Pretty Pictures Leave Bing as Third Tier Search Engine

When I was living in Chicago, someone once told me that Cleveland was Detroit without the glitz. Being a Cleveland native, I was not amused, but I did understand. They were both once proud lakefront cities that rose up during the great industrial revolution, thrived mightily through the manufacturing base that settled there and are now mere shadows of their past... struggling for a new identity and a brighter future.

They would both like to be Chicago or New York, but they are not. They did not have the vision when it was required – some 50 years ago. They did not see the future until it had closed in on them. Oh sure, they tried to fix things. They voted in well-meaning government officials who promised change. They built new stadiums and entertainment venues. But in the end, they simply had nothing special to offer that one could not get better in Chicago or New York.

And that, in my opinion is the problem with Bing. Microsoft was late to the search engine party and when they finally arrived they simply tried to repackage Google and present it as something new, spending more than $100 million to convince the consuming public that Bing had zing.

But in the end, Bing still holds less than 10% of the total market share of searches. I wouldn't categorize it as a failure, but it isn't exactly a big success. Just imagine what might have happened if Bing actually came to market with something innovative... something unique... something of value.

While imitation may indeed be the most sincere form of flattery, it is rarely the best business move.

Remember When Fat was Fun?

The brilliant illustrator Rob Sheridan created Cereal Mascot Reunion a few years ago to show that "things are never as good as they used to be."

Apparently Rob is a bit of a psychic. Imagine the depression poor Cap'n Crunch and Tony the Tiger must be feeling now that the White House wants them banned from future marketing.

But hey, if that's what it takes to stop the runaway fat kids train, then so be it.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "A new 120-page report released Tuesday by the White House says food companies should extend their current self-imposed regulations to cover all forms of marketing to children, and food retailers should avoid in-store marketing that promotes unhealthy products to children. It says all media and entertainment companies should limit the licensing of their popular characters to food and beverage products that are healthy."

Finally, sanity reigns supreme. The chubby crisis is all but over. And it was so freakishly easy: Just get the evil marketers to kill off or otherwise transition their popular characters into health nuts and everyone will be thin and healthy. No more plump pubescents, no more obese babies, no more chunky children. Karen Carpenter would be proud.

Thank you Federal Government. Thank you White House. Thank you First Lady Michelle Obama.

Welcome to the New World of "InYourFacebook" Marketing.

The battle to ban corn syrup is succeeding – not in proving that corn syrup is bad for our health; there is actually little proof of that at all – but in scaring consumers and causing manufacturers to buckle under at the first sign of adversity. In fact, some manufacturers are so concerned they are going old school and replacing corn syrup with sugar – even though they know it is no healthier and it costs more to produce.

And how exactly did this happen? According to the New York Times, "What started as a narrow movement by proponents of natural and organic foods has morphed into a swell of mainstream opposition, thanks in large part to tools of modern activism like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter and movies like “Food, Inc.” and “King Corn.”

If this is the true power of social media – to intimidate – it is time to disconnect or at least distance yourself from the Internet. Marshall MacLuhan told us long ago that the medium was the message, but at least TV and radio and newspapers and magazines were operated by trained professionals adhering to government mandated standards. In today's new world order virtually any inmate can run the asylum... and the general public seems to be okay with that. Or perhaps the Internet has simply made public what some of us have always suspected: there are a lot of devious people in this world who will use any tactic to get what they want (including social media). I believe Machiavelli talked about that at great length.

Imagine that a bunch of e-mails and Facebook comments and blog posts could actually convince big-ass brand name products like Gatorade drinks, Kraft salad dressings, Wheat Thins, Ocean Spray cranberry juice, Hunt's Ketchup and Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback to abandon corn syrup and replace it with sugar. We are not talking about tens of millions of protesters or even millions of protesters. In fact, no one really even knows how many anti-corn syrup protesters we are talking about. We just know there are Facebook groups out there like “THE BAN OF HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP IN THE U.S.” And based on the misinformation they are spreading, manufacturers are throwing in the towel.

Why? Because what these groups are saying about the evils of corn syrup are true? NO. Because these activists carry so much weight they could sink a brand powerhouse? NO. Then WHY?

“Manufacturers are tired of hearing about the e-mails, the 800-number calls and the letters,” says Phil Lempert, editor of the Lempert Report, which focuses on supermarket trends. “People don’t want it, so why fight them?”

Did you just read that? Did you comprehend it? This guy is saying manufacturers "are tired" and would rather just pay the kidnappers. Forget the fact that this is just a band of loudtalkers. Forget the fact that their facts are wrong. And forget the fact that it is more costly and just as unhealthy to make sugar-based products than corn syrup based products.

Since when did American manufacturers give in to the unsubstantiated rants of any consumer group, let alone Twitter and Facebook groups? When did businesses start allowing fear to run roughshod over reason? In the quest to protect their precious brands, companies are losing sight of logic.

Some could argue that in this age of digital media, perception is reality, ergo, we must act on what is perceived. I would argue that if the perception is based on half-truths and false information, you should stand up and fight for what you believe in.

Big Girls in Hot Underwear? Ma ma se, Ma ma sa, Ma ma Cacique

I said you wanna be startin' somethin' You got to be startin' somethin'

The problem with pointing your finger at someone is there are always three fingers pointing back at you. In this case, the three fingers are pointing back at Lane Bryant, the supposed innocent victim in the case of the rejected plus-size bra and panties commercial.

Don't get me wrong, Disney-owned ABC (Dancing With the Stars) and FOX (American Idol) are totally hypocritical in their unwillingness or lack of desire to air these savory TV spots.

In their own defense, a Lane Bryant source says,"They [FOX] wouldn't run the ad, but have you seen the Victoria's Secret spots? If you saw the Victoria's Secret spot and our spot, you'd see nothing different."

A spokesman from Fox said,"We didn't treat them any differently than Victoria's Secret." Disney owned ABC declined to make a comment. Oh Mickey You're so fine, You're so fine You blow my mind Hey Mickey! Hey! Hey! Hey Mickey! Hey! Hey!

Much ado about nothing?

Not when you consider that Lane Bryant has conveniently avoided the obvious choice to hire the hottest, sexiest plus size models they could find to display their new line of sexy lingerie. Being a resident of the planet's fattest nation, I know what most plus-size people look like, and 99% of them do not look like these models... so much for Lane Bryant's honesty, integrity and transparency with their target customer.

How does the old saying go? There are lies, there are damned lies and there are TV ads.

You love to pretend that you're good, when you're always up to no good...

Marketers Counting on Consumer Vapidness

According to an article in Forbes this week, some pretty major marketers believe consumers need to turn the corner on the recession and start spending their money again.

"New ad campaigns suggest marketers are eager to shake off the gloom of tough economic times--and they hope consumers will do the same. While some economists aren't sure the tough times are history, advertisers don't seem to care. Companies are rolling out carefree ads that use humor, colorful images and upbeat language to get consumers to lighten up--and open up their wallets." So says the article.

Makes sense to me. Oh, wait, no it doesn't.

One commercial from BMW of North America tells anyone who will listen: "What you make people feel is as important as what you make." Huh?

"There is a market turn toward the positive," says Deutsch N.Y. Chief Creative Officer Greg DiNoto. "That's a smart marketing strategy for any brand when you're emerging from a recession. Brands need to be associated with winning." Okay, that actually does make sense... if we have actually emerged from the recession, which most Americans have not.

On the flipside, Hamish McLennan, global chairman and CEO of Young & Rubicam, warns that many consumers and advertisers aren't quite ready to spend money again. "Most people are cautiously optimistic that it's going to get better, but we're not seeing precrash levels--and we won't for a long time," he says.

So, what's a marketer to do?

P.T. Barnum, the American showman and businessman, was credited (whether true or not) as saying that you will never go broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public. This camp believes there's a sucker born every minute just waiting to doll out its hard-earned cash. Benjamin Franklin, on the other hand is credited for encouraging consumers to be frugal: "A penny saved is a penny earned." Apparently not much has changed over the past few centuries.

One thing is clear: communicating with and/or marketing to consumers – whether the recession is over or not – is a good idea for any brand that wants to be or remain a leader in the marketplace. It's just a question of "what" and "how" you communicate.

Too Many Marketing Chefs in the Kitchen

How many agencies does it take to achieve an organization's marketing objectives? Is one enough? Is five too many?

There are ad agencies and creative agencies and public relations agencies and and digital agencies and social media agencies and SEO agencies and direct marketing agencies and on and on and on.

So what's a CMO to do?

In the case of SoBe, they decided to try something different. As an alternative to working with a single or primary agency that was doing a good job achieving awareness, but not getting the kind of engagement the company wanted (we assume this objective was identified), they decided to look for agencies (plural) who offered a different perspective.

Angelique Krembs, director-marketing for SoBe says "Going forward we needed to get to engagement. That's why we evolved our approach."

According to the story in AdAge: After a request for proposals went out late last summer, Firstborn picked up digital agency-of-record duties, while Weber Shandwick became PR agency of record. TracyLocke, a longtime partner of the brand, continues to handle promotion.

By all accounts, the hybrid approach is working fine so far. SoBe's agencies say the new model allows for a more-collaborative team effort and will give the brand a competitive advantage.

I guess... but I am admittedly hopeful and skeptical. My concern here is twofold. First, the idea of hiring multiple agencies to complement each other in a quest to achieve better results is not new. Second, it usually results in an epic explosion fueled by greed and egos.

In theory, this concept of "true collaboration" is an extraordinarily good idea. In practice, I have never seen it work. Best of luck to SoBe and its team of agencies; I look forward to seeing what the model looks like a year from now.

Seriously Dysfunctional Marketing

Hi, I am Tiger Woods, the greatest golfer who ever lived. I really screwed the pooch - literally and figuratively. I embarrassed my wife and my family and my fans and the PGA. I am sorry, please forgive me. Let's play golf... and just leave me alone.

Hi, I am Billy Payne, chairman of the Masters. I am ashamed of Tiger Woods. You disappointed me and everyone else. You are not a hero. The future will never be the same. Let's play golf... and make sure Tiger is teeing off late in the day so we can get some great coverage.

Hi, I am Earl Woods, Tiger's dad. I am dead; yet somehow I am on a new Nike TV commercial. Tiger, I am curious... did you learn anything? Let's play golf... or you're history.

Hi, I am Nike, a global marketer of athletic footwear, apparel and equipment that is unrivaled in the world. I make crazy commercials that make people think. I like Tiger Woods, so I just made a crazy commercial about him. Let's play golf... and buy more of my shoes and stuff.

For some reason, in the middle of all this marketing mayhem, I am more sad than anything else. Sad about what could have been and sad about what is.

And now, in the words of one of the greatest fictional athletes of all time, Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."