Slight rant about apologies

For years I've come across folks who did something they felt bad enough about to apologize for but then always cited their rationale. Like, "I'm sorry I yelled at you...but you made me so mad." Or, "Sorry for what I said...but what you said made me say that." Maybe, "My bad for jumping to conclusions...BUT I just thought you meant something different and offensive, without getting the facts blah blah blah."

It always irritated me greatlywhen someone would apologize and then basically take it away with an attempt at justification.

I never knew what that was called until last night's outburst during Obama's speech--where the Congressman shouted, "You lie!" Today's press said, "He apologized quickly and without equivocation."

Without equivocation eh? Interesting. Nice to see an apology unattached.

I'm sorry if this post just came out of the blue...BUT the news made me want to. : )

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

A great ad...So

So, yesterday I blasted the A1 campaign. I saw an A1 ad again last night and it convinced me even more--it sucks. It's just a highly produced gimmick...cheap wordplay. Amateurish.

Now, walking to the train after work yesterday, I saw a huge wall-painted ad for Starbucks. Simple text ad reading; "At Starbucks, if you're not happy with your coffee we'll remake it. If still not happy, then you're not at a Starbucks."

Nicely done!

What this ad does is play on an inherent truth--commitment to a good cup of coffee AND the fact Starbucks has built their reputation on good coffee and customer service. That's how Starbucks has ended up on every corner. Instead of resorting to some cheap word play, they played into some inherent drama and used clever words to state a simple, and arguably true, concept. In addition to being a good message, it was written to be enjoyable.

That's good advertising.

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

LAME-O Ads

A1 is running a pun-dependent concept right now called, "A1 makes _____ sing. Each spot goes a very long way to set the gimmick up. To date I've seen one about Meatloaf (the singer), one about Burger King, and another I can't recall (never a good sign). All I remember is how cheesy they are and how much I hate them and how dependent they are on a lame joke with no legs (ad-speak for a one trick ad).

I will admit I thought the Meatloaf reference was a mildly amusing ad but when I began seeing the others I realized it's an attempt at a campaign using that one construct. First, the ads are borrowed interest--trying to take something unrelated to steak sauce and making it work. Borrowed interest is risky and rarely works. Better to leverage the inherent drama of a product and go from there. Second, the ads are highly produced set-ups to deliver that one end line. My reaction, every time, is, "Geesh...wasn't worth the wait."

Matter of fact...they're not even worth writing about.

The end.

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Words of wisdom

Random thoughts:

Why is it that we generally feel good about a person with ideals but then think negatively about a person deemed idealistic? After all, isn't an idealist just someone championing their ideals? It's good to hold to a high standard. So why do we knock a person and chide them for being an idealist? I admire people who strive for perfection.

That said though, did you know perfection is an imperfect goal? You can never reach it you can only strive for it. Just when you are about to reach it the target moves. But striving is still good, in my opinion.

Per my last post: Edison was likely an idealist or he would've yielded to the pragmatism of the day and thought of better ways to use all those kerosene lamps. And Ford was probably an idealist when he bucked (sorry for the pun) the standard mode of transportation--the horse and buggy--so many had invested in. So, weren't these gents idealists? Men with ideals and the guts to go against the tide and try something new?

Someone commented about 'total cost of ownership' being a deciding factor, per that same post. I thought about that a lot and concluded that a tech person's idea of TCO contrasts the marketing person's idea of ROI. Is TCO valid if what is owned might limit a greater ROI? In other words, if held to that paradigm can bigger and more profitable ideas emerge? Again--the Edison analogy. Had he been consumed with TCO would he have thought of an even bigger source of profit? And value to the consumer?

Enough on that, for now.

More:

If you don't step up and swing big you'll never hit one out of the park. I just read that Jim Thome surpassed Reggie Jackson on the all time home run list. But he's also nailed 3rd all time in strikeouts. Most remember Jim and Mr. October as valiant sluggers. But any other guy with that many strikeouts would be ridiculed. The point is, he and most sluggers know that nothing will go out of the park if not swung at--and swung hard/big. The same goes for what we do in interactive marketing. If we don't think big we'll never have brand moving ideas. And if we don't put everything into our play we won't see a good idea live. I've heard it said that the best way to increase your success is fail more often. I like that. It urges one to dare to go beyond the expected and put it all out there. Sure, there's a fine line between the slugger and the slap hitter but one never goes big without going big.

I'm always appalled by the argument that one should hold back since the last few ideas didn't fly. And I am unafraid to keep pitching new business even if I didn't win the last big effort. If I quit now I will be giving up. How's that for a Yogi'ism?

Another: If you don't believe in yourself how can you expect anyone else to?

How about this?: Why is it when championing one viewpoint several automatically think it excludes another? Like when I say dare to do something different folks counter with, "So you're saying we should abandon the logic of the present?" Or if I say let's take the business in a new direction they say, "So you're saying we should fire all of our existing clients...?" Huh? It always puzzles me--that way of thinking. So if I am an idealist I am not a realist? If I am inspired I am not pragmatic? I believe Edison was an idealist driven by pragmatism--he knew there might be a better way and had the guts to go for it.

Remember, yin yang and duality is an acceptable, and often good, position.

Overall these follow a pattern of belief that all the naysayers, the self-titled devil's advocates, the realists and pragmatists have an agenda to simply play it safe. It's more comfortable to sit back and criticize than it is to expose one's self to criticism for trying.

Think big. Do bigger.

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous