The People’s (Tech) Bailout (Mediapost 12.19.11) 0
If you’re anything like me, you’re getting tired of politics. This has been a disturbing year, especially given all the stalemates and political immaturity that’s running rampant in Washington. Additionally, if you’re anything like me, you’re getting tired of protests without a point. It’s time that our government focus on the important things like creating jobs for Americans, so as we embark upon a new year I thought I’d lay out an idea for you. I call it my proposal for the People’s (Tech) Bailout.
The tech industry has jobs, which is confounding because reports estimate there are as many as 10 million people in the US without jobs. In the tech industry, as many people have called it, its 1999 all over again. I’ve seen estimates ranging from 150,000 tech jobs added per year, to some people stating there are as many as 3 million open jobs in the US, many of which are in tech. The simple explanation is that most of the people who are out of work are not qualified with the necessary skills to be applied to the open jobs, but that’s a problem we can solve if we put our minds to it!
My solution is a simple one; training and placement. I’m typically not a fan of government stepping in and spending money, but in this situation I have an idea that would require them to step in, and they would actually make money while creating jobs, and revenue, all at the same time.
Step 1: For the millions of people who are out of work and are actively looking for work, the government will establish a payment of $1,000 per prospective employee for training.
Step 2: An independent start-up company would be established to train and place these people, using the $1,000 payment per prospective employee. The $1,000 should be enough to take an educated person, and train them in specific jobs that are available, especially if the companies who have these open jobs are incentivized to provide information and training materials in order to get these people up and running.
Step 3: The independent start-up would use those payments as revenue to pay for staff and resources to get these people trained over a 3-month period to be capable of entering into these companies and filling open jobs. The requirements would be that the jobs be U.S. based, and that the prospective employees be U.S. citizens, in order to take advantage of the program.
Step 4: When these jobs are filled by the prospective employees, they will have a portion of their wages garnished over a 3 month period to repay the training fee, plus a 100% mark-up (an additional $1,000, for a total of $2,000). This money would be used to repay the government loan, and the government and the independent start-up would split the additional fees. In this manner, the government would be repaid their outlay of funds, the start-up would create training jobs and put some percentage of people to work, and we would have successfully retrained millions of people who want to work, and placed them in positions where they can work.
I know this sounds too easy, which is why the government will probably never pursue it, so I’m putting it out here for all of you to read and respond to. The government would have the cash to kick-start this kind of a program, but anyone with enough funds could honestly make it happen. It’s a revenue driver, and a guaranteed one at that.
What do you think? Is 2012 the year that someone makes this kind of thing work? If you’re an Occupy person or any other protester, and you see an idea like this, then you should be incentivized to at least react. Otherwise, you have no right to gather and protest for the sake of protesting.
Consider this idea my entrepreneurial Christmas gift. Happy holidays everyone!
Mr. Manners Answers Questions From Buyers and Sellers 0
Dear Mr. Manners,
per week from media sellers, and more than 50 emails. Must I answer every one?
response for every message. But Mr. Manners is a realist, and instead suggests
that your obligation is to respond to any message from someone who respects you
enough to be communicating with you personally.
responsibility to respond to any message that:
Is delivered as an HTML newsletter or similar.
Was clearly spammed to dozens or hundreds of
people, without regard to information that they might reasonably obtain before
contacting you. For example, your role, title, or responsibilities.
Does not include a Dear…. salutation.
Does not provide a capsule explanation of why
you should be in touch with this person. For example, information on how their
offering fits your brand(s).
respond in a reasonable timeframe to a message from:
Someone with which you have or have had a
business relationship.
Someone you have RFPed.
Someone you told to check back with you later,
and who has followed the time suggestion you outlined.
Someone you have asked for a favor, or you have
met with.
Someone who has clearly made an effort to do
research on your company and role, and who explains how that information has
led them to believe that they have a solution appropriate for your business.
response relate to the amount of relationship you already have with that
person, coupled with the amount of effort they made prior to contacting you. Existing
partners, especially those who “go the extra mile” deserve a response within 24
hours, even if it is to tell them that a more thorough response will be
forthcoming. Past or minor partners deserve a response within 72 hours. Companies
you have RFPed deserve an explanation of why you didn’t purchase from them
within a week.
both good behavior and help protect and enhance your career. Sellers know and
remember who makes an effort to respond to their messages. And a bad reputation
will limit your career later.
going around my agency and reaching out directly to the client. How can I stop
them while demonstrating good manners?
first answer the question WHY they are going client direct. It’s not a problem
per se. If direct conversations between vendors and your clients endanger your
relationship, then you have problems much larger than aggressive vendors.
ask is whether your interest in closing these information paths is actually in
your interests and those of the client. Ultimately, agencies need more and better
ideas from sellers, and engaging strong vendors in three way dialogue along
with the client often makes for better effectiveness. If you’re trying to lock
away your clients from information avenues, you’ll probably find that you aren’t
in charge of the door before long.
common “client direct” scenarios:
Your client specifically requests that you
prevent vendors from contacting them. Here you should communicate that request
to vendors so that they know that they must work through you. When the client
is contacted directly, ask them to forward messages to your team so you can set
things right.
A vendor you work with is asked for information by
the client. Here your goal should be to become part of the conversation, as it
may reveal client goals or needs with which you are unaware. You should not
discourage the information sharing, but should ensure that you and your team
are part of the dialogue. It is well within good manners, however, to scold a
vendor for communicating with your client without making you aware first. And
finally, you need to ask yourself WHY the client went vendor direct instead of
talking to you, because it may signal an issue in your relationship.
A vendor that you work with sees an opportunity
to get more business by going client direct. In effect to circumvent the agency
or to drive client demands for greater partnership. Relatively few companies
will try this, mostly companies that have huge market share or importance such
that you cannot “punish” their bad mannered behavior. In these instances, ask yourself:
Does the vendor have a point? Would the client
benefit from their suggestions? If so, work with the vendor to address the
opportunities through the agency channel.
Is it just a power grab? I suggest you confront these
vendors directly, and work in concert with the client to ensure that their bad
behavior is recognized as counterproductive.
A vendor you don’t buy from goes client direct
to try and force their way into your buy. Most of the time, your client will
rebuff the effort outright. If they instead ask you why you aren’t working with
a vendor, simply explain your rationale and in most cases that will end the
problem. The quality of that rationale will in turn encourage them to rebuff
such efforts in the future.
of vendors, even those you work with. But if your client relationships are
strong, efforts to engage clients directly won’t be a problem. In fact, communication
between clients and sellers may well lead to productive dialogue and a better
informed, more digital-savvy client.
confidence in your strong relationships with your clients, or work to address
the relationships. Further, by treating sellers fairly and with respect, you benefit
from their expertise and drastically reduce bad mannered behavior.
response, and the agency never got back to us on why we didn’t win. How can I
respond while still demonstrating good manners?
RFP response is the height of bad manners, particularly if you were asked to
respond on crash timing or spent a great deal of time and effort creating a
customized solution. Buyers who don’t provide feedback usually fall into one of
two buckets:
Shotgun planners that RFD a huge list of sites
because they have failed to pre-screen possible vendors to a subset that have a
reasonable chance of winning.
Selfish planners that simply “can’t be bothered.”
politely but firmly contact the most senior member of the team and point out
the need for feedback. If they don’t respond to your request, I suggest you refrain
from responding in the future to RFP requests from that person or team. If they
ask you why you didn’t respond, tell them that you can’t invest the time and
effort without understanding what might drive the buyer to make a purchase.
This is a polite way of demonstrating the importance of well mannered behavior
on their part. While not responding may feel like a difficult decision, the
reality is that you have better things to do that shoot in the dark. Focus
instead on finding real opportunities.
response was a piece of crap, sending it was bad manners. The recipient is
therefore under no obligation to demonstrate good manners in their dealings
with you.
value gift. Is it good manners to take it?
ethics. In my view, accepting high value gifts is unethical because it implies
or seals a quid pro quo. Any personal gift that makes you feel obligated to buy
is clearly unethical. Further, acceptance of it may run counter to your company
policies, and may even be against the law.
is “high value”? Many companies have set a policy on a dollar figure, and it is
not my place to question those figures. Where no such policy exists, you need
to make a decision that reflects your values and the law.
accepting a gift from a vendor that will be bought anyway, but in my view this
is AT LEAST as unethical. You are paid to make business decisions based upon
the best interests of your client. We don’t live in, nor should we encourage a “soft
economy.” And the cost of that gift is ultimately “baked in” to the buy, so
your acceptance of it is ultimately theft from your client.
sullies your reputation – something that no amount of good manners can resurrect.
such a gift. Do so politely, but ensure you make clear your reason for doing
so.
Post it in the comments area, and he will respond.
11 Digital Ideas From 2011 Worth a 2nd Look 0
little collection of the best ideas we saw in 2011 – ideas that demonstrate how
great thinking and ideas come alive when married to the power of digital.
stores, it can be hard to differentiate your offerings. Add to that the danger
of people comparison shopping with their cell phones, and you have a major need
in search of a solution. Here’s their great idea:
their makeup is a great cover up
does that really prove? Here’s the way you proof makeup efficacy.
of not using a condom. Here’s a way to bring that to life for young men who
sometimes don’t think with their heads.
While at its core a TV ad, this hilarious message featuring the Bieb got
millions of views online – and impact that far exceeded the size of the buy.
hearts of millions continued in 2011 with this Christmas message – this time
from a mall in Chicagoland. I want the soloist’s albums, dammit. Who is she?
phones. This amazing sound and light show, literally ON the London skyline,
helped the brand stand out and show off. And in the process, reach millions via
online video.
endorsers are sidelined. What a great way to demonstrate your connection and
heart for a sport!
0
Merry Christmas to everyone!!
May The Force Be With You in 2012 (Mediapost 12.14.11) 0
Over the last few months I’ve written a number of columns that attempted to remind us all that content is king. Just to clarify before I go any further, its not that I don’t love data, targeting and technology – I do. It’s that none of these work without good, solid, beautiful, engaging content.
A number of publications have been publishing their year-end issues and recaps, and many of them are calling out their favorite commercials and ads of the year. AdWeek’s list was topped by my personal favorite, “The Force” Volkswagen commercial. If you haven’t seen this one, then you live in a bubble because apparently this one has received almost 45 million views on YouTube alone, and that doesn’t count the countless copies and shares that may not have surfaced on YouTube. This spot is a prime example of why content is king; its about the craft of telling a story in 60 seconds or less.
Storytelling is most certainly an art form, and there is no debate about that. You can debate the balance of art and science in advertising till you’re smurf-blue in the face, but when you dive into the storytelling side of the business, and the creative requirement to do so, this is art; pure and simple. Storytelling in 60 seconds is about tapping into a notion that is relevant and familiar in the minds of your target audience and delivering emotion and an experience that they will remember. You have an opening to set the stage. You tease the promise of something intriguing, and you deliver a “punch line”, so to speak. There has to be something delivered that pays off the promise that was originally teased and that ties your story into something your audience can relate to. In “The Force” spot, the creative team tapped into the zeitgeist of Star Wars, which is one of the most recognizable and beloved storylines in history, as well as the innocence and naiveté of being a young boy, which at least half the audience will immediately understand. Of course, using a young buy immediately taps into the Mom’s in the audience as well, so the spot cleverly taps into the mindset of a robust audience on both sides of the coin.
What’s great about that spot is it is 100% based on music and imagery; there is no talking? You have to watch it again to realize there’s a beautiful story being told, but no one is voicing it. This is storytelling of the highest degree, and there is a reason I point this out. Everyone gets excited that online video is finally taking off, but that kind of storytelling can be applied to all sorts of online advertising, whether its video or not. Imagery, music and creative storytelling can be applied to anything online, whether it’s a flash ad, a micro site, or anything else that you can dream up. If that’s the case, why are online ads so universally derided for not being effective?
My gut says its because we don’t give them the attention they deserve on the creative side of the business. Clients ask their creative resources to churn and burn. They ask them to create libraries of banners to run through billions and trillions of impressions, without asking them to dive a little deeper and find something that will resonate. They should be tasking their creative resources to come up with something more inventive, more innovative, and that will tell a story using the assets they have and creating something that is relevant, familiar and can deliver emotion and an experience they will remember. That video was watched almost 45 million times, and people still love it. No wear out there!
Storytelling is the oldest form of communication in the history of the world, with stories having been passed down from generation to generation as a form of historical record. Advertising can be looked at in the same way. How many times have you looked at old ads, or seen artwork depicting old ads? Andy Warhol spent a portion of his career in pop art just stylizing advertising, so why shouldn’t the work we do today have the same gravitas as that? Why can’t someone look upon the online advertising of today and say, “Man, that stuff was good”!
In 2012, I hope that the creative fire gets lit and that we, as an industry, start to come up with ideas that will have impact. I know you have the skills and the desire, now its up to you to find the time.
And may the force be with you.
Brand Social Grows Up 0
brand interest in social media measurement. Like all marketing activity, social
is now being more thoroughly scrutinized to determine if it is making a
significant business impact.
massive shift taking place in HOW companies engage in social – where they are
active, what they are doing, and how they are representing themselves in these
critical environments. Which is definitely a good thing.
in brand social:
- Social 1.0 –
Primarily characterized by social media listening, analytics, and customer relations
management. The common denominator was RESPONSE – processes through which
companies could address issues and opportunities that customers made them aware
of.
- Social 2.0 – In this
phase, companies sought through social to cost effectively reach consumers using
social platforms with highly controlled messages. In essence, treating social
as a media vehicle like Print or Radio. The theme here was BROADCASTING in
different venues.
- Social 3.0- This
important new phase has brands proactively interacting with consumers, whether
through becoming part of conversations or delivering messages designed to drive
consumer input and evangelism. The theme here is PARTICIPATION.
presenting itself has begun to change. Part of this is driven by the rise of
Twitter as an important social outlet. Since Twitter is ultimately about
content and news rather than “static messaging” and offers, brands have had to
adapt their voices and stream of commentary to be more human, interesting, and surprising.
brand information needs to be at least as interesting as what our friends and
colleagues are speaking about. Capturing and maintaining consumer interest
requires a greater focus on the consumer and thinking about what THEY want, not
what we think they want or “what they don’t know they want yet.”
the earlier phases is that brands now seem to be more comfortable sharing
control of messages with users, even though they are more likely to deviate
from whatever is the core brand message. To put their own personal spin on why
a brand is great or valuable or worth our time.
in the way ad campaigns “work” – a sort of blending between the classic one
message/one format/one tagline approach that has always characterized online
and the one-off-centric approach that has, for better or for worse, typified
digital. Greater variation is essential to capturing and holding consumer
attention, and nowhere is this more true than social.
And with it a recognition that social is not “media” so much as a marketing
approach.