Dino Baskovic Can’t Lose

Leave it to my ol' boss to remind me, the 35-year-old whipper snapper that I am, to keep on top of nonsensical wacky web fads.

Do you remember that one goofy viral video of the band OK Go on treadmills from a year or so ago?  Their newest installment blows well past it.

Remember when MTV used to have innovative videos like this?  Heck, remember MTV?  Anyway, there is a back story to this Rube Goldberg machine-inspired meme.  Apparently the band was upset when their record label prevented them from earning royalties on the YouTube version of the video if said video was embedded on other websites and not directly viewed on said YouTube.  A recent op-ed by OK Go's lead singer elaborates on the issue.

What makes this new video -- 3.4 million views and counting -- even more intriguing than the last -- only 1.4 milliion views -- is that State Farm subsidized it.  "State Farm," you ask?  Yeah, me too.  Some where, some how, the band and the insurance behemoth made fast friends so that the video would benefit both parties (more coverage at BusinessWeek, Digital Media, Mashable and TechDirt).  Social media circles are buzzing about the secret handshake, whether this is a isolated case of strange bedfellows or a sign of brand synergies to come (State Farm has two subtle placements in the first 60 seconds, then the band thanks them outright at the close).

Business speak aside, it's just a refreshingly cool and creative music video.  Watch it.  Love it.  Share it.  You don't even have to like the music.

Thanks, boss.  I owe you one.

UPDATE: YouTube Darlings OK Go Say Bye-Bye to EMI (Mashable, March 10, 2010)

Five o'clock on Friday.  Quittin' time.  As the TGIF status updates spill all over Facebook and Twitter, I turn to my trusted bourbon of choice, Maker's Mark.

Not that I need a bracer so late in the day.  Then again, the night is young, I haven't blogged in a bit and I need some "spirited" material to end the week.  'Nuff said.

The above billboard photo is borrowed from the Maker's Mark Facebook fan page.  Like most bourbon/whiskey/spirits/beverage brands, Maker's is an active social marketer.  Bill Samuels, Jr., president of Maker's Mark, personally and frequently blogs with new recipes, sampling events and other good reasons to get my butt back to Loretto.  (Last time I visited, I dipped my own bottle in red wax, dined at their downtown Louisville steakhouse and ordered a personalized barrel which awaits my return.)

I am also a card-carrying member of the Maker's Mark Ambassadors -- and that's no joke, they give us business cards.  So when I stumbled on the fan page today, I was pleased to see the Ambassadors in action.  I don't know how this started, but the M.O. is to announce yourself as an Ambassador from where ever you live along with well wishes on their wall.

Now that is grassroots branding at its best -- from the Bluegrass State, no less.  Simple, personal, influential.  I guess all of those holiday tchotchkes they mail each year to Ambassadors pay off.  That, and some consistently good and reasonably priced hooch helps.  So what if Maker's Mark "only" has 40,000+ fans on Facebook, compared to one pickle's 1,500,000+?  Memes come and go, but the marketers will take a smaller but fiercely loyal fan base any day, myself included.

Hats off to you, Mr. Samuels and company.  Online and off, your sense of community is truly on the mark.  And now, I think I'll find myself a rocks glass.

As I browse through some of my favorite all-time Super Bowl ads (and am still torn between "Wassup" and "Gerbils" but that's just me) I can't help but think of all the hubbub surrounding Pepsi's call to sit out this year's ad blitz in place of a philanthropic web campaign called the Pepsi Refresh Project.  The news first broke back in early January (February for some slowpokes) and had me first thinking, "Good for them, why not try?"  Who needs to spend millions of dollars year after year on silly little spots when you can save the world through social media?  From a marketer's perspective, what better brand refresh is there than that?

Fast forward to tonight's game, and I can't help but wonder if Pepsi is wishing they hadn't bucked the trend.  SI writer Richard Deitsch reports that CBS expects record ratings for Super Bowl XLIV.  As Deitsch highlights, it's the first time in ages that both top seeds from the AFC and NFC made the game.  President Obama is part of the pregame show.  The Saints' take their first ever shot at the Lombardi trophy, pre- or post-Katrina, while the Colts aim to secure a dynasty.  And while it's never been achieved, over 100 million viewers may tune in for epic football, The Who and Lady Gaga at halftime and -- o, yeah -- the ads.

Honestly, though, it Pepsi's bet on the big game going to fizzle or go flat?  I can't say for sure.  Nobody can except consumers.  I'm rooting for the socially responsible side of Pepsi but, after recent reconsideration, am befuddled by their brand strategy.  Think about it:

1. It's all about the eyeballs.  Maybe Pepsi figures this won't impact bottom line one way or another.  I call that bluff.  Business is business, nothing personal.  This is one of the biggest TV events each year in the United States.  Tonight's game may be one for the record books.  By all means, seed some good deeds, but explain to me again why you don't want to be party of broadcast history?

2. Videos go viral.  By the way, this is nothing new.  Perhaps Super Bowl ads are horribly overpriced, but so what?  They go on YouTube, are blogged, shared, tweeted, rated, you name it.  They live online forever, their brand messages forever etched into our collective psyches and bemused by Monday morning quarterbacks after many a Super Bowl Sunday to come.

3. Beat Coke.  That's Pepsi's job.  Stave off the imitators, separate fashion from fad (diet, flavored, energy) and out-muscle their biggest competitor.  Oh, and appease shareholders.  That too.  Maybe Coke's current Facebook campaign is their way of playing catchup, but you don't see Coca-Cola backing down on ad spend.  Heck, they even give a 20-second sneak peek of their two spots just for partaking in the promotion.  They can do both, so why can't Pepsi?

Media circles were abuzz over Pepsi's move, and PR nodded its head at the kind of coverage money can't buy.  That was four weeks ago.  Not yesterday's but last month's news. The Refresh Project will live for some time and make the world a better place, I truly hope.  But that's not why I buy soft drinks.

We're just moments away from prime time and the pundits are feverishly postdating their analyses.  Will the experiment work?  We shall see.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I should reveal that I prefer Coke over Pepsi, which has subjected me to near fist fights over the years.  And this is a good time to put down my blog, pick up the remote and join the rest of the world to watch the Saints beat the Colts, 31-24.

This blog is the sole property of Dino Baskovic. Any re-transmission of this post for commercial or personal use without the express written consent of Dino Baskovic is strictly prohibited.  Oh, who am I kidding?

I have a sense of humor.  I really do.  And I, ahem, read the articles.  But why Marge Simpson is posing for Playboy is beyond me.

Maybe Murdoch hopes to rejuvenate the "Simspons" brand.  Or is it Hef hoping to lure Maxim readers back through the rabbit hole?  For that matter, didn't Maxim have the dirt on Marge back in '04, making Playboy guilty of copycat-- er, copybunnying?

CNN sauces it up:

Playboy's lackluster showing as of late can be attributed to two things, [Media Industry Newsletter online editor-in-chief Steve] Cohn said. One, the audience transferred some of their desire for tastefully disrobed women to the Web. Second, Hugh Hefner got old.

"The reason for their audience shift can be seen in Hugh Hefner. I went to college in the '70s and Hefner was in his 40s back then. He was the symbol for what kind of guy I wanted to be," Cohn said. "Now he's in his 80s -- it's hard to identify with someone like that. That's a problem for Playboy."

Almost makes you wonder if a good chunk of the Twitter generation has even heard of Hugh Hefner.  Regardless, it's harmless fun and PEI expects to sell out the issue to honorary citizens of Springfield across the globe.  I will say that, in doing extremely NSFW research for this article, I was impressed to see use of social media tools throughout the site, including a slick AJAX toolbar resting at the bottom of the browser chrome chock full of widgets.  (Ah, there I go talking like a web geek again...)

It plays well for FOX, too.  They shot some carrot juice into a 20-year-old brand competing with the "Girl Next Door" and the rest of the Griffins.  The two shows trade friendly barbs on-air while jockeying for top-of-hour Sunday night slots, and it's fun to watch who's winning (answer: FOX).  Aside from cancelling "Family Guy" twice, taking a chance on Seth MacFarlane proved to be pivotal in building needed street cred for the "fourth" network.  Two decades ago, BBSes were long-living Matt Groening.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation and the voice of Quahog wouldn't be pitching Windows 7.

Alas, at least one blogger agrees with me that another TV mom should be in the spotlight.  God Bless Animation Domination.

Cupertino can't get a break from Greenpeace ever since the controversial NGO won a Webby in 2007 for taking a bite out of Apple's environmental record.

Back in July, Greenpeace ranked Apple lower versus Samsung and Nokia (though higher than Nintendo and Microsoft) in its quarterly "Guide to Greener Electronics" for levels of certain toxic chemicals in MacBooks and other Apple products:

Apple's score remains at 4.7 [out of 10] points but it drops one position in this edition of the ranking to 11th place. All Apple products are now free of PVC and BFRs with the exception of PVC-free power cords which are in the process of being certified. But Apple fails to score top marks on this criterion because it uses unreasonably high threshold limits for BFRs and PVC in products that are allegedly PVC-/BFR-free. The company needs to be commended for running a bold advertising campaign highlighting the green credentials of its MacBooks. Apple still needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management.

CNET News reported that Apple updated its "green" site on Thursday with new information on corporate recycling, greener packaging and even how Mac OS X works with the CPU to save energy between keystrokes.  How Greenpeace will respond is anybody's guess.  Though, one has to wonder: how much longer is Apple PR going to kowtow to these guys?

When light bulbs flicker
Corporate social responsibility, be it charitable works or going green, is no longer a novelty.  These days, CSR is expected.  The dividends are immeasureable in many respects but pay handsomely in others, as companies line up to paint themselves green, blue, pink and red (like Apple does).  Today's consumer wants to know that their purchases will find cures and build schools.  Eco-conscious consumers want carbon neutral, organic, renewable, sustainable.  Oh, and they are willing to pay for it.

But how much homage is Apple willing to pay Greenpeace?  Is Apple afraid of not living up to its promise of being a green company, one that is EPEAT certified six ways from Saturday?  Does Apple fear that it will alienate its core customers if the company doesn't concede to Greenpeace's every finding?  For that matter, is Apple allowing itself to be bullied or just afraid to press back?  And who died and made Greenpeace God?

Perhaps this is classic "no-win PR," a concept I'll address in a future post. Like any company, Apple vigorously defends its reputation and has the numbers to back it up:

• 18th out of the 25 "Most Reputable Companies in the United States" in the Reputation Institute's "2009 Global Reputation Pulse Study";
• second in Cision's "2009 Corporate Media Reputation Index" of U.S. companies; and
• 14th in Harris Interactive's most recent "Annual RQ" summary report.

Averaging the rankings of those three scorecards, essentially the Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch of a company's public image, can be fuzzy math at best, as there is no accepted industry standard.  Still as they say, Apple appears to rank well in the PR department.  Even adding these scores doesn't quite give an accurate depiction of Apple's (or any company's) environmental track record.  In this department, Greenpeace sets the standard, perhaps better than the EPA.  Though I must ask: who governs Greenpeace's market research?  Are their stats impeccable or just reasonably good?  And why did Greenpeace so brazenly take Apple to task like it did in the first place?  I smell an agenda...

Garderning or boxing gloves?
Apple continues to play this hand carefully, but I think it can do better.  Being in PR for 15 years is no lifetime, but I've counseled my share of  clients with targets painted on their backs.  You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em -- and when diplomacy falls off the table, know when to fight. 

Kudos to Apple's new green site.  Well written and designed, it steers clear of the self-congratulatory tone set by most CSR sites and utters ne'er a peep about Greenpeace, as did Apple's old green site.  And if that has Greenpeace seeing "red," then too bad.  With all due respect to Greenpeace, try picking on real targets instead of easy ones for a change.

It was with great pleasure that I picked this piece off my feed reader a few weeks ago.  And I didn't need a Ph.D. in brain science or rocket surgery to read it.

"Gobbledygook" was a popular word with the late E. Zoe McCathrin, my first PR prof back at Kent State.  If you believe in Wikipedia,

[the term] was coined by former U. S. Representative Maury Maverick, then working for the Smaller War Plants Corporation, in a 30 March 1944 memo banning "gobbledygook language." It was a reaction to his frustration with the "convoluted language of bureaucrats." He made up the word as an onomatopoeic imitation of a turkey's gobble.

Zoe loathed technical jargon, such as with the topic of the above reference Times article, and warned me against using it with the press and other audiences.  I've passed this advice along to my own students and clients in the past, as well as offering Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think* as a prime example of how (not) to write technical content.  And I can't tell you how many "best-in-class" press releases hit the wires that still must scrape Dack.com's infamous Web Economy Bullshit Generator.

I hadn't thought much about gobbledygook in years, hoping to have left it behind with the dot-com bubble.  Finding a suitable alternative for the term hasn't been easy, mind you: mularkey, bogosity, codswallop and poppycock are so Depression Era.  Baloney** always wins over.  And just as I'm about to spread yellow mustard on white bread, I get an email from a close colleague earlier this week suggesting I read a quasi-cognascenti's take on "direct customer engagement and influencer-leveraging relations."

Oh, boy.  Better brush off the bogometer.

To my colleague's admittance, the post is riddled with more Web 2.0 technobabble than even I can stand.  Even the title is daunting: "Social Media Smackdown Brewing between Twitterville, Tribalization, Groundswell, Appvertising, and Cause Marketing."  Appvertising?  Appvertising? C'mon, dude, you just made that up.

I don't mean to trash the post.  There are nuggets of wisdom in there for marketers better trying to understand social media.  The comparison between "tribalists, social colonialists and groundswell theorists" just might make for good fightin' words fodder.  Of course, it's hard to take anything off the blog remotely seriously after reading the masthead:

Leveraging the dynamic/symbiotic stability among enterprises, social tribes, and nomads between troughs and peaks in business cycles.

Pardon me while I guffaw.  That means "heartily roar with laughter" for those playing at home.  And how does the author "help teams realize their program’s strategic objectives? Through:"

Optimized Targeting, Tribal-Colonial Relationship Development; Integrated Brand Marketing Partnerships; Market-Media-Internet-Website Metrics and Analytics; Listening and Engagement Research; Social Media Strategy; Content Management; User Experience; Traffic Engineering; SEO; Continuous Process Improvement; Business Analysis and Planning; Project Management; Online Community Direction; Videography; Online Post-Production

Translation: "Hey, Google, please-please-please index me!"

Okay, I've suckerpunched this poor guy enough, and I don't even know him.  In his defense, he produces a decent video series on social media and makes valid points throughout, which is more than I can say about my own blog.  But can we ease up on the self-inflicted SEO, already?  Kinda makes it hard to hold intelligent discussions with other marketers and clients that simply need to make sense of the space.  The gobbledygook's gotta go.

"Omit needless words," says Krug.  I agree.  So did my late PR prof, "Sarto," Mies van der Rohe and Joss Stone if you really break it down.

* Now available on the Kindle.

** Thanks, Rob.

Now that "Rich Uncle Pennybags" is finally open for business, here are my first impressions of Monopoly City Streets:

• Slick interface.  Think "Command & Conquer meets Google Maps."
• Buying the streets I grew up?  Cool.  Rebuilding my old school and childhood home?  Very cool.  Owning high rise condos on Whiskey Island? Now we're talking.
• The fact that no other registered user in the world can touch my properties?  Now that is neat.  Unless of course, they own a bulldozer.
• Sharing my real estate prowess on Twitter, gravy.  Facebook, I wouldn't know...
• The game servers lag a bit and the official blog is a tad preachy, but it's free and I ain't griping.

MCS won't replace the kitchen table.  Sure, I miss my thimble, but that's not the point.  This isn't "online" Monopoly, which already exists on multiple platforms.  Nor is it a mere transformation of an American classic.  Rather, a transubstantiation of a ageless brand from gaming tradition to global juggernaut. 

Think of it.  Monopolists in Moscow, for example, snapped up parcels along Arbat Street faster than they could say "это очень дорого" within hours of the site going live.  Save the uber-wealthy, Muscovites can barely afford to stare into store windows along Arbat, much less live there.  But as of today, they are virtual landlords, competing with other consumerists around the world in a digital land grab not seen since Second Life.  The economics of EverQuest also come to mind.  Wake up, marketing!  This could be bigger than Mafia Wars, larger than Second Life!  We need banners and apps and contests! 

Maybe I'm wrong.  Second Life did lose luster over time.  Then again, MCS could be the next "next big thing," spawning countless cottage industries and consulting fees. 

That's the marketer in me talking.  What about the consumer?  Perhaps this fad will pass by my next blog post.  Or maybe I get hooked.  Would I pay for premium play?  Will I crave each session as I once did with Scrabulous (now Lexulous) on Facebook?  And this is light years ahead of Lexulous...

Time will tell.  For now, it's fun to frolic in the old 'hood.  Think I'll go grab another green house.

View Larger Map