Like many media-obsessed folks, I was on Twitter during the Super Bowl watching the critique of the ads in real time. Much of what I was seeing came from people in marketing or social media. And the 140-character limit made for necessarily succinct reviews. There was disagreement and some spirited banter. That is, until the Groupon ad ran.

Suddenly, nobody even needed all 140 characters.

“Groupon. Ugh.”

“Groupon. #FAIL”

I felt the same way. I was nearly dumbfounded by the audacity and apparent insensitivity. The ad, by talented creative agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky hit me like a sucker punch in the gut. And I wasn’t alone. People tweeted about how they were stopping what they were doing right now so they could cancel their membership. I watched in amazement as this group of people who formerly were casually agreeing and disagreeing suddenly coalesced into the cyber equivalent of a pitchfork-carrying angry mob. And I understood it.

Then, suddenly, it hit me. We were all talking about Groupon. Other spots were whizzing by without comment so the Groupon discussion could continue to smolder. Groupon had monopolized the conversation by relying on one of the oldest adages in the book. There is no bad PR.

Well, maybe. After about 30 or 45 minutes someone posted that Groupon had a page on their site entitled “Save The Money” which allowed you to donate to the very charities that appeared to be lampooned in their ads (I’d post a link, but it’s gone now. Hmm. But here’s a link to their blog instead.). The Tibet ad was the only one that had run so far, but there were more! Maybe we had played right into the trap of indignation and now we were seeing the real intent of the campaign. Some in my Twitter stream believed it. Some not. But it made you think. Maybe they weren’t that insensitive after all. Could we have jumped the gun?

But the debate raged on.

Lawrence O”Donell Strongly Defends Groupon’s Super Bowl Tibet Commercial

Conan Unveils 5 More Offensive Groupon Super Bowl Ads

Finally, Groupon announced that they were pulling the campaign and apologized. So that meant the angry mob was right. Right? All the negative publicity finally caught up with them. The system worked. Right?

But, hang on. Now it’s February 11th – five days later. Five weekday news cycles have gone by and we’re still talking about Groupon? The CEO holds a news conference and the media actually attend? No way anyone would have cared before the controversial ad aired. Media outlets are even quoting their 78% jump in web traffic. As Yosemite Sam might say, “Wait just one carnsarn minute, here!”

Maybe…just maybe…Groupon pulled a “New Coke” on us. Maybe the plan was never to run this campaign. Perhaps it was all about generating the initial buzz and riding the wave. Maybe they just proved, once and for all, that there really is no such thing as negative PR.

Bottom line: we don’t know. So, let’s watch the sales. Let’s see if Groupon grows their subscriber base. Let’s track which merchants drop them and which ones pick them up. Because I’m hearing proclamations about how the system worked and good triumphed over evil. I think those who ascribe to that belief may be missing the point. It’s really all about the revenue. And we don’t know the end of that story yet. Now that Groupon will slink out of the spotlight, let’s see what happens.

So, what do you think? Have I constructed a convoluted conspiracy theory here? Or is it possible that this was Groupon’s plan all along? Will they be buried under all this negative publicity? Or will they become a feel-good bounce back story after seeing the error of their ways?

You see, Roy popped off the other night after his Tarheels bested Clemson by 10 points at home. Apparently he felt empowered by the win after being publicly second-guessed by fans and the media. And all the pent up anger and hubris deep in his soul spilled out all over the microphone in his post-game press conference. And it was ugly and embarrassing for a coach so respected and accomplished. It was, as my mother used to say, unbecoming.

In marketing, as in coaching, only a certain percentage of your ideas work. And like basketball, marketing has forces (known and unknown) that can easily derail even the best, most meticulously vetted plans. In basketball, they say, “That’s why you play the game.” In marketing, they say, “If anyone had all the answers they’d be the only one employed and everyone else would be flipping burgers.”

Here are a few marketing tips Roy might be able to use (for future reference):

1. It’s nothing personal. When people criticize and suggest, most often it’s a result of either their own frustration or a sincere desire to help. Maybe they don’t have your experience or perspective. But it doesn’t hurt to listen and be respectful.
2. When you’re backed into a corner, use the walls. If you feel like someone is coming after you with their criticism, think about why that might be. And be bolstered by the fact that they care enough to be passionate. Try to find some common ground with them so you can use the experience to learn.
3. When you’re on the winning end, spread the credit around. The same people who might be critical when something doesn’t work don’t always sing your praises when you succeed. But don’t forget them. If they contribute, recognize them. And even if they don’t, make the assumption that they care and thank them for that.
4. Before you retort, know what you’re responding to. Does the negative comment seem general? Try to narrow it down. In marketing, “That approach was all wrong!” could mean several things? Was it truly “all wrong”? Or was it the target? The timing? The creative? Or it could have been a myriad of other factors. “Let’s be constructive. And you can help me by being specific.” You might not like the answer to that, but knowing what your detractor meant in the first place can’t hurt.
5. Don’t be afraid to agree. Often people expect you to be defensive in an effort to negatively engage you. Want to diffuse that quickly? Tell them they’re right. If it’s too inflammatory, you can rephrase their comments and recast them in a more constructive light.

“Your decision caused us to lose!”
“You’re right. That decision, right or wrong, comes down to me. And I take responsibility for that. But every experience is a learning one. And I certainly will learn from this one.”

We’ve all been frustrated when outcomes weren’t what we thought they would be. And we’ve all become defensive when pressed and lashed out. But whether we’re marketers defending our research or a basketball coach answering criticism of his handling of defensive schemes, how we respond says a lot about whether that career choice was a wise one. Maybe Roy could use an internship at an ad agency with a demanding client with a tiny budget and huge expectations. News conferences would seem like a piece of cake then.

1. Random acts of kindness
   This is the brainchild of Jane Fields, a friend and colleague of mine. And I think it’s brilliant. Do something nice for a client or for your business in general (if you’re the marketing department). Out of the blue! Take coffee and donuts to their sales staff. Just show up and wash the windows of their store front. Produce some bandit signs and put them up (and take them down according to your local ordinances) to direct people to their location. Don’t linger. And don’t make a big deal about it. Just make it clear to them that you want to do something to help them.
2. Propose a budget
   Crazy, right? You keep hearing that marketing is cut. On hold. No money. Propose something anyway. Spend some time. Make sure it makes sense. Be sure it’s very concretely connected with ROI. Get on the calendar of the right person. And put it out there. Don’t just wait for the right time. Make the right time. You never know.
3. Do some competitive research
   What’s the competition doing? I bet some of them are active. Why is that? What do they know that you don’t know? Wouldn’t that be invaluable information? Wouldn’t it be great if that actually lead to a new initiative?
4. Low cost is better than no cost
   Ok. So your normal budget is shot. Forget the paradigm. What can be done on the cheap? Haven’t tried social media yet? This is the perfect time. Could a small amount of PR dollars make a big splash right now? Maybe so. What could you do for the least amount of money that would make the biggest impact?
5. Plan for the future, then work back to today
   If not now, then when? Indefinitely on hold is no way to plan for the future. Make a plan. Set a date. Change it as often as Diddy changes his name. It doesn’t matter. But don’t accept being on hold. And once you figure out when things can happen, work backwards to today. I bet the preparation could make for a pretty substantial to-do list. And take that time to do it right.

I hate limbo. And that’s what I’m seeing a lot of in marketing right now. Don’t accept it. Maybe some of us have gotten past the “Rage against the dying of the light” phase. But now the light is frustratingly flickering and just not coming on. Give it some more juice! Marketing and communications is a powerful force for business change. Use it!

The sage Kenny Rogers was full of great advice. But none was better than “…know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.” That bit of knowledge is crucial in nearly every aspect of life. Whether you’re gambling with men packing pistols, running a floundering NFL franchise or assembling a marketing plan.

Knowing how long to stay with your plan is part education, part experience and part luck. What percentage of each depends on the endeavor. But in any case, you stand the best chance of a good outcome with solid planning, clear goals, defined milestones and good execution. In the case of Kenny Rogers’ The Gambler, his protagonist knew the value of all of these steps. In the case of Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, perhaps he had skipped a few steps on the way to hosting a Super Bowl for his team. With a marketing plan, it’s best to follow each of these steps or you risk being derailed by well-meaning managers or clients.

Here’s how it happens. A Director of Marketing comes up with a plan to market the new model of widget to an as yet untapped market through direct mail. The creative is on target. The market is well-researched. The timing is perfect. The cost is significant. But the possible returns make the risk acceptable. The CEO gives the green light to the project and the first wave of the plan is executed. Three days later, a nervous CEO pulls the plug on the project under pressure from his Board of Directors.

Why did this happen? Our Director of Marketing neglected to clearly define the milestone for the CEO. If our mailing was going out in waves of 20% every 10 business days, no return could be expected for at least a week. But it could have been tied to a sales forecast based on the cumulative return of each mailing. Milestones for reaching certain sales benchmarks could have been tied to specific dates. This could have been a great plan. But because a step was missed, we’ll never know.

As marketers, we cannot expect our bosses and clients to fill in the gaps in our initiatives. Due diligence rules the day. But you must also include the “Kenny Rogers clause” in your plan. Know when to fold ‘em. Identify the point in your plan where you have to cut your losses because it did not perform as projected. This may not save the project –or even your job. But it’s much better than being fiscally irresponsible and waiting until it’s too late. And it has the added benefit of discouraging a supervisor with an itchy trigger finger from not allowing the plan to develop.

Jerry Jones set expectations too high, underperformed and had nowhere to go. The Gambler, on the other hand, was able to die in his sleep instead of in a gunfight. As marketers, the best we can do is to have solid planning, clear goals, defined milestones and good execution. And don’t forget to know when to fold ‘em. If you can do that, you won’t win every hand. But maybe you’ll live long enough to give advice to some aspiring marketer someday. On a train bound for nowhere…

For those of you too young to remember the New Coke flap, Coca-Cola made a huge deal out of changing their formula. Ostensibly, it was a move to compete with the sweeter, youth-appealing taste of Pepsi. They rolled out a big campaign about the change. The only problem was, people didn’t like it. Huge backlash. So they eventually brought back the old formula as “Coca-Cola Classic” and sales shot up.

Like the logo situation with The Gap, Coca-Cola was both praised and vilified at the time. Personally, I believe that the folks at The Coca-Cola Company were too savvy to get the formula change to wrong and planned the whole switch-a-roo thing. If that makes me a conspiracy theorist, so be it.

Speaking about the conspiracy theories, Donald Keough, Coca-Cola’s president and chief operating officer at the time of the controversy, is quoted as saying, “We’re not that dumb, and we’re not that smart.” Clearly, I believe they were that dumb and that smart.

Similarly, I am convinced that The Gap did very much the same thing with their logo. I have no proof, mind you. But I believe that they planned the whole thing. And I think it was a stroke of insidious, disingenuous genius. How else would the major networks have mentioned The Gap on the air if not for the logo gaffe? And the coverage I saw was pretty positive. There was a hint of “how could they allow this to happen,” but it was all but drowned out by “… but they showed that they are listening.”

The bottom line for me is this: there was no compelling reason to actually change the iconic logo. But there was a reason to create a marketing-driven ruse about changing the logo. Often the most plausible explanation is the one that is true. And I think the marketing ploy is the most plausible explanation.

By the way, the “new” logo was horrible. But I thought the same thing about the Seattle’s Best logo. And I guess that one stuck. So maybe I’m just wrong.

I’d be interested in what you think. I could be convinced that this was unplanned. Please. Try me.

And since it begs the question, here are some possible responses:

1. Hell yes! Those were the days. Women really knew their place back then. Nowadays I can hardly get the nurses to bring my meds on time. Because they just don’t understand that when I call them “doll” or “honey” it’s a term of endearment.
2. Yes. But being a woman, I’m glad that there are things made out of plastic that are designed to do that now. I have better things to do. Like spend the money I got when Henry passed away.
3. Yes. That’s a good one. And here’s another one. Remember when Polio was killing all those people? And separate water fountains for minorities. Oh, yeah. Good times, right?
4. No. Because I was born after 1940. By the way, 1959 called. It wants its dignity back.
5. No. But as a woman, I’d like to thank Chevy for making the choice for my next vehicle easier. Not having to consider Chevrolet should knock 5 minutes or so from my process.
6. No. But more than that…could you explain to me exactly what you’re promoting here? Nostalgic misogyny? Retro fashion? Rolling back creature comforts in automobiles? I’m confused.

Sure. It’s just a poster. And honestly, I don’t believe there is any grand scheme to turn back the clock on women’s rights going on here. But this is not some internal company prank. You can actually buy the poster. From Chevrolet. And it appeals to a sentiment that will undoubtedly ruffle some feathers.

There is a promotional point to be made here. And certainly an artistic point. And I have nothing against nostalgia for its own sake. But, really. There were other choices for header on this poster. And someone chose this one.

So my question is this: Is making a few bucks and connecting in a “wink, wink…nudge, nudge” way with some casual nostalgic sexism worth angering a large, important and growing demographic for Chevy?

So, what’s wrong with the ad agency model? Well, a lot. But here are just a few things that jump out at me from my vantage point of being in the agency business for the last 20 or so years:

1. The media paradigm is gone. There was a time when making the case for retaining an ad agency could be made just on the basis of buying media. Buying media was confusing, time consuming and expensive. An agency could do the planning, negotiating and bring a client a streamlined execution. And for that they took 15% of the total as a fee. And since that was usually negotiated off of discounted rates, the client didn’t even actually pay that. What a deal, right? But when the media becomes more expensive but less valuable, that’s a tough sell. And fees drop. And drop. And suddenly the agency structure needed to sustain the expertise is too expensive to maintain. Consequently, the largest profit center becomes a liability. Now it’s an accounts receivable nightmare. And many agencies aren’t well capitalized enough to withstand that kind of cash flow challenge. And they collapse.
2. The value of good creative has been degraded. There was a time when a single, superlative creative idea could translate to a wonderfully vertical execution on television or in print. And that idea could touch the customer base of a business and make a difference. But somewhere along the line, this model stopped being attractive. Markets are so fragmented these days that where to place your great idea is as uncertain as what execution will work. Businesses are also not generally content to allow an idea to develop. If there is immediate success, then you live to fight another day. If not…NEXT! Profits are too hard to come by to risk uncertainty. And that kind of pressure leads to reliance on “safe” ideas, leading to a cycle of predictable executions and underperformance.
3. Anybody can do tactics. There was a time when advertising agencies concentrated on larger strategic goals. And their plans advanced those goals. These days I see more agencies relying on tactics just to pay the bills. You say you need a brochure? We can design one for you. You want 5,000 people on your Facebook page? We have a brand new department set up to deliver that. What’s missing is the “why.” Just like businesses gutting marketing departments because they see them as all expense, agencies find it easier to jump on a stated need than to consider larger strategic goals. The problem is that, once the agency becomes a tactic execution machine, they are easy to marginalize or even eliminate once the tactical raison d’etre no longer exists. You need a brochure? Here’s a brochure. Bye! Instead of showing real value in doing something the company cannot do by itself, the agency has become an execution tool. And when you’re done with a tool, all you have to do it put it away. It doesn’t have value until you need it again.
4. Social media killed the agency star. I’ve avoided talking about social media as it relates to these other points (though I believe it does) because the argument by itself is so compelling. Agencies vilified social media in its infancy to such a degree that it’s hard for them to talk about it with a straight face now. And it’s not unlike the web was 15 years ago. “Real” ad agencies didn’t deal with websites, thinking that they were either a fad or just beneath them to deal with them. This attitude gave rise to the online specialty firms then, just as it has spawned the social engagement firms of today. Couple that with many businesses’ belief that social media is the replacement for traditional media and agencies look like relics from another age. And any effort to catch up with the prevailing trade winds looks like desperation, even if it’s not.
5. Hubris is the agency killer. The same smug certainty that makes Mad Men an engaging story makes the old agency model easy to throw stones at today. It has always been an “us” and “them” model. As long as that works, agencies have been viewed by many as necessary evils. Arrogant bastards who made magic. So businesses put up with them, their astronomical fees and their mercurial ways. Because they thought they needed the agencies. Now many businesses don’t see that need. And if they do see a need, it’s more about execution than strategy. More about filling a specific skill set then finding a marketing partnership.

Are these points universal truths? Absolutely not. Are advertising agencies dead? No. But the days of Mad Men are definitely gone. I believe that there is tremendous value in a highly strategic, reasonably-priced, highly transparent and well connected marketing partner for businesses. This kind of firm would need to be more responsive and less reactive. More willing to take an unpopular position and less willing to cave to tactical pressure. More consultative and less preachy. And more willing to reach out to specialized firms for help and less egocentric.

I believe this is happening now, in some settings. And I hope that, for the sake of good marketers everywhere, it takes hold. Because the traditional agency looks out of place in today’s business climate. Maybe when Mad Men is playing on The History Channel, we’ll know we’ve finally gotten it right.

Skeptical? Think Facebook is a time suck? Worried that Twitter will wreck productivity? News flash! Those network blocks you’ve set up, people get around them by using their phones. So here are some reasons to open up those potentially positive channels and let the conversational sun shine in, brothers and sisters!

1. Evangelism is good, despite the bad rap it gets on TV.

I see Twitter updates all day long from users whose companies allow it. Encourage it, even. And most often those updates are about how cool their firm is and how awesome their clients are. It’s positive, it’s free and it your culture is being praised without you lifting a finger. Halleluiah!

2. Your “network” is not your network

I’m not suggesting that you tear down your firewall, Mr. Gorbachev. But the traditional idea of your corporate network already extends beyond its traditional boundaries in the age of social media. So why not use that to include clients, prospects and other business relationships. Post a question on LinkedIn. Tweet out that latest new business conquest. Open up that new blog post on Facebook, even. You’ll be surprised at how much you thought of as “outside” your network can work for you on the inside.

3. If you don’t have a policy, your employees will make up one for you.

It’s the old PR adage: if you don’t frame the conversation, it will be framed for you. And you might not like it! Get in front of the issue. Get feedback from your people about how it can be used productively. Let them know you’ll support them. Otherwise they will find a stairwell or dark corner and make up their own policy.

4. Good policies already exist out there.

Worried about where to start? Use the models already available to you! Intel has one. IBM, Coca-Cola…lots of great companies have them. And many are publically available. Read them. Learn from them. Mix and match. And I bet you’ll find something that works for your flock.

5. Social media is how we discover and communicate now. Deal with it.

When I needed some opinions on file sharing software recently, my first thought was to toss out the question to my LinkedIn network. When I like a product these days, I think about sending out a quick Tweet about it to my followers. And invariably, I learn as much from a company’s Facebook page as I do from their corporate website. It’s 2010. Get your head out of the sand and learn to use the tools that are available to everyone.

I recently took a tour of a huge corporate environment. At the end, the person giving the tour showed us the “only area of the campus where access to Facebook is allowed.” Really? I bet I passed a dozen people with Smartphones who would beg to differ.

Can I get an “Amen”?

Apparently not. Though much has been written about the iPhone 4’s antennae problem, Apple continues to dance around the issue with their public. I suppose the thought is that eventually everyone will be distracted by something shiny. But in today’s information exchange overload, their issue is not likely to just go away. And every time they deny or sidestep, they actually sink a bit deeper in their own public relations quicksand.

Is there really a problem with the iPhone 4? I have no idea. I have a crappy dumbphone. So I have no dog in the fight. But if they asked me, here’s what I’d tell them to say:

Dear iPhone 4 Owners, Apple brand mavens and everyone else:

In the face of mounting evidence that some users are experiencing a legitimate hardware problem with their iPhone 4 devices, we owe all of you a huge apology. We handled the initial complaints poorly. And we eventually found ourselves in the impossible position of defending something that was indefensible. Now, even the most diehard of Apple fans is questioning us and our commitment to our products, our customers and our brand. I am sorry to say that, lately, this has been a legitimate concern. I am happy to say, however, that this stops right here, right now.

At Apple, we are privileged to have some of the finest minds in technology today as the backbone of our company. And you have my word that these people have been told to devote all their time and resources into developing a real fix for this issue. No tape. No software upgrade. No grip adjustment. We will just fix it. And when we do, we will notify all users. At that point, you can either mail the phone back to us or come into your local Apple Store and we will replace your iPhone 4 device. No receipts. No questions. If you love your phone and aren’t experiencing any problems, you’re free to keep it. It’s that simple. And it’s overdue.

Lately, I have not been proud of how Apple has acted towards its customers and the media. And nothing I say now can change what is done. But you have my word that everything changes now. And we hope to win your trust and admiration again. Because without you, Apple is just another struggling technology company. But with you, the revolution continues.

Steve Jobs

CEO

Truth. It’s the PR silver bullet.

I didn’t believe that for a minute. So the original intent of this post was to debunk the all marketing has always been relationship marketing notion.  It began with the theory that old media is one-way, opaque. Whereas social media is two-way, transparent. But in the middle of my case building, Cheryl Andonian wrote a wonderfully insightful blog post that cauterized my thinking and gave it a name and a new focus: translucence.

You see, I was going to make the argument that social media (relationship marketing’s current ground soldier) is truly different. Whereas television spoke to us, we could not speak back. We read the newspaper but didn’t converse with it. And though all of us have been guilty of yelling at the radio from time to time, it was most likely unaware. However, I’ve seen conversations, both good and bad, happen between consumers and brands in the social media realm. Brands had Facebook pages with people talking about and with them. Twitter accounts made it possible to “talk” to Whole Foods or Starbucks or Target. The notion that two-way conversations were and are taking place was going to be my smoking gun.

But after reading Cheryl’s post, I realized that I had it all wrong. Or at least mostly wrong. You see, I was concentrating on tactics and not substance. She writes:

Putting a business out there with a blog and on Facebook and Twitter is a good thing. It allows consumers to at least feel like the company is accessible, but does it really offer that transparency that everyone says is so essential? I think it’s more like translucence. No company is going to be completely transparent. Most companies and organizations highly monitor their Facebook posts, blog posts and Twitter feeds. They are most often manned by PR, marketing, communications or customer service people within the organization. In other words, trained professionals well-versed in the company’s mission, style, philosophy and message. These people are in fact crafting their posts to serve the best interest of the company. You know, just like advertising, only folksier.

Bingo! We can talk about the conversations as a tactic all day long. But ultimately the brand stewards are using the tools made available by social media to convince us to buy them. In that way, the intent is the same as television, radio, print or any other old media delivery system. We’ve added a sense of dialog, but it’s a controlled and often contrived notion. Though I never harbored any lofty notions that it was all about talk and never about the sale, my concentration on the conversation paid too little attention to its intended outcome: the close.

James McNeil Whistler once said, “As music is the poetry of sound, so is painting the poetry of sight and the subject-matter has nothing to do with harmony of sound or of color.” I was focusing on the method and not the result. Though I think the social media method is more inclusive, we’ve only replaced the brick wall between brand and consumer with smoked glass. I hope the progressive brands and insightful marketers out there will find a way to shatter it. Because it’s not that marketing has always been relationship marketing. Marketing has never been relationship marketing. It’s still not. But I believe it could be. Here’s hoping we don’t get fooled again.

What do you think?

View This Poll