About Jaffer Ali

Originally posted at MediaBizBloggers.com

You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. – Steve Jobs

Simplify…simplify….simplify. - Henry David Thoreau

I read an interesting blog post by Uwe Hook on the biggest challenge facing agencies. Succinctly put, he suggested that keeping up with the overwhelmingly fast pace of change was the number one problem facing advertising agencies.

On first blush, it is hard to argue that the dizzying pace of change creates challenges, anxieties, insecurities and a host of other maladies that can block the flow of success. But I would like to suggest something else to seriously consider. An epigram by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr gave rise to this short essay; “Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.”

Aside from making my high school French teacher soar with pride, the above translates to “The more things change, the more they are the same thing.” And the two quotes at the beginning from Steve Jobs and Henry David Thoreau were chosen because they represent the same meme, even though separated by more than 200 years.

Technology changes quickly. Thirty months ago, the iPad did not even exist. Now that is technological adoption in blazing fashion. This essay is not about slowing the pace of change. This is not my point.

But consider that Thoreau spoke of technological change back in 1850 and Uwe Hook posted a blog that Henry David could have written more than two centuries ago (reread Walden if your doubt me.) My guess is that 200 years from now there will be a new thinker extolling the virtues of simplicity.

We too often believe that our technological tools transform human nature. We get trapped into defining ourselves by our tools and lose sight of the fact that human nature remains as it has for thousands of years. In fact, we are so distracted by technology that we forget about what makes us human. And that has not changed.

So our biggest challenge is not keeping up with technological changes, but sifting through the noise to understand that our essence has not changed. Yes, we have Facebook, Pinterest, Big Data, iPads and probably many new things that have not hit my radar yet. And all of these technological changes distract us from how human nature essentially remains unchanged.

And what does that mean for the agency? For the marketer? For the educator? For our society?

When we forget that human nature is the same, we begin to place inordinate attention on our tools to the detriment of thinking about people. This is the danger that many fall into. The rush to understand technology distracts us away from placing people first.

So in the classroom, we obsess about our tools and spend less time understanding what makes us human. Agencies rush to adopt the latest technology-du-jour so much so that they have lost sight of human motivation. We chase our tools like a cat chases string. This means chasing string becomes an end in itself.

With so much pressure to stay abreast with new technologies, there is a cost. Our ability to see into the human heart becomes vestigial. What agencies, educators and businessmen of all types need to do is to make technology serve what makes us human. Instead, I fear it is the other way around.

Share/Bookmark

“Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.” – Lord Acton

I waited a week before I decided to write about today’s topic. The idea that I read as many online industry trade publications as I do and have not read a single word on this point astounds me. The source was not some “conspiracy” site, but rather The Legal Times Blog. The article was short and I encourage all to click here to read it.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed suit to compel the government to tell us about the deal Google has made with the NSA concerning the information they are collecting on us. The government’s position is that it’s really none of our business.

I have written extensively about the collusion between government and corporate data hoarders. I need not go into that here. The real point of taking to the keyboard is to chastise our industry trades for a job poorly done. Amidst all the privacy talk, how much has focused on the unholy alliance between Google and the government?

If I am to be kind, I will say, “not enough”. But if we are honest, we can conjure a raft of epithets that come much closer to the mark. I accuse our industry trades of malignant neglect. The privacy debate is incomplete without addressing collusion between “Big Data” and Big Government.

And in the rare instances when the topic arises, some “enterprising” mouthpiece for “Big Data” will invariably go on the attack by labeling the whistleblower a “conspiracy, tin-foil hat aficionado”. I have personally brought this issue up in two high profile industry discussion groups comprising self-professed industry leaders.

With the exception of only a few, the issue did not resonate. I guess it was not deemed important by the trade publications. The trades exist to inform us on important issues that affect us, yet the ongoing collusion between “Big Data” and the NSA has not made the headlines. Are these trades de facto tools of these unholy alliances? Not sure. Perhaps the answer lies in an analysis of whose advertising dollars are at play.  Or, maybe the industry trades are not tools, but merely fools.

So often I have felt like Brando in the Wild One. When asked, “What are you protesting?” He answered, “What have you got?” I don’t write as much as I used to. I am tired. It sure would be grand to see a few younger people in our online industry pick up the torch and defy the darkness.

Share/Bookmark

Re-syndicated from MediaBizBloggers.com

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. —Edward Bernays

My last essay on the fourth estate garnered more feedback than I have had in a long time. People sent me email generally praising the notion that something is not quite right with the state of journalism and our mainstream media (MSM).

So I decided to continue the theme. The quote that begins today’s essay comes from Edward Bernays. Have you heard of him? If you are a media professional and have not heard of him, our problem as a nation begins here. We all need to learn the history of the profession in which we operate.

Bernays is the father of modern-day advertising and public relations. He also happened to be the nephew of Sigmund Freud. He wrote a book, Propaganda. Back then, the term “propaganda” was not a negative term. It was not until after WW II and Nazi Goebbels set out to systematically apply the principles outlined by Bernays that the term took on negative connotations.

By the way, before you start thinking that Bernays was some kind of right-wing yahoo, he was a liberal in the Rooseveltian sense. Once one really dives down into media criticism, you discover that conservative/liberal labels do not really matter.

Last week an expose came out on the BBC. You probably did not hear about it, but it was significant. The Independent broke the story how documentaries were produced by production companies receiving millions of dollars from the subjects of the films. Egypt’s Mubarak paid a production company to tout how great he was and the BBC hired this firm to make a documentary on Egypt.

The Independent discovered 13 such propaganda films made in the past year. The BBC was forced to issue a global “apology” for breaking editorial rules. This is a big story and ask yourself, “why didn’t you know about the story?”

I spend a lot of my time reading alternative media sources. And I try to understand history in a different light ever since reading Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the US.” But a recent PBS documentary, “Slavery By Another Name” shocked me. After the 13^th amendment was passed making slavery illegal, a little known exception in the amendment made slavery legal if one was imprisoned.

So “peonage laws” were passed throughout the south that made many cultural practices that blacks normally did illegal. The result? Hundreds of thousands of blacks were imprisoned and then their services sold to coal mines, steel mills and other businesses.

How is it that this shameful chapter in history is not known by every grade school child? Instead, we get a day off in grade school honoring Columbus, who raped, murdered and pillaged from the native population amidst landing in the New World.

You see, our history books are part of the MSM and they serve a real function of fostering myths. Propaganda by another name.

I have never voted Republican NOR Democrat so I am no party hack. But if you have not noticed how the MSM treats Ron Paul, you are simply not paying attention. Here is just one line from the MSM LA Times trying to marginalize Ron Paul,

As usual, he ranted about monetary policy and railed against wars and other military operations abroad. —Kim Geiger, LA Times, 2/4/2012

But where the MSM particularly shines is in its full throated calls for war with Iran. Lost amidst the rhetoric is the fact that Iran has not attacked another country in more than 300 years. It has oil, which we all know, but no longer accepts dollars to settle oil sales. This fact coupled with what that means evades discussion.

On the Morning Joe (2/15/2012), the normally antiwar Al Sharpton was trotted out at 5:30 AM to lend his voice to the cause of war. The MSM needed Rev. Al to shepherd his flock or constituency to the cause of war. We are being manipulated into supporting war.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” —Edward Bernays

The BBC was caught being subsidized by propaganda agents. The Bush Administration was caught paying Armstrong Williams to go on MSM outlets to promote education policies. They also were caught paying generals to write and appear on MSM outlets touting war with Iraq. The MSM gives the platform…for a price as they are secretly subsidized by government agencies. That is how they are surviving the huge erosion in audience and not just in the US as the BBC and the Dutch MSM shows.

If you have read this far and are asking “so what” then you need to understand how critical it is for governments to grab control of information. And that means the Internet. The MSM is losing its grip. Ron Paul’s campaign demonstrates this point well. The MSM continued declining audience when it comes to news is losing to alternative information sources. This is the real intention behind SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. Beware of what new alphabet soup will soon be served to you.

Share/Bookmark

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
—John Swinton, 19^th Century NY Times journalist**

The recent SOPA legislation had another purpose other than protecting intellectual property. It really was a thinly veiled attempt to control our information ecosystem. Our MSM is relatively easy to control. You see, contrary to what most of us grew up believing, mainstream media exists largely to promote the prevailing power elite.

Everyone knew that the old Soviet Union’s largest newspaper, Pravda (the Russian word for ‘truth’), existed to promote the Communist’s party’s central committee wishes. Everybody knew this in the Soviet Union as well as the West. There was no illusion of a free press.

If I may, a personal anecdote will illustrate the point even more clearly. I was born and raised in Chicago most of my life. When I was ten, my folks figured I should learn more about the language, religion and Palestinian culture so they sent me to live with my grandparents on the West Bank. It was 1966 and the West Bank was administered by the King of Jordan.

I was not thrilled to go because among many reasons I was going to miss watching Gale Sayers run through NFL defenses. But I remember a talk my father gave to me that would not make sense for many months. My father, knowing even at ten that I was a bit precocious and loose-lipped, sat me down and said something to the effect, “Son, you have to watch what you say when you get to Jordan. It is against the law to say bad things about the king.”

My aunt was the number one radio news broadcaster for all of Jordan. She read the news in English and it was broadcast all over Jordan and Israel. She lived with us too. More on this in a bit.

One day my grandfather took me to the doctor in Jerusalem. As fate would have it, a huge demonstration against the King was taking place. Arab Spring reminded me of this event in my life. In between Jerusalem and the village where we lived, there was a huge park festooned with the King’s crowns everywhere.

Trying to get home was a nightmare. The King had called up tanks and the entire army was mobilized as he was worried that a revolution was about to take place. All movement from village to village was restricted, but my grandfather asked the taxi driver to continue until we got to the park where the main concentration of tanks were.

All of the King’s crowns were torn down and crowds were chanting anti-King Hussein epithets. The army was not supposed to let anyone through the road block, but my grandfather was an American citizen and showed his passport. They finally, after four hours let us through.

We listened to my aunt’s broadcast later that evening. Not a single word of the massive protests was uttered on air.

Fast forward to 1967 and the “Six-Day War” ensued. My aunt was given scripts to read how the Arab armies were marching on Tel Aviv. She was in Jerusalem, gun shots could be heard everywhere. But she kept broadcasting how Israel was soon to be but a memory. A soldier came into the station who looked worried.

She yelled, ‘what’s the matter with you’ in Arabic. She was puzzled that he did not seem to understand her. So she tried English. This he understood. He pointed the gun at her and told her to leave. Yep, he was an Israeli soldier. She had been reading how swimmingly the war was going and here was an Israeli soldier capturing the station.

My aunt laughs about it now as she lives a retired life in suburban Chicago. But the two events at an early point in my life made me more skeptical about the role of the press in a society. If you lived in the Soviet Union or the Middle East, it is no tin-foil hat conspiracy to recognize the verity of John Swinton’s quote. At times, the elite tell us the truth, but it is buried in a sea of trivial information. Here is a precious quote:

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
—William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy

Was Colby lying or posturing? Was he donning a tin foil hat? One of America’s great novelists/journalists was Upton Sinclair. He wrote a little known book that he made available for free called The Brass Check. It was an early 20^th Century expose on how US journalism worked. If you are a journalist and have not read this, shame on you. He wrote:

“The methods by which the “Empire of Business” maintains its control over journalism are four: First, ownership of the papers; second, ownership of the owners; third, advertising subsidies; and fourth, direct bribery. By these methods there exists in America a control of news and of current comment more absolute than any monopoly in any other industry.” – Upton Sinclair, The Brass Check***

No doubt defenders of “the fourth estate” will point to great muckrakers to prove the point of a vibrant press. But the exceptions do not prove the rule. If you are a Ron Paul supporter, much of the above already rings true as he is often odd man out of discussions…unless you follow the most trusted man in news, comedian Jon Stewart.

This brings us back to SOPA. It is my contention that the Internet’s expansion caught the elite flat-footed. As more and more people got their information from the Internet, the stranglehold of the MSM was loosened. The “empire of business” lost control of how mythologies could be maintained and promoted. So how could the elite grab control of the Internet? See SOPA and other similar campaigns down the road.

**Labor’s Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)

*** The Brass Check was a slang term referring to a way in which prostitutes were paid. Upton Sinclair wrote the book of the same title that was self-published and made available to copy free from royalties.

Share/Bookmark

All technological change is a trade-off. I like to call it a Faustian bargain. Technology giveth and technology taketh away…Our unspoken slogan has been “technology über alles,” and we have been willing to shape our lives to fit the requirements of technology, not the requirements of culture. This is a form of stupidity, especially in an age of vast technological change. —Neil Postman

The end of the year is always a time to take stock of the past year and if one is lucky enough to dream, we can slow down enough to wonder in the world of possibilities. As part of taking personal stock, it is fair to say that there are a few recurring themes in what I write.

After a cursory review, a pompous approach to our industry must be admitted. Trying to be more erudite than I actually am is a character flaw that can only be cured through abandoning an ego often running amok. Hopefully 2012 will bring more humility to bear.

Also after reviewing several of past essays, an old speech that Neil Postman gave came to mind. Neil Postman was a media ecologist and wrote about the intersection between culture and technology. The quote at the beginning is a nice summary of his work. It accurately summarizes the binding thread of my essays.

The legend of the Faustian bargain never has the devil [Mephistopheles] outlining the potential dangers of making a pact with him. That makes sense since the infernal region does not have any benefits to sell as the alternative to the supposed advantages. Any overview of our industry trades reveals an unbridled belief in the benefits of technology. Faith in our media and technological prowess has assumed similar irrational impulses worthy of the Heaven’s Gate cult. At minimum, faith in technology has assumed religious zeal.

For my part, transferring faith in a higher power to science and technology has not enriched our beings. As Thoreau said, we have an “improved means to an unimproved end.” For those blinded by their faith in new technologies, they are so enamored with their tools (means) that they rarely contemplate whether the ends are improved. They assume it, but never contemplate.

So what I set out to do in my essays is explain the other side of the Faustian bargain. Our trade publications should be promoting this dialectic. But they are too busy promoting the thesis to be interested with the harmful side of the bargain. After all, our trade publications owe their existence to interests promoting media and technology. Audiences spend ad dollars and fill trade show space. This is only one reason I have never been asked to speak at an industry event. They rather have Mephistopheles extolling the virtues of technology rather than our hubris.

Our industry is chock full of hubris. How, other than hubris, do you explain Google’s Eric Schmidt’s words when he said, “we will be able to predict what someone will search for before they search for it”? Even if it were possible, what are the hazards or costs? How much data on us would be necessary to fulfill this promise? And what costs to our privacy and personal freedom is at risk? How might this information be transferred to a government increasingly interested in our every thought?

So as we move into 2012, yours truly hopefully will strike a more humble pose yet still determined to provide a clarion call to explore how our media and technologies have another, yes darker side. I am no Luddite and believe we should not eschew technology reflexively. We just should not accept it reflexively. Let’s use our media and technology wisely. Otherwise, we will be the ones used.

Have a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.

Share/Bookmark

We cannot banish dangers, but we can banish fears. We must not demean life by standing in awe of death. —David Sarnoff

Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens was not one of my favorite journalists/authors, as he moved from being an avid devotee of Trotsky to an outspoken neo-conservative warmonger. But I did read what he had to say. So when I came into the office and read that he had died of esophageal cancer after a one and a half year battle, many thoughts came to me.

You see, one year ago I, too, was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. It’s a particularly nasty form of cancer with an extremely low survival rate. That’s because one is generally asymptomatic before diagnosis, and by then, it has already spread or metastasized throughout the body.

In my case, the cancer was discovered quite by Providence and, thankfully, in its earliest stage. Last week, one year after initial diagnosis, I was deemed cancer free. I still live with the specter of its return and the anxiety that accompanies semi-annual endoscopic exams, but fear is not what controls my life. As I read about Hitchens, my mind drifted to the way so many people live their lives in fear.

I am not speaking about soldiers, but every day people in every field of endeavor. Subordinates live in fear of their bosses. Bosses live in fear of failure. We actually live in a culture of fear. I happened to chance upon a Republican debate and heard Newt Gingrich spreading his fear meme as to why the Patriot Act is such a good idea. And if you think Obama is above peddling the meme, one need not look further than his insistence that habeas corpus and the fourth amendment be abandoned in the recent National Defense Authorization Act. [Obama insisted that the government have the right to imprison US citizens INDEFINITELY without trial.]

I always had a distaste of my own fears. Why heights made me dizzy and afraid, I don’t understand and can’t explain. But it didn’t stop me from parasailing 4 times and taking an extended hot-air balloon ride. And I think facing the odds of esophageal cancer makes me qualified to speak about fear in a new way. In fact, I now believe I can sense fear in others almost immediately.

A personal confrontation with death is an existential experience, often resulting in a heightened awareness of, appreciation for, and patience with the fears in others.  The exact opposite occurred with me. Now when I speak with media buyers, I smell the fear as they try to ponder a new idea I might float their way. The online media ecosystem has such a smell of fear that I am repelled by its stench.

I belong to a few discussion groups. Fear rules the day, dominated by the safety of convention.  Case in point, I recently spoke with an executive at ABC that I have known for a very long time and he mixed fear with stupidity – a devastating one-two punch – to tell me he was just responding to what his clients were asking for, regardless of whether or not it made any sense.

I believe that fear can destroy the soul. And mixed with stupidity, it destroys initiative. It destroys creativity. It destroys innovation. In Dune, they said “fear was a mind killer”. Many people use “mind” and “soul” interchangeably. Mind is a secular version of soul.

If you are a businessman trying to overcome fear in the marketplace, what do you do? A natural impulse is to use reason to overcome fear. But this rarely works, because more often than not fear trumps reason and rationality. In fact, most emotional impulses trump reason and rationality. But many irrationally continue to use what they think is “reason” to overcome the mind killer despite its proven ineptness.

Some sales technicians suggest imparting even greater fear to close the sale. Politicians are experts in this technique. Remember Colin Powell at the UN speaking about non-existent WMDs in Iraq?  Forget for the moment that it was a blatant lie. The purpose was to foster fear, inspired and driven by disingenuous motive. The technique was successful as the nation geared up for a senseless war.

So how can we banish fears as David Sarnoff so eloquently suggested? Few want to face the truth, let alone consider a possible answer. They’re afraid of the answer, and have no faith that they’ll ever find the truth.  But faith can overcome fear, despite being every bit as irrational as fear.  That’s because true faith – in oneself, in others, in a higher calling – is stronger than fear.

I’ve been accused of crossing the line from critic to curmudgeon. I don’t see myself as a curmudgeon simply for suggesting that the emperor is indeed naked. As soon as something becomes widely accepted, Groupthink takes over and we become blinded by a fear of bucking convention.

Online media and marketing has been my profession for the past fifteen years. I have seen so many people paralyzed by fear that I feel pity and aversion at the same time. People often reject mystery, awe and the wonder of possibilities because they fear the uncertainty attendant with them.

My hope is that people can learn to allay their worst fears without abandoning their souls in the process.  David Sarnoff had it right.

Share/Bookmark

Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.
—Immanuel Kant

I write a lot, no doubt about it. In fact, I’ve written more than 250 articles in the past 10 years! That’s a lot of time spent on an avocation that reaches a rather limited audience. And it’s a good bet that a majority of readers loathe what I write, for much of it involves puncturing the latest bubble-headed idée du jour.

Immanuel Kant

The chief reason for me sitting at my computer and staring at a blank page is that the act of articulating my thoughts helps to clarify them for me. Over the years, an almost Socratic process has emerged between my computer and me.

I write mostly about advertising and media issues. As the CEO of Vidsense, a video content network, that only makes sense. On the surface, many of my musings have a “theoretical” flavor. Maybe it’s because I usually incorporate one or two appropriately sage quotes from the thousands I’ve collected over the past 30 years.

Today’s offering from Kant ties in theory and practice, a most humble combination. When I read Kant’s quotation above, I was hit with the realization that while I write forcefully, I probably have not been forceful enough regarding certain themes covered over the years.

What, not forceful enough?

When I surmised on occasion that “content is better bait than ads to deliver audiences to advertiser websites”, was I merely indulging a theoretical assumption? Was it what Kant would call, “intellectual play”? The answer is absolutely and categorically NO! That’s because in addition to a media company we also own a marketing company, so every single thing I write about is “theory” in actual practice.

When I suggest that an invitation to view an ad-free video duet of James Brown and Pavarotti will deliver more people at a better rate than an ad for multi-media speakers, this is not idle speculation. We are doing it, despite the fact that straight DR campaigns are not exactly what we had in mind when we first envisioned our media model. That’s because DR-related ad rates are significantly lower than brand-related rates.

Our media company does not accept outside DR campaigns, preferring instead to use our own content to drive our own campaigns. Simply put, we would rather sell advertising to others than utilize our own media for DR. If you own media, you will understand what I’m talking about. But we are content using what we have absent the brands rushing to us.

If you are a brand or a marketer and are not yet using content as bait to attract and deliver audiences to your own web offerings, you are simply wrong. I might suggest even stupid. Is that forceful enough? In the Pavarotti/Brown example cited above, the average person stayed over 4 minutes on our offer-destination site. A good number actually watched the video multiple times. What is 4 minutes+ of audience engagement worth to a brand?

I used to be intent on promoting a “new” paradigm for the online ecosystem. The idea that content could be used to entice people to click is simple but not so very new. But if I told you how many idiotic agency and CPG folks could not grasp the simple notion that audiences would be happy to consume chosen content on a single sponsor’s branded site, in scale, you would not believe me. Seems like I just crossed the line from forceful to downright rudeness.

The offshoot is that I no longer care whether or not what I write strikes its intended chord with anyone. I write now mostly to vent against convention and to reassert and further refine my own beliefs. To that end, it’s my opinion that online advertising is failing. Despite annual spending increases on Web advertising (that, by the way, do not keep pace with Web growth) our online ecosystem is an unmitigated mess.

We recognized early on that no one wanted more ads, and that the proliferation of millions of new places to avoid them could only lead to one conclusion; using great content, instead of ads, is a much better media currency to sustain attention. Once we switched to better audience bait, we caught lots more consumer fish. It’s really quite simple: Prospects will become customers if you treat them with respect and give them what they want.

I am approaching a point of indifference as to whether or not anyone buys into what I have to say. Common sense and proven performance notwithstanding, I am no longer interested in intellectual play. So, am I right? You decide. In the meantime, we have sales to make.

Share/Bookmark

It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.
— Harry S. Truman

Since 1996, we have run two online businesses simultaneously; a media company selling advertising (Vidsense), and an e-commerce company steeped in direct marketing (PulseTV.com). I haven’t written much about our direct marketing company, generally pushing it to the back of the bus.

Remember these kinds of ads? We're trained to avoid them.

But on my drive into work this morning, it struck me that each type of marketing – brand marketing and direct marketing – actually have a lot to learn from each other. Direct marketing has taken the online space by storm, not necessarily due to overwhelming acumen, but generally as a result of a crushing oversupply of unsold ad space and a “build it and they will come” mentality.

Brand marketers, with their MBAs at the helm, are trying to apply direct marketing principles to online media buying. Generally they are adept at the science of numbers, but only have a passing understanding of what the essential requirements are to master the art of persuasion. In short, these brand marketers often are neither fish nor fowl and aimlessly pursue an objective by numbers devoid of a full appreciation of what it takes to succeed in direct marketing (DM).

So what is the overriding lesson brand marketers can learn from their cousins, the direct marketers?

All direct marketers understand that the real magic of online marketing unfolds on the advertisers’ website.  Let that sink in for a few seconds. In order to consummate the sale, direct marketers want…actually need…to engage consumers on the marketer’s home turf. This is the chief reason the click has become the currency of choice for direct marketers. Other than actual per-sale metrics, the click captures the essence of what DM is all about.

DM companies are not interested in illusory metrics like potential reach, which is the snake oil currently being peddled to brand marketers. Brand marketers and their agencies try to distance themselves from the click because they have no real appreciation for what Bill Bernbach called the environment to buy, that special place where consumer demand and brand message converge.  DM folks may not have heard of Bill Bernbach, but it is they – unwittingly or not – who have embraced his sage advice in the creation of destination pages that engage audiences.

And what are the brand marketers doing?

They are attempting to engage audiences through display advertising – be it on AOL.com, NYTimes.com, or wherever – that no one wants and which everyone is inclined and equipped to avoid, despite the avalanche of data that advises otherwise.  The environment in which brand messages dwell is a cluttered milieu with an average of more than 170 competing links per page*. This is not an environment to buy, it’s an environment to flee.  At best it is an environment to be ignored. DM is all about engaging audiences and turning them into consumers – exactly what a good environment to buy achieves for the lucky brand not mired in its own dead-end inertia.

There are many reading this who undoubtedly question digital’s ability to engender scale.  While this is certainly the case with the prevailing advertising as intermediary model, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Ask Amazon if it scales as a destination site. Also, if large publishers can attract traffic in scale with content so can the brands that foot the bill.

As they say, the answer is in the question, so perhaps we should simply be asking ourselves: Why does anyone visit any website?  Here’s a clue: It’s not for the ads.

All marketing success online may be a simple matter of shifting our emphasis where the magic should occur. The DM crowd already knows this.  Maybe they’re just more circumspect about things because they’re playing with their own money, but one thing’s for certain: Truman’s quotation at the beginning was only half right. It’s actually what we forgot after learning all this new stuff that really counts.

*This figure was calculated by long-time industry veteran, Larry Smith and he coined a clever term, SOX, “Share of Exit” links.

Share/Bookmark

We have discovered that in an on-demand world, no one demands ads and that everyone is equipped and inclined to avoid them.
—Jeff Einstein, Digital Media Pioneer (and friend)

Chart from eMarketer.com

I was having a back and forth discussion about the stress in our advertising and media ecosystem with Stefan Tornquist, the VP of Research at eConsultancy. He is charming, intelligent and articulate. In short, clearly our friendship is an attraction of opposites. I owe the title of this article to his concluding remark to me. As is often the case when we interact, his words reverberated with me long after our encounter.

It took a while before discovering that I disagreed with Stefan. Not because change is unnecessary, but because I have come to the conclusion that our ecosystem needs to be radically restructured. The time for gradual evolution is past.  We cannot evolve out of the mess we are in, we must halt what we are doing ASAP and leap into the solution.  Ah, the old, evolution vs. revolution dichotomy.

Thomas Friedman recently penned an article, Something Is Happening Here. I thank Jason Heller for pointing me to it. Friedman basically outlined two competing views of our economic system. One embraces “The Great Disruption” (GD) and the other places its faith in “The Big Shift” (BS). GD explains cataclysmic change whereas BS describes an evolutionary, gradually shifting world.

Friedman’s article did not speak about a third camp. I will dub this “The Ostrich Camp”. Their heads stuck in the metaphorical sand, they don’t want to acknowledge or actually see a problem. If you are in this camp, move on, for I have neither the time nor inclination to speak to you any longer.

It is true that Friedman was outlining two worldwide political and economic perspectives, and while I have penned many articles on global politics, this article is about our media ecosystem and its own opposing camps.

The BS camp ardently believes that we can fix plummeting relationships between audiences and brands by doing one of the following:

1. Change the size of online ad units.
2. Develop new online metrics, including GRP and TRP (Gross Rating Points/Targeted Rating Points)
3. Continue doing what we are doing, but with improved creative.

I am sure there are more incremental tweaks within the BS camp than those offered here, but they are illustrative of cause and effect reactions at a glacial pace.

Now the GD camp, of which I passionately belong, believes that the first rule in getting out of a hole is to stop digging…immediately if not sooner. We are disrupters who view the ecosystem as existentially flawed.

Let me be as clear as I possibly can. Any “solution” to the stress in the media ecosystem that does not “solve” the fundamental problem of audiences turning away from advertising either consciously or unconsciously is ridiculous. Making “better” ads is a tweak that has limited utility, and reducing ads to limit clutter is nothing more than a confession to failure.

Why?

One is not beating a dead horse to agree with Jeff Einstein’s assertion that no one wants ads and that everyone is equipped and inclined to avoid them.  Similarly, we know with the certainty of e=mc2 (the other Einstein’s sage observation), that everyone wants more information and entertainment.  Geoff Ramsey, CEO of eMarketer has hinted at a way out by coining the term “magnetic content”. Geoff has noted what common sense has told us for years. Audiences are drawn to content and savvy brands are using content to attract audiences.

Now, if you believe that attracting audiences (like a magnet) is better than repelling them with ads, let me welcome you to The Great Disruption. There is a revolution afoot and the BS just won’t cut it anymore.

Share/Bookmark

Where does the bird fly,
After the last sky?
—Mahmoud Darwish, Palestinian Poet

I have flown up like the primeval ones…
I appear in glory with the strides of gods…
As for him that knows this pure spell,
it means going out into the day after death
and being transformed at will.
—Ryewolf, ‘Legend and History of the Benu Bird and the Phoenix’

Trying to make sense out of a troubled media ecosystem, it behooves us to seek answers wherever we can find them. For me, a dyed-in-the-wool direct marketing quant that pushed the limits so hard and far that in Marshall McLuhan’s words, they began “to operate in reverse”, poets like T.S. Eliot, Yeats, Kipling and Darwish, above, have each helped me in different ways. What an odd journey!

In both Islamic and Jewish mystical traditions, there are seven heavens. The colloquial “seventh heaven” is the final destination, if you will. In Buddhist meditation, there are seven layers of consciousness on the road to universal enlightenment, where the seventh level is the field of universal knowledge; “the last sky” so to speak.

Darwish uses “sky” and “heaven” interchangeably, and in Semitic languages they are indeed from the same root. So what is a bird to do after soaring the last heaven? And this ultimately is the question for media and marketing folks. Where do we go after we have explored all of what appears on our horizon? After we have visited the last sky?

For the handful reading these musings of mine, you know that I believe that present online marketing methodologies have hit the last sky. We marketing and media birds have migrated from search to every conceivable targeting methodology. I might have used the metaphor of Dante’s descent into Hell to describe our marketing journey, but I thought the above title was catchier and more hopeful.

Some people misinterpret my writings as gloom and doom. Not true. Only if you want to continue doing what is futile will you find pessimism. But there is a way out. There is a way for this bird to stay aloft and keep flying.

What is needed is nothing short of a transformation. For any that have experienced the ‘pure spell’ of transformation, you know the resulting exaltation. So, what the heck am I talking about?

The present media ecosystem is dysfunctional. We all know that advertisers subsidize the ecosystem. But the ecosystem has become so unwieldy, things have gone terribly wrong. The basic problem is that the relationship between audiences and advertiser has fundamentally eroded.

Media outlets get government subsidies to stay afloat to promote the prevailing political mythologies (see Iraq WMDs as an example).  But audiences are buying the propaganda less and less and fleeing the mainstream media in droves. Advertisers are in a quandary because the media landscape is so complex and fragmented that achieving authentic reach is problematic.

The great “pay wall” debacle attempts to shift the economic burden from advertiser to exhausted and financially strapped audiences. That “sky” did not take long to close. For the past few years, the targeting “sky” has attracted a tremendous flock. The behavioral targeting folks dominated the trades and conferences.

Besides employing voodoo math, targeting methodologies attempt to turn all media into accountable, direct marketing opportunities. But treating all media from a direct-marketing perspective does not scale for advertisers and certainly does not create demand. It relies on existing intent instead of creating that intent. Advertisers utilizing targeting methodologies stalk audiences, when they should be enlisting them in a common cause.

Meanwhile, audiences continue to turn a blind eye to the growing marketing clutter. As we built this on-demand media universe, we discovered that audiences have no demand whatsoever for advertising. Worse, they are repelled by it. The media ecosystem is increasingly stressed because the ‘solutions’ offered usually mean doubling down on what clearly has not been working – more targeting and more ads.

So where do we go from here? How can we rise from the ashes like a Phoenix?

The answer is actually quite simple, albeit transformative. Instead of putting more ads into content, put the content into the ads.  Stop a moment and read that again, and ask yourself:  What is the only reason anyone ever visits any website?  The answer: For the content they expect to find there.  Ergo, instead of using ads to attract audiences, use content instead, and surround the content with the ad! We do this with licensed video clips all the time and make six times more money than we did with pre-roll, which is why we’ve stopped offering pre-roll completely. We have been transformed, so-to-speak.

This can be done with text articles as well. Imagine a Drudge Report headline on “Hairy Ants” going to a Raid website. Audiences don’t care where they consume the content.  They just want it.  Publishers should be bundling audience and content together, and delivering both to advertiser websites.

Imagine giving audiences what they really want – content – and surrounding that content with a brand message.  What a great idea!  Essentially this is how it was done in days of old, back in the early days of radio and television. The role of content was and has always been a means to deliver audiences for advertisers. Somehow, this simple idea has been lost over time.

So where does the bird fly after the last sky? Right back where it started, that’s where.  I have no illusions about the media ecosystem adopting this simple proven solution, because so many are in denial and too busy doubling down on what doesn’t work. In the meantime, if you want to watch a little Hitchcock without an annoying pre-roll, click here. *

*Disclosure- The “advertiser websites” where the licensed video clip and the Hitchcock video are currently playing is owned and operated by a sister company owned by us, PulseTV.com. These were only used to demonstrate how content is used to attract audiences.

Share/Bookmark