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

Social driven by anti-social trends?

Seeing the Best Buy 'vending machine' at the airport reminded me of the ongoing trend towards self-service. It began back with the self-pump at gas stations (yes, I am old enough to remember when an attendant would fill the tank). Fast forward and it now includes ATM's that take deposits, airline kiosks for self check-in, automated customer service call centers, Zappos (buying shoes without trying them on first?), the return of the vendo-matic for fast food, McD's touch screen order stations, on and on. Self service does offer efficiencies and it certainly promises that old customer want called 'control', but it also further separates human from human.

Good or bad? (That's a different post.)

I find it interesting that as interactions become less person-to-person the web is seeing a continued surge in social connections and expressions. Could it be that humans still crave personal interactions but prefer the anonymity and feeling of control when the nuances of real life, and live, interactions are removed? For instance, is Twitter popular in part because one can express an opinion and feel secure that any opposition can simply be ignored? It's very one way at it's core. In real live conversations there's always the risk of differences heating up. Could it be that Facebook is hugely popular because one can 'control' one's persona? It certainly is an environment where one can manage what others know about you. That's a far cry from the reality of people knowing you and your business transparently.

Another track--I recently read that 'geeks' are the most social online. Because they can now present themselves as they'd like to be seen vs. as they really are. Personally, I doubt that geeks are the driving force behind social--as the majority of users seem to be highly social people bent on widening their circles of voice, influence, and knowledge. However it does ring true--the part about presenting one's self as they'd like to be seen vs. how one really is.

This drives my two main curiosities; 1) Are social mediums popular because they fill a void left by decreasing live human-to-human interactions? 2) Are social mediums popular because people cherish the feeling of control minus the dynamics of face-to-face contact?

I'm sure there are more reasons. Regardless, it does make for an interesting study--to understand how one dynamic effects another. And in this case, the possibility that as real life social interactions become more automated, virtual ones become more desirable.

That and the fact I have a feeling digital spaces are popular simply because one can be anything they want whenever they want. And that digital offers the advantage of a lot more control over the interactions.

Now, I need to do some banking online, text some friends, post some preferred pictures to Facebook, make a few intelligent tweets regarding smart thoughts I've picked up elsewhere, and then do some shopping (online so I don't have to deal with any mindless banter at the cash register).

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Great Quote

I've seen this said in many ways but this one does it ever so simply.

"Build awesome things that people will use and enjoy." Noah Brier, The Barbarian Group

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

My official position = "Whatever Works Best!"

I worked for a moderately famous CD once who liked to say, "Better work works better."

I've held to that standard my entire career and I believe it has served me well. And now, I find myself thinking about it even more. And evolving it to "Best works best".

Or, "Whatever Works Best!"

The reason why that rings true now more than ever is because of the pressure to build to systems, to frameworks, out-of-the box solutions, on and on. Everyone from the CEO down, client-side and internal, pushes for adhering to what's already in place. Rightly so in many cases given so many CTO's went out pre-recession and bought into expensive platforms before knowing what exactly would be best for their customers. (Slight vent...)

But past decisions are no guarantee of future success.

For example--I've heard this so many times, "We bought ATG so you have to build in personalization!" But when asked if they want to support implicit or explicit personalization they simply look at me with blank stares. Then when pushed as to where the business rules will come from to support the decisioning logic they simply get irritated. BTW--they really get mad then when you ask if customers want or will benefit from some form of personalization. I'm just sayin...

I understand how decisions are made but I also understand their implications. Questions still need asking.

My point is, regardless of the efficacy of decisions made, we're in a precarious state where all too often the cart is driving the horse (as my Dad used to quip). Too many decisions are being driven by personal agendas (whatever the motivation) rather than what's right for the customer and their branded interactions.

Time out: I can hear the voices of the devil's advocates (and they do work for the devil) saying, "Yeah, but we have to work within the client's parameters, you can't be so idealistic, blah blah blah...on and on."

Look, I'm experienced enough, and enough of a realist, to know all the complexities and stakeholder's circumstances and those are to be taken into consideration. BUT--and it's a big BUT--if it comes down to doing what's best for the customer or doing what's most palatable for the client I will always step forward and declare, "Do what's right for the little man, not just The Man". I will always recommend taking an agnostic look at the technology and a zealous look at the branded interaction.

So, 'Whatever Works Best!' is the best recommendation--always.

One last for instance: I recently had a conversation where we were thinking through whether to use WordPress for a project vs. a custom build. One part of the conversation was around missed opportunity--if we used WordPress would we be missing an opportunity to do something new and remarkable that showcases our design chops? Upon further thought I concluded, in my mind, that the issue wasn't WordPress vs. custom design or not but what would best support and deliver the right experience AND meet the business objectives? If WordPress has everything necessary to deliver on the concept then by all means. But we shouldn't be force fitting ideas into a platform or constraining an experience just to fit a pre-existing condition.

Ugh--the voices are at it again, "If your client has BroadVision are you going to tell them to scrap it? (The big 'Gotcha!")

For you black and white folks who think when I say one thing it automatically excludes another slow down. That's not what I am saying. Even though I would love to.

I am saying that all great ideas for moving a brand forward begin with looking at all the angles--even challenging conventions, thinking without restraint, and championing ideas over technology. Actionable insights should drive concepting and an idea should drive the solution. I don't think Edison would have invented the light bulb if he'd held to the fact that America had warehouses full of candles and kerosene. Or Ford would've changed transportation if he'd been satisfied with the fact horses were all the rage. Dare to think beyond the parameters given.

Bottom line, don't be rude and ignore the client's reality but be responsible to the end customer and all will be good for the client, their business, and brand.

Better work does work better.

Thanks ex-boss for that enduring nugget of inspiration.

BTW--vote to further this discussion at SXSW. http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/index/interactive/q:icrossing

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous