Marketers Studio - David Berkowitz's Marketing Blog

6 Characteristics of Great Storymaking

originally published in Ad Age - read the published version there and share away 

 

Six Characteristics of Great Storymaking

It's easy to call storytelling a cliché, but how exactly can one move beyond it when storytelling is entrenched as the epitome of what defines great marketing?

In previous Ad Age columns and during the Ad Age Digital Conference this April, storymaking has kept coming up as a way to describe the shift away from the broadcast-era mentality of storytelling to a new approach where marketers build on stories that people share with each other. Yet storymaking needs to be dissected so that anyone can identify it, learn from it, and engage in it themselves.

At the Ad Age conference, I moderated a panel with some stellar storymakers in their own right: Visa's chief brand and innovation marketing officer Chris Curtin; Burger King's CMO Eric Hirschhorn; Fullscreen's head of content Ashley Kaplan; and Adobe's CMO Ann Lewnes. Some examples and insights they shared further illustrate the art. Here are six characteristics of great storymaking.

1. Participatory: One clear sign of a story that's told versus one that's created with its audience is that the audience must be able to add to the story in some way. Beautiful stories can be told in 30-second spots, but it's impossible for a 30-second spot alone to be considered storymaking. Storymaking requires some effort from its audience.

2. Fan-inspired: Sometimes, marketers create new experiences that trigger storymaking, and there's a place for that, especially when launching a new product. Yet marketers are often getting into storymaking precisely because they're seeing what their fans are already talking about and sharing. Like any kind of socially-driven marketing, it's advantageous to have an existing base of fans to draw from. Adobe's Lewnes said, "Brand love leads to storymaking. Fans must be engaged and very attached to you; otherwise it is difficult to make stories."

3. Decentralized: If all the stories are designed to live in a central hub that the brand or publisher owns, then it takes away from what people can do on their own channels. True storymaking taps into any channel people want to use, online and offline. Sometimes this involves working with content creators and influencers to reach consumers. Fullscreen did this by promoting the movie "Ouija" with a stunt where it made teenage internet celebrity Kian Lawley disappear. His multi-platform efforts to tap his fans to bring him back led to more than 7 million Twitter mentions about the movie. Fullscreen's Kaplan said, "The creator is core to everything we do since they are the ones with the relationship with their audience."

4. Unpredictable: Because storymaking shifts the focus from the brand's story to people's stories about the brand, it opens the door for others to take the idea in new directions. When Visa Checkout sponsored Odell Beckham Jr.'s successful attempt at setting the Guinness World Record for one-handed catches, it inspired others to try to break the record. Iowa Hawkeyes wide receiver Tevaun Smith seemed to do so (though it wasn't certified by Guinness), generating a new wave of coverage for the stunt.

5. Reciprocal: If you want people to run with a brand's stories, there has to be something in it for them. For Visa Checkout and Fullscreen's "Ouija" campaign, the brands entertained and surprised people. Burger King listened to customers' pleas and brought back chicken fries to its menu, and fans in turn spread their love of the product through chicken fry emojis that the brand created. In Adobe's case, the marketer showcases its customers' work in its marketing for Photoshop [see the video above], Creative Cloud, and other products, as almost all artists love getting more exposure for their work. The value exchange is usually clear in every great example of storymaking.

6. Authentic: The clearest sign of storymaking gone awry is that all the stories created are positive. If marketers embrace their lack of control over where stories go, it means some stories won't be ones that any brand would tell. Yet as Hirschhorn noted, that's less risky than covering one's ears. He said, "I don't think negative sentiment towards a brand is a terrible thing. Operating in a world where people have a positive opinion or negative opinion is a much richer territory than telling people to feel one way."

4 Technologies Powering Storymaking

Originally published in Ad Age

The shift from storytelling to storymaking is well under way.

I first wrote about storymaking in a DigitalNext columnlast year, describing how marketers can tap into stories people are sharing with each other, as opposed to the broadcast approach of storytelling.

Storymaking isn't a tactic in its own right, but various technologies can bring it to life. Here are four technologies that are powering storymaking and how brands can use them:

1. Video streaming: Mobile video streaming has been around for years, which is why the keen interest in Meerkat and then Periscope took many by surprise (myself included). The magic of both of these apps is the social integration. While streaming technologies can be used for broadcast purposes (it's common enough to see people using them to stream TV shows), it's a far more interesting experience when the person or brand doing the streaming starts responding to the audience, and even changing the flow of the footage.

That's when a Periscope stream, for example, shifts from being yet another video to a personalized and memorable experience. It can even add a modicum of suspense, where no one can predict exactly what will happen -- even the video producer. The audience then becomes part of the story, and viewers can make it their own.

2. Wearables: Wearable devices are ripe for storymaking. After all, data is generated from people's bodies -- their heartbeat, their gait, their circadian rhythms, their brainwaves. Take two people running the same lap at the same pace -- their physical activity data will show subtle differences. Even when biological data isn't involved, these devices are personal, as they're practically extensions of one's body.

As more brands partner with, incubate, or acquire wearable technologies, those marketers will want to avoid storytelling as much as possible. It's not how the brand's technology makes someone live better; it's about all the specific ways each individual's life has improved. My Pebble smartwatch made sure I never missed my wife's messages and calls in the weeks before our first child was born. Compare my story to any story the brand could tell you, and you decide which is more powerful.

3. Virtual reality: Immersive creative experiences such as those possible through Oculus Rift, Magic Leap and other technologies could be very controlled and rigid, or they could be totally different for each person every time. Even more straightforward approaches like touring a distant hotel property or getting backstage access at a concert could turn into stories that are co-created with participants.

The best way to think about the potential of virtual reality is to consider the difference between watching a video and playing a video game. Each time you play a game, you're actively creating a new story. With virtual reality, the only way for the novelty not to wear off will be to incorporate elements of game play each time.

4. Messaging apps: Messaging apps typically deliver generic branded experiences that are the same for all users. On ESPN's channel in Snapchat, the content is the same for everyone. But that's rapidly changing. Several messaging apps allow marketers to offer branded stickers and other content that can lead to more customized experiences. For example, NBC News created a chat bot within the messaging app Kik so people can request stories on topics such as politics and technology.

These technologies alone don't shift the focus to storymaking, but such apps and platforms are evolving quickly. The biggest opportunity for storymaking today is by appreciating how these apps are all about two-way communication. Let followers' responses drive a lot of your marketing there and adapt to what they're talking about.

The most successful uses of technology will make the technology itself invisible, and the storymaking itself may go unnoticed. Your audience will just appreciate that your messaging speaks to them in such a relevant way that it's a springboard for creating their stories.

A Peek into the Shadow CES - Now on Linkedin Pulse

What's it really like at CES? The problem is that there are a lot of different versions of CES - two in particular. 

This is what I try to illustrate in this new post now on LinkedIn. Here's a brief excerpt:

The Public CES is the one the media covers. Want to see the curved 4K TVs with OLED or whatever nanoparticles that make the picture a million times better than the set you bought last year? Want to see the new smart washing machine that has a smaller version of a washing machine built into it? (That’s a real product from LG.) Want to see lots of models running on treadmills to show off wearable devices? Want to see that startup being crowdfunded by the entrepreneur whose startup there last year didn’t meet its crowdfunding goal so he’s copying the guy in the booth next to him? All that and more abounds in the Public CES...

The other CES is the Shadow CES. This is the one that tends not to get as much attention, but for some brands, it’s more productive. It happens at places like the Cosmopolitan or Four Seasons. A more official version of the Shadow CES took place at the Aria this year. Dubbed the C-Space, it was where marketers could meet up with established media companies like NBC Universal and emerging ones like Samba TV. They could also meet with each other. I joined one private discussion with select executives from an advertising trade association. While it had little to do with CES directly, it was a terrific opportunity to learn from these people who I wouldn’t have readily met otherwise.

There's a lot more about this Second CES, so head to LinkedIn for far more context on this theme, and your comments are welcome there as well. It's actually the fourth post I've shared on LinkedIn, and except to see more there this year, especially when I have some thoughts that aren't a natural fit for an outlet like Ad Age, which will continue to be my go-to. 

How to Play It Safe in Social

I was so outraged over the latest social outrage that I neglected to share this post that Ad Age had the audacity to run. You can catch the final version in Ad Age or read more below here.

How to Play It Safe in Social

Are you swelling with outrage over something so preposterously outrageous? Are you offended? Are you offended even more that people aren’t offended?

Then you must have read the latest brand’s tweet.

Of course, you probably didn’t see that tweet. It had already been taken down. So you read about it in a Twitter or Facebook post by a friend of yours that linked to an outlet that shared a screen shot of the tweet. That way, you still had a chance to be offended, but you didn’t have the rare pleasure of being one of the original offendees whose tweets about their outrage were probably quoted along with the screen shot.

It’s time for these offenses to end once and for all. As a gift to brand managers, community managers, and corporate lawyers everywhere, here is a foolproof, ten-step checklist to follow that will ensure you never offend anyone when posting through corporate social media channels.

1) Don’t reference anyone’s names. Some names are offensive to people. Take it from Dave and Buster’s, which made a reference to the “no one ever” meme by tweeting about “no Juan ever” hating tacos. Dave and Buster’s probably knows that some people named Juan don’t like tacos. Some people named Juan probably don’t even like quesadillas, or the especially delicious horchata. The good news for all the Juans out there is that there are a lot of Johns and Janes and others on Twitter who were so offended on Juans’ behalf that the tweet was removed within an hour.

2) Don’t use a hashtag. Not only can it be misappropriated, like #McDStories, but some can be misread. The best version of this was when Susan Boyle’s album was promoted using #susanalbumparty, which turned into an inadvertent nod to the Saturday Night Live sketches of Sean Connery misreading Jeopardy categories. Just avoid hashtags altogether.

3) Don’t ever host any kind of chat. It’s possible someone with a truly offensive name could respond to that post. When that happens, someone monitoring that campaign may miss the offensive name, and it will give everyone on the internet a chance to say that the brand is offensive. People won’t direct their anger at the person with an offensive name though; that would make way too much sense.

4) Don’t respond to or retweet anyone. That person could be a racist. Or maybe he took an illegal drug once. Or maybe he once went out to eat a nice meal and only left a 13% tip. He could even have an opinion on marriage equality or immigration, and someone else may disagree with that opinion. These things can all come back to haunt a brand that gives a voice to such an individual.

5) Don’t use any words that could mean something else in another language. There are 6,500 spoken languages, according to Infoplease. About 2,000 of those languages have fewer than 1,000 speakers, but those speakers still could be using the internet. And that also leaves speakers of 4,500 other languages who can be offended in all kinds of ways, including through transliterations and homophones and homonyms. Any half-decent community manager is fluent in at least 3,000 languages.

6) Don’t mention planets. At least one of them sounds like a body part that is usually kept covered, except when certain celebrities expose such a region to break the internet.

7) Don’t engage in real-time marketing. It’s not because it’s offensive. Most of the time, brands just don’t have to say anything that interesting about pop culture, memes, or news. Better still, don’t promote a tweet that falls under the real-time marketing genre, as it may make a blogger sad.

8) Don’t share links to any outside news sources or websites. Often news sources offend people. What brand would ever want to be aligned with outlets that cover controversial topics? To be safe, marketers should pull all their advertising from any property that they don’t own. That way, they will never be seen as endorsing the views of anyone, ever. Instead, brands should only run ads on their local jazz radio station because the last time anyone was offended by jazz was when the Utah Jazz kept their name after moving the team from New Orleans.

9) Don’t engage in any clever marketing stunts. All marketing should be even more factual than a Ken Burns documentary. If you try to get too creative, then some people may take your marketing literally and complain when an outlet “debunks” your campaign. It’s best to focus campaigns around factual elements, like your business owner (unless he or she is racist), or your corporate headquarters (unless it is located in another country to dodge paying local taxes). Maybe it’s best not to run campaigns at all.

10) Don’t actually be offensive. Yes, once in a while a corporate entity or business owner expresses patently vile statements designed to offend people. It’s generally a good idea not to do that. 

A Story about the End of Storytelling: The Short Story

It's been a big month of storytelling about the end of storytelling. I previously shared my presentation about the end of storytelling (complete with dozens of illustrations), and a related version then ran in Ad Age. The Ad Age story's a bit different, with a focus on how Coca-Cola's Share a Coke campaign with the cans with names on them exemplifies what marketing should be like in the post-storytelling era.

Let me know what you think. I will probably have some new stories to share that don't keep beating this drum, but there should be more chapters to come.

The Beginning of the End of Storytelling

Once upon a time, an industry became obsessed with storytelling. Everywhere these industry people went, they said storytelling was the most important thing they all had to do. Then a mean dragon of a columnist said storytelling was evil, and the industry people slew him so they could go back to enjoying their jobs. The end.

Or consider a different version of this story.

Once upon a time, an industry became obsessed with storytelling. But it gradually came around to the idea that no one listening to those stories could remember anything about them, so the industry people found a more meaningful way to connect with their audiences. And they all lived happily ever after. The end.

These stories are mutually exclusive. One will be fiction and the other nonfiction. In this unofficial edition of the "Choose Your Own Adventure" series, which path do you want to take? That path can have profound consequences for all of our jobs.

How many conferences have you been to about storytelling? How many articles have you read on how marketers can tell better stories? Given the obsession we have with storytelling, it seems like few people appreciate the dark side of it. I didn't appreciate the drawbacks myself until a conversation with my wife shifted my worldview. Here's the story of what happened.

One day, my wife and I were venting about a few insufferable people we know. They didn't seem to take an interest in us or anyone but themselves. Exasperated, my wife lamented, "All they do is tell stories!"

It was one of those lines I'll never forget. Given that our industry is all about storytelling, I'm used to storytellers being the heroes. Yet here she was revealing the negative aspect of the craft. Stories are often used as crutches that cast light on some trait or moment, rather than opening up a path to understand people more deeply. It's the story that gets in the way of the relationship. Tell the story with its beginning, middle and end, and your work is done.

To make matters worse, do you think people really get brands' stories? Think of a brand you love: Apple, Tide, Gucci, Hyundai, or any brand that you identify with. Do you know what its story is? I just paid way too much money to get the new iPhone, but I can't tell you Apple's story.

 

AD AGE REPORTS

Research ReportMobile Marketing That Works

Strategies and Solutions from Real Marketers’ Case Studies. Featuring case studies from Bank of America, Volkswagen, Express, Neutrogena, and more.

Learn more 

I asked my wife about this, too. Cara loves Diet Coke, so I asked her, "What's Coke's story?" The next thing I knew, I was living in a real-world version of the "carousel" moment from "Mad Men." She started telling me about when Coke came out with cans with red tabs, and all her friends used to collect them. And then she told me about the games she played with her friends in sleepaway camp, where they'd break off tabs from Coke cans as a way to reveal which boys they liked. Thanks to this brand, I was learning more about the person in my life I have been the closest to for nearly a decade.

Interestingly, Coca-Cola is currently running one of the most radical campaigns that pushes back against storytelling and addresses the future of marketing. The "Share a Coke" campaign with names and relationship descriptors on cans and bottle labels empowers people to create their own stories. I see these moments happen all the time with colleagues and friends, where the brand is the catalyst for the stories they are making about themselves.

One small but striking moment I witnessed was when my teammate Kate wound up with a bottle labeled "Adam," and she saved the bottle for my colleague Adam, who was all too happy to have it. Before the campaign, they wouldn't have even valued the empty bottle for the recycling refund. Instead, what would have been a piece of trash wound up strengthening their relationship in some small way. And that story of Kate saving the empty bottle for Adam is a story all three of us remember. Perhaps you will remember it, too.

The future of storytelling isn't about telling anyone anything. It's about storymaking, where the brand facilitates and taps into the stories people are creating and sharing with each other. Storytelling is the epitome of the old one-way, broadcast mindset that so many of us in marketing are trying to leave behind. Storymaking, by contrast, is far more fulfilling, and exactly what will matter to the people all of our brands are trying to reach.

 

Stop Dreaming of a Stripe Christmas

Image via Stripe.com

So, Twitter's talking about allowing people to buy stuff from tweets. Great news, right! Umm, maybe...

I posted a column in Ad Age about this. The pre-edited version is below, so read the better version there, or my edition below.

Stop Dreaming of a Stripe Christmas for Twitter

Most marketers can park their sleighs on the sidelines, but five kinds of offers could work well

Are you dreaming of a Stripe Christmas, unlike one you’ve ever known? Where the commerce glistens and Twitterverse listens to hear cash register bells as it snows?

Wake up. If Twitter’s partnership with payments startup Stripe materializes in time for the peak holiday shopping stretch, it will be a boon for a handful of marketers and retailers. It will also bolster Twitter’s advertising offerings. For most brands, however, this won’t make a difference, and this should have little impact on their Twitter marketing strategies.

Re/code broke the news about the Stripe partnership and timing. Jason Del Rey wrote, “Later this year, Twitter is expected to unveil buttons within tweets that say ‘Buy’ or some variation of the word; after clicking on the button, shoppers are expected to be able to enter in payment and possibly shipping information without leaving Twitter’s service. Sources say that businesses that want to sell products or services within tweets are being instructed to sign up with Stripe to process payments on their behalf.”

I can picture so many marketers reading this and literally drooling at their desks, in a rather less adorable way than how my six-month-old daughter drools all over the board books I read her. While marketers may be nearly as helpless as my daughter in preventing themselves from drooling at such stimuli, it would behoove marketers to exercise a little more control.

One of the reasons marketers should show more caution in this realm is that the whole notion of social commerce is often misunderstood. The two aren’t generally meant to be linked together in so seamless a fashion. Years ago, several brands tried promoting flash sales on Facebook where consumers could make a purchase directly within the post, but it wasn’t sustainable. Nor were group commerce models, such as the original approach of Groupon. Pinterest functions differently, as it is in essence a product recommendation site, but usually people aren’t spending time on social networks with the intent to make a purchase. That’s why so many social commerce attempts have failed.

When social commerce tends to work on social networking sites, it’s usually at opposite ends of the theoretical purchase funnel. On one end, there is the chance to make people aware of brands and products, often through content marketing. At the other end, by connecting with people who are already customers and fans, there are some opportunities to convert them into advocates. The toughest area to play is the middle – taking someone who is aware of a product and interested, and having them make a purchase at that moment.

Even with those caveats, there are five kinds of use cases for Twitter-powered commerce that could make sense:

1)      Sampling: It’s not usually the hardest challenge to give away free products, but marketers can tap Twitter’s interest graph to get goods in the hands in the right consumers.

2)      Exclusive offers: Some of Twitter’s earliest advertisers used ads for flash sales, and the Stripe connection will make this appealing to a broader range of brands. Exclusive goods can benefit from the word of mouth marketing on Twitter, and for such marketers, the real-time nature of Twitter makes it the perfect channel.

 

3)      Digital media: Low-consideration items such as mobile apps could work well for impulse buys. So could music singles, given how much clout celebrities have on Twitter. Granted, publishers will have to be willing to integrate with Twitter and Stripe, and that will limit which ones participate.

 

4)      Subscription services: When trying to convert non-paying followers to paying customers, popular services could float offers to their current fan base, and some of those fans may spread the word further with their retweets. Spotify, LinkedIn, The New York Times, Pocket, and TripIt are some that could assess whether Twitter followers become subscribers faster with Twitter enabling purchases.

 

5)      Fundraising: This could be the social media equivalent of the pleas to text a quick message to donate $10 to some trendy cause. When it’s so easy to donate a nominal amount with a tweet and a charity is connected to a cause people are buzzing about, that’s precisely the kind of message that people will want to spread.

Even as these are some of the most likely candidates for finding success with Twitter-enabled payments, marketers hawking shampoo, smartphones, and perhaps even cars may give it a shot. If it is tempting to participate yourself, go into this thinking that this is an experiment that won’t yet work. Instead, keep trying to figure out if Twitter matters for your brands on a more macro level, and determine how to best use it. If this year also winds up being a Stripe Christmas for you, then your holidays will be even merrier and brighter.

 

What's the Minimal Requirement to be Taken Seriously as a Media Company?

The story behind the story

I'm a big fan of Foursquare. I am a Level I Superuser who has contributed 291 tips and 756 photos over the course of 6,169 check-ins that earned me 147 badges. I own and love its shirts, both the English and Japanese editions. I've clearly been a fan over the years.

I guess I'm no longer their biggest fan. Well, I have had issues for quite awhile. Last November, after a reporter wrote a feature on a new ad product they put out, I wrote him, "I still can’t believe they avoid reporting active user #s. What are they afraid of?" He responded, "I’m thinking the #s must be very grim…" and later added, "I bet a lot of people would agree with you! (I agree with you!)." I told him, "Thanks for the encouragement. I’m wondering how to make it into a post that’s more than a few sentences, or if there’s anyone else that’s remotely as egregious, and thus looking at it as more of a trend piece."

Eight months later, Foursquare's just as quiet on user numbers, but it touts some grandoise claims. I don't think it's right, I don't think Foursquare the company deserves to be taken seriously by marketers until it discloses a bare minimum of verified information. When I was finally motivated to write a column, I turned to more sources than I had in ages: Foursquare directly, Ad Age reporters, comScore's Mobile Metrix, and eMarketer's media relations lead. No one had answers. For such a name brand in digital media, especially in terms of marketer awareness, it is the biggest black box that I'm aware of.

The column was recently published in Ad Age. As per usual here, the better, edited version is there, and this one had more edits than usual given the sensitivity of the topic and my own approach to writing it like a journalist even when contributing it as a columnist (to be clear, I don't receive any income from Ad Age or any other source as a journalist, and I have never made a dime from Ad Age).

I will also note that after discussing the story before it was published with a contact at Foursquare, I toned down the rhetoric considerably, well before it was submitted to Ad Age. I saved quite a number of versions of it, and the contact helped me keep a level head in terms of tempering any raw ranting and focusing this on a substantial issue that should be top of mind for media buyers and sellers alike. I have in turn heard some other people at Foursquare are none too pleased with the column, but they haven't reached out to be directly. Perhaps they'd at least appreciate that the first draft wasn't the final one.

Granted, any post that starts with "obfuscation" and ends with wondering why anyone would work with them isn't exactly a puff piece. Your thoughts on this are welcome. My final draft is below, with Ad Age's headline (since it's better than what I had).  

Foursquare, It's Time to Be Open about Metrics 

After five years of obfuscation, it’s time for Foursquare to decide it’s going to be a real media company, one worthy of marketers’ attention. The lesson for Foursquare and its peers on the sell side is simple: be open and transparent if you want to be taken seriously.

Foursquare has refused to release its metrics on monthly active users (MAUs) since it launched in 2009. I should know, as I’ve asked them repeatedly while representing two different agencies. Then, while writing this column, I had an exchange with a spokesperson from Foursquare’s communications team. I’m still no closer to an answer.

What prompted the outreach out to their press team was a message Foursquare sent to its first million users about a forthcoming update to the app, described publicly on its blog. The missive noted, “You’ve seen us grow from a tiny project to a 50,000,000-strong community.” The zeroes seems to carry a hint of self-aggrandization, and something seemed off, as did its liberal use of the word “community.” Who is really using it now?

When emailing Foursquare’s communications director about MAUs, he said, “We don't share our monthly actives or specific country-by-country breakdowns.” The geographical issue remains equally troubling for marketers – it should be one of the first questions buyers ask, along with requesting MAUs. I also brought up the 50 million figure, and Foursquare’s representative responded that more than 50 million people have downloaded their apps since Foursquare began in 2009.

I had further questions, such as whether Foursquare could confirm that 50 million referred to unique individuals as opposed to app installs. It’s hardly about semantics. I have probably installed Foursquare on ten different devices over the past five years, and at least two operating systems (iOS and Android), so does that mean I am counted once, twice, or ten times among the 50 million? Foursquare wouldn’t provide any clarity. When I followed up, the spokesperson said, “Just never felt the need to offer a deeper breakdown of our user community. One of the perks of being a private company, I suppose!” Why not add smiley face emoji, with an adorable little cartoon animal, if he’s going to be that flip?

Foursquare, the perk is over. This is a company targeting marketers, and it is holding back the most basic information that advertisers need. If a company can spend five years thinking it doesn’t need to share this, it’s deluded. Meanwhile, Foursquare won’t confirm whether it’s lifetime number refers to installs or true unique users.  Just what is Foursquare trying to hide? It should be honest with marketers, show the value of what it can be used for, and talk about the plans for growing its user base.

Marketers shouldn’t accept the status quo. In fact, marketers should be wary of conducting anything more than a pilot with a media company without that basic MAU and geographic information. This isn’t some secret project run by the Defense Department or Elon Musk; this is a company that has been courting the press and marketers for half a decade. In that time, Facebook and Twitter went public, Pinterest and Snapchat launched and garnered multi-billion-dollar valuations, and social media acquisitions have included Tumblr, WhatsApp, Instagram, and so many others. Facebook even acquired Gowalla, once billed as Foursquare’s top competitor, back in 2011.

Foursquare, meanwhile, seems to have idled. All the while, Foursquare has developed some compelling marketing offerings for local advertisers, whether small businesses or global advertisers looking to drive people to local stores. Broader campaigns for major brands, also running on Foursquare, don’t yet seem to be in its sweet spot.

Marketers, go ahead and run tests even without a lot of basic information. If a media property is brand new, great; it shouldn’t have to disclose much as long as it sets expectations. Find a partner with a relevant offering and get something in market. Even a company with a massive audience such as Snapchat can take its time releasing user data until it rolls out a well-defined offering targeting brands. If a company like WhatsApp doesn’t want to work with advertisers at all (as was its founder’s stance before joining Facebook), it doesn’t have to reveal anything at all.

Yet marketers should reward transparency and push back against obfuscation from companies that have been courting their attention, love, and money for years. If basic information isn’t forthcoming, there are alternatives. For marketers who need MAUs and other data for pilots, go on sites like AngelList, Crunchbase, Industry Index, or Partnered, and connect with more willing companies.

The free ride has to end somewhere, and a five-year anniversary seems like a great time to move on. I will try Foursquare’s app update and keep using Swarm, but Foursquare needs to finally earn my trust as someone representing marketers. If Foursquare starts treating marketers with more respect, then we can have a real dialogue. Until then, why would anyone do business with a company that considers its secrecy a perk? 

How Cannes Became South by the South of France

A partial Cannes stereotype: on a yacht catching up with a glamorous friend (Caroline McCarthy), though no rosé in sight (image courtesy of Mail Online).

This article was originally published in Ad Age; the pre-edited version is below. Go to Ad Age for more polish.

 

I knew that when heading out to the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity for the first time this year, I had to wade into a new overstimulating, overtiring experience that rivals the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) and South by Southwest (SXSW). What I didn’t expect was what a great complement to CES and SXSW would be in terms of scouting emerging media companies.

As I recover from too much sun and rosé while sending every white article of clothing I own to the dry cleaners, here are three reasons why Cannes now resembles South by the South of France:

It’s more selective. One of SXSW’s selling points is its accessibility. That’s why so many entrepreneurs will eschew flying to drive to Austin from all over the country, or enter the StartupBus hackathon competition. If needed, people can couch-surf for a week and live off free breakfast tacos and Shiner Bock. Cannes, meanwhile, prides itself on relative inaccessibility. For Americans not coming from New York on the one daily direct Delta flight to Nice, getting there is far less than half the fun. Finding a comfortable, convenient room for under $500 a night signifies a good deal.

That in turn offers some cachet to the companies sending people. Cannes, at least for now, is at the point where just showing up indicates that the company is worth a look, if not some serious discussion. I met with a lot of potential vendors and partners in Cannes, formally or informally, and I plan to have serious follow-up discussions with almost every single one. Barely anyone was wasting my time (or theirs). It’s by far the best hit rate I’ve encountered at any event or conference I’ve attended.

It’s more focused. It’s a little hard to tell exactly who or what SXSW Interactive is for. It can mean everything from 3D-printed robots to smartwatches to social CRM software. Cannes Lions celebrates creativity in communications – namely marketing and advertising. While some attendees are concerned about the sprawling number of awards categories at the Lions in recent years, there is a much better sense at Cannes of who the buyers and sellers are, and what they’re here to buy and sell. Sellers here typically need to enable people to make their marketing more impactful, typically by providing better creative tools or ensuring that a brand’s marketing is seen by more of the right people. The sellers are often people selling themselves as well, given the reptuation of Cannes as a talent market.

Digital is taking over. As Advertising Age reported in its June 9, 2014 issue, the Cyber Lions is now the fourth highest-grossing awards category for the festival, and one of the fastest growing, up 55% over 2013 (PR billings grew 58%, but it’s about half the $2.49 million total for Cyber). Other categories also bleed into Cyber’s turf. For instance, British Airways won a Grand Prix in the Direct category for its “Magic of Flying” digital billboards supported by flight-tracking technology, and the campaign is one of the best examples of real-time marketing in any media.

Technology and digital media companies showed up en masse. All around the hubs of Cannes – the Palais convention center and the central Croisette boulevard – the main brands on display included Spotify, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Pinterest, the Mobile Marketing Association, and others. Yachts along the marina sported the flags of Celtra, True[x], Vibrant Media, Mail Online, Pandora, and the Mobile Mafia (I’m an informal member of the last one, but if I tell you about it – well, you know the rest). Traditional media brands were far harder to spot. Anecdotally, most of the people I spoke to focused on digital marketing, whether a buyer or seller, were attending for the first time.

I’d expect a sizeable number to return. For all the yachts, 500-Euro oversized mojitos topped with firecrackers, and late night wanderings through the crowd spilling out of the renowned meeting place known as Gutter Bar, Cannes is not just a creativity showcase but a technology showcase. For those at technology companies, there’s a simple way to determine if it makes sense to send people to Cannes next year: browse through the Cannes Lions entries and see if your product or service can help marketers win one of those Lions in the future. If so, stock up on seersucker because many marketers attending Cannes will be receptive to hearing more.

 

 

What Gary from Veep Can Teach You about the Future of Marketing

Are you a Veep fan? If not, you should be, as this is the show that will teach you everything you need to know about the next trillion-dollar idea in marketing and technology. Or something like that.

The polished, edited version is in Ad Age. My draft is below for your reading pleasure.

Why Garyoke is Marketing's Holy Grail

If you’re an HBO subscriber or pirate, then you may enjoy watching one show because of how it depicts one awkward nerd’s attempt to change the world with a billion-dollar idea. That show, of course, is “Veep,” and the nerd is Gary, played by Tony Hale. What, you thought it’s “Silicon Valley”?

“Veep” shows the real vision, and Gary embodies the dream of so many entrepreneurs and venture capitalists right now. Gary is the title character’s body man, the one who has everything for the Vice President the moment she needs it. What’s most impressive about him, though, is his memory. He knows at least some salient information about everyone his boss has ever met or could meet. Just as she makes eye contact with another person and needs to greet them, Gary literally whispers their name and their most important personal or professional details into the Vice President’s ear. It’s a game affectionately or mockingly dubbed “Garyoke.”

Don’t mock Garyoke. The most literal embodiment of Gary-oke today is Google. Most importantly, it’s where Google is going, not what Google has been. If Google continues to be one of the world’s successful companies into the 2020s, it’s because it will have mastered Garyoke.

For Google, search may keep bringing in revenue, but it’s a dated model. Every time someone enters a search query, it’s a technological failure. If Google and other tech and media companies were that impressive, they would deliver information before anyone has to ask for it. If I’m searching for Mother’s Day gifts, it’s because I didn’t receive any gift recommendations via email, ads, app alerts, or my friends on Snapchat. If I’m searching for information stroller-friendly museums in New York City, it’s because no one picked up on my shifts in digital behavior that give away that I’m a father on paternity leave. Most searches can be prevented.

Google gets this. That’s why Google Now proactively offers traffic conditions, sports scores, package tracking, and other relevant updates. This is also the promise of wearable displays such as Google Glass, although the technology falls short today. People already search less on mobile devices than on PCs, and Google is so open to disrupting itself that it is trying to obviate searching further.

This isn’t just about Google though. Practically every tech and media company is trying to master Garyoke. Whether the company’s buzzwords involve social, mobile, real-time, native, programmatic, or wearable, some version of Garyoke is the goal.

What determines who wins Garyoke? Here are the three areas where Gary shines, and where his corporate disciples must excel too:

• Timing: Information received late is useless, but deliver information too soon and there’s the risk of irrelevance or creepiness. Gary knows that his boss can’t focus on anything until the moment when she is forced to deal with it, so he dishes out the Garyoke just before she’d get that deer in the headlights look.
  
  
• Context: What kind of information matters? That’s the pitfall of big data; usually, just a few data points matter at any given moment, but it’s hard to know which ones matter unless one has access to a massive amount of data to begin with. Gary is masterful here too. If there’s a Congressman approaching who’s unhappy with proposed legislation, Gary lets her know which bill the Congressman will argue about. If it’s a dignitary approaching her on a receiving line, Gary lets her know about the dignitary’s family or hobbies. Context also shifts based on who needs information. If Gary, heaven forbid, ever quit his job and worked for the minority whip, the new boss would prioritize different kinds of data.
  
  
• Accuracy: The quality of the information is essential. Gary has to be perfect, or his boss won’t trust him. Consumers may be more tolerant of error than the fictional Vice President, but technological Garyoke will only be ready when it’s precise. If I am at the same Internet Week event as you, and an app gives you intelligence on people there with whom you share mutual connections, then the app better be telling you about an agency executive and not a serial killer, or it will make for an awkward conversation (more awkward for you than me; I hear it all the time).

Which companies will master Gary-oke? Beyond Google, many are trying to harness enough social, geographical, personal, commercial, behavioral, and contextual data to make it possible. Foursquare wants to predict which nearby destination you’ll visit or want to visit. Buzzfeed wants to clue you in on what everyone else will soon be talking about. The most successful ad networks will need to more effectively predict your intent. Some apps take a more literal approach, such as Refresh and Tempo syncing with your phone’s calendar to deliver details about people you will soon meet with.

On “Veep,” Gary isn’t always appreciated, and it’s easy to make fun of him. But he’s the only irreplaceable member of the vice president’s staff. That dependability is invaluable, and it’s why any company that masters Garyoke will have staying power.

 

 

 

If Not Nike, Who Will Win the Wearable Marathon?

Here's another byline that I've been delayed in posting. Like other bylines, I've included my original version below; the edition in Ad Age undoubtedly reads better, so you may want to skip ahead to that one instead.

 

FuelBand Won the Sprint, But Here’s How to Win the Wearable Marathon
By David Berkowitz

April 18 wasn’t just Good Friday this year. For many people working on the brand side, it will go down as one of the best Fridays ever. Nike just invented a new Hallmark holiday for marketers, and all they had to do was lay off some their wearable hardware team. While Nike later said it would keep supporting its FuelBand SE model and release new colors, Nike’s longterm commitment to tech hardware seems to be in doubt.

Marketers, how many times have you been in a meeting getting pitched from some agency creative or strategist trying to sell you on some outlandish idea, where the crux of the idea was, “Here’s how your brand can be more like Nike”? Sometimes it’s slide 3, and sometimes it’s slide 93, but it’s always there: that picture of the FuelBand all lit up daring your brand to be as forward-thinking as Nike.

You know what happened to those cutting edge Nike folks? The ones who were always making your brand look bad, assuming your brand isn’t Nike? Many are looking for their next gig.

This must be a come to Jesus moments for Nike. It invented the first household brand name in wearable technology before practically any layman knew what a wearable device was. Having a hot tech product these days for a company that earned $25 billion in revenue in 2013 doesn’t sound like such a bad idea when Facebook is willing to spend nearly $20 billion on a mobile app. Yet Nike couldn’t continue this indefinitely. FuelBand was designed to win the 400-meter dash, not the marathon.

To understand Nike’s challenge, check the Google Trends graph for FuelBand versus Fitbit. Especially interesting is what happened in January the past three years, during the Consumer Electronics Show. Around CES 2012, FuelBand interest spiked, almost keeping pace with the buzz starting to build around Fitbit. Come CES 2013, FuelBand searches were stagnating, while Fitbit was surging and had more than 3.5 times the FuelBand interest. Come CES 2014, Fuelband was cresting from the 2013 holiday season, yet FitBit now had 8 times as much interest. And Fitbit is just one of FuelBand’s competitors.

CES 2014 was a landmark event for another reason. One of the most important announcements there came from Tory Burch, which teased a new accessory collection for Fitbit Flex. Tory Burch is making the Fitbit more fashionable. Nike’s options are limited here, as it must support FuelBand over any other technology. If FuelBand can’t iterate and innovate as fast as other products, then Nike must attach its iconic swoosh to a losing player. Yet Nike is a brand that wants to find the next Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan, not the next Tim Tebow.

What may have tripped up Nike is its own mission statement, which says Nike is here “to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete* in the world (*if you have a body, you are an athlete).” If Nike’s in the innovation business, and its target market is everyone, the FuelBand makes sense. The only way it seems that they could justify shuttering FuelBand is by saying it’s no longer innovative, but I’d argue some aspects of the FuelBand – especially in its design – are far more innovative than Fitbit Flex and other competitors.

What Nike ultimately had to accept is that while it says it’s in the innovation business, it’s mostly in the footwear and apparel business. Every brand grapples with this, where many have these lofty ideals, but consumers are more practical. People can get inspiration and innovation from a lot of brands, from Pope Francis to Google. People can only get those comfortable, well-engineered, swoosh-sporting sneakers from one source.

I’ve dealt with this internally too. During a brand positioning discussion for my agency, one colleague said how we should be in the business of changing the world. And I had to be the jerk who said, “That’s not what we do. We help corporations sell mouthwash, booze, and credit cards.” We have to be honest with ourselves about what business we’re in if we’re going to earn the trust of our customers.

And that, ultimately, is what brands can say to agencies who have been trying to come up with the next FuelBand. It’s the brand manager or CMO who needs to say, “Sorry, we’re not in the innovation business.” Stand up for the business you’re in. There’s no time to humor another agency creative who wishes they were in the business of changing the world.