pay for television when they could get it for free. But they did pay. Then they said people wouldn't pay if there weren't any commercials. But they kept paying. People pay because cable has the best content. Ultimately, quality is all that matters.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
I'm going mobile
My first project at the new job is a WAP site for a theme park. I've heard about short codes, seen American Idol and know that people can download things to their phones (and are apparently pretty excited about it). In other words, I don't know anything about mobile. So I got online (where else!) and found some amazing resources, thanks to dotmobi (an independent industry group).
They have a blog, a developer's guide, a list of .mobi sites to check out, and the coolest of the cool, a mobile site simulator where you can interact with these sites online as if you were on a phone! I'm so excited (and grateful for dotmobi!)
Diving in now.
They have a blog, a developer's guide, a list of .mobi sites to check out, and the coolest of the cool, a mobile site simulator where you can interact with these sites online as if you were on a phone! I'm so excited (and grateful for dotmobi!)
Diving in now.
Monday, March 26, 2007
It's good to be wrong
I'm on season three of The West Wing and I LOVE THIS SHOW. It's a show for smart people, about smart people. The dialogue is so quick, so sharp and filled with humor but you have to be fast to get it. One of my favorite things about the show is that these people, including the president, make mistakes.
They're passionate, opinionated and always trying to do the right thing but often they end up being wrong. But sometimes they're RIGHT. And just like you can't succeed if you don't fail, you can't be right if you're never wrong. People make mistakes because they're doing something. People afraid of failing or making a mistake, don't do anything at all. Who would you rather be?
At my last job, everyone was so afraid of making a marketing mistake. "What if we offend someone?" "What if someone doesn't get it?" "What if?" "What if?" They didn't know what was going to happen. It's not like they had done any market research or even knew their current customers well enough to know what they'd respond to but the fact is, if you don't take a chance, you won't engage anyone. You'll just have boring, innocuous advertising that no one will ever see or notice. (But you probably won't offend anyone!)
They're passionate, opinionated and always trying to do the right thing but often they end up being wrong. But sometimes they're RIGHT. And just like you can't succeed if you don't fail, you can't be right if you're never wrong. People make mistakes because they're doing something. People afraid of failing or making a mistake, don't do anything at all. Who would you rather be?
At my last job, everyone was so afraid of making a marketing mistake. "What if we offend someone?" "What if someone doesn't get it?" "What if?" "What if?" They didn't know what was going to happen. It's not like they had done any market research or even knew their current customers well enough to know what they'd respond to but the fact is, if you don't take a chance, you won't engage anyone. You'll just have boring, innocuous advertising that no one will ever see or notice. (But you probably won't offend anyone!)
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Milk Gone Wild!
OMG, this is fantastic! Only PETA could make a health statement, protest the mistreatment of animals, satire sexism, and be totally hip and kind of sexy at the same time. I agree with the user who posted that it's demented. It is, but in the best kind of way.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Analyze THIS
A few years ago, everyone knew they need an online presence. Companies started taking their offline marketing budget and throwing it online marketing. Web agencies flourished and big ad agencies scrambled to make alliances with smaller web companies to outsource the work to.
All marketing departments were getting the directive:
Put up a website, make some banner ads, get the top search engine ranking, send some emails. "Hell, send a LOT of emails."
Last year it went more like this:
Do some promotions, put up some mini-sites, make banner ads to promote the mini-site, do viral marketing. "Hell, does anyone even know what viral marketing is?"
What marketers like about the web is that you can track user behavior. They like being able to say that a million people watched their video on YouTube. And it does indicate a higher level of interest than say, a million people seeing your billboard on Wilshire Blvd. However, it doesn't tell you much more than that. You don't know why they watched it, whether they sent it to a friend, what they said in the email to that friend, or whether (ultimately) they're more likely to be a customer.
Think of it like a car lot. You've got cars sitting there and people drive by. Sometimes they stop. Sometimes they park get out, come into the office, tell the salesman what kind of car they want to buy and actually drive off the lot with it. Would you attribute any of that behavior to your sign on the side of the road? No.
Would you want to know the background of each customer with the product - their exposure, beliefs and feelings - AND the exact details of their conversation your salesperson? The ones who bought, the ones who said they'd come back and the ones who showed no interest? Yes!
So the web has given marketers a lot of exposure and a bunch of numbers, and even some interaction. How many people just drove by. How many stopped. How many bought cars. Unfortunately, it isn't telling them very much about their marketing and they know it. Now, the marketers' bosses want to know "What's our ROI on web marketing?" because they've been told that everything can be tracked. But it's not like they could ever measure their ROI BEFORE on billboards, print ads, radio and TV commercials.
So analytics becomes very scientific. You have to form hypothesis - known as use cases - what do you think people are going to do? Track it, find out. Make educated guesses as to what's happening. Tweak it and track it again. See, analytics aren't to show ROI, analytics are to improve your offering to your customer. Analytics are what brings the marketer into the user lifecycle.
All marketing departments were getting the directive:
Put up a website, make some banner ads, get the top search engine ranking, send some emails. "Hell, send a LOT of emails."
Last year it went more like this:
Do some promotions, put up some mini-sites, make banner ads to promote the mini-site, do viral marketing. "Hell, does anyone even know what viral marketing is?"
What marketers like about the web is that you can track user behavior. They like being able to say that a million people watched their video on YouTube. And it does indicate a higher level of interest than say, a million people seeing your billboard on Wilshire Blvd. However, it doesn't tell you much more than that. You don't know why they watched it, whether they sent it to a friend, what they said in the email to that friend, or whether (ultimately) they're more likely to be a customer.
Think of it like a car lot. You've got cars sitting there and people drive by. Sometimes they stop. Sometimes they park get out, come into the office, tell the salesman what kind of car they want to buy and actually drive off the lot with it. Would you attribute any of that behavior to your sign on the side of the road? No.
Would you want to know the background of each customer with the product - their exposure, beliefs and feelings - AND the exact details of their conversation your salesperson? The ones who bought, the ones who said they'd come back and the ones who showed no interest? Yes!
So the web has given marketers a lot of exposure and a bunch of numbers, and even some interaction. How many people just drove by. How many stopped. How many bought cars. Unfortunately, it isn't telling them very much about their marketing and they know it. Now, the marketers' bosses want to know "What's our ROI on web marketing?" because they've been told that everything can be tracked. But it's not like they could ever measure their ROI BEFORE on billboards, print ads, radio and TV commercials.
So analytics becomes very scientific. You have to form hypothesis - known as use cases - what do you think people are going to do? Track it, find out. Make educated guesses as to what's happening. Tweak it and track it again. See, analytics aren't to show ROI, analytics are to improve your offering to your customer. Analytics are what brings the marketer into the user lifecycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)