Every new year is filled with a lot of looking backward (see my own 10 best albums of the decade) and looking forward but not so much focus on the present. I guess the prevailing thought is that the best times are long gone or just ahead of us. Well, this won't be the first (or last) time the prevailing thought is wrong.

Right now is the best time to [insert thing you've been wanting to do.]

Seth Godin decided that today was the best day back in 2007 when things actually seemed pretty good:

Here's a question that you should clip out and tape to your bathroom mirror. It might save you some angst 15 years from now. The question is, What did you do back when interest rates were at their lowest in 50 years, crime was close to zero, great employees were looking for good jobs, computers made product development and marketing easier than ever, and there was almost no competition for good news about great ideas?

Many people will have to answer that question by saying, "I spent my time waiting, whining, worrying, and wishing." Because that's what seems to be going around these days. Fortunately, though, not everyone will have to confess to having made such a bad choice. (read the original)

And he revisited that mentality today on his blog:

The oughts (the "uh-ohs"?) were a tough decade on a macro level. Front page news events will give the textbooks plenty to write about in the years to come.

But on a micro level, on a personal level, this was a decade filled with opportunity. The internet transformed our lives forever. Opportunities were created (and many were taken advantage of). And, like every decade, just about everyone missed it. Just about everyone hunkered down and did their job or did what they were told or did what they thought they were supposed to, and just about everyone got very little as a result. (read the original)

For those of you who like to take your information visually, here's Hugh MacLeod's cartoon in the same vein:

There will never be another time quite like now to launch a new company, quit your job, or be a part of something great. The time to do your life's work is now.

This is it.
Fight like hell.
Happy New Year.

Labels: deep thoughts, hugh macleod, justin mccammon, seth godin

I'm a big fan of the Wall Street Journal. I became addicted to the paper while studying at the University of Northern Colorado. The college of business received a large supply of WSJ's every day and students were encouraged to grab one. I did. Every day. Towards the end of my time at UNC the paper became a talking point at the beginning of most of my classes. Professors were encouraged to use the WSJ as sort of a real-time textbook of sorts to augment what we were learning.

After graduating I was left with a conundrum: how to feed my addiction to the WSJ's reporting without breaking the bank. Subscriptions to the WSJ are prohibitively expensive for someone graduating into a recession with uncertain at best job prospects. So I did what most of my generation does: I went online. That was until I realized that many of the articles I wanted to read required a paid subscription.

Over the next several months I learned to get my info elsewhere--from sources that were free. Then I got an iPhone and installed the WSJ app. I was in love again. That was until earlier this week.

Upon opening the app for my several-times-a-day check of what's happening in the world, I was greeted by a message telling me that the WSJ app was going to a paid subscription model as well.

All of this got me thinking about the relationship between users and a service. Is it better to have more users or the right users? (this statement assumes that those users willing to pay for your service are the right users and that you can't have it both ways, i.e. having lots of users means having many that aren't your ideal user)

Services like the WSJ that have chosen to make users pay for content have seemingly determined that it is better to have the right users...or have they? Perhaps they've simply decided to generate more revenue regardless of whether the people they want reading their content are or not.

On the flip side there are a lot of examples of sources of content that are simply happy to have lots of users. In fact, many major blogs derive part of their value from having such a large and engaged following that is adding comments and interacting with their content.

I'm not sure that either way is right or wrong but I do feel that companies need to be thinking about questions like this when they decide to go to a subscription based model or when they likewise go to a free model. The old method of merely thinking about profits and losses is less applicable today. Today it's about users, engagement and content creation.

So what do you want? More users or the right ones?

Labels: deep thoughts, new business models, wall street journal

I'm not interested in about 95% of everything Hugh Macleod (gapingvoid) publishes. Ironically, it took him publishing an article about how 95% of advertising is dreck to get me to realize that. The 5% that I am interested in is so powerful that I wade through the other 95% to find it. But I'm not here to discuss the merits and pitfalls of following Hugh, well actually, I am, in a way.

There's a fascinating video in Hugh's latest post with Clay Shirky discussing "Gin and the Cognitive Surplus" at Web 2.0 in San Francisco. And this is what really got me thinking.



(read the transcript here)

What Clay is talking about is the shift from media as consumption (i.e. watching TV) to media as producing, sharing and yes, still consuming but to a lesser extent. He estimates that Americans spend 200 billion hours watching TV in an average year. If the whole of Wikipedia represents 100 million hours of human thought then all that TV watching is equal to 2000 Wikipedias being created each year, if all of that time was shifted to something else. Of course, all of that time isn't being devoted to other projects, but even a small shift can create big changes. Think of all the things you see on the internet and wonder "Where did they get the time?" Well, there's your answer.

So back to Hugh, and his 95-5 "dreck intolerance" principle. If we take and combine it with Clay's thoughts, what do we get?

We get people moving away from TV due to the fact that 95% of it is shit, or dreck. We get people moving into other realms, for example the net where 95% of it is still shit, but it's a much bigger pile overall. I don't believe that anyone can claim to even have read 5% of the net. You'd be hard pressed to have even viewed 1% of all of the sites that are out there. Compare this to the fact that most of us have seen 95% of the channels offered on TV (even the obscure cable ones.)

What you get is the internet as a giant filter. There are so many sites you can possibly go to, you can only possibly go to a small handful.

Therefore, you only spend time going to those that interest you.

And thus, the internet filters out the dreck, the boring, the mediocre, even the very good for the most part (look at all those Youtube videos with 10 views.) That is the shift that Hugh is talking about when he discusses what is really killing advertising (as we have known it.) Watch TV for a few hours (as Hugh mentions) do you think any of those ads you saw would garner more than a few thousand views on Youtube, where people have a choice in their consumption? Most likely not. And yet they are still produced because too many people in too powerful a position still believe that the public is a consumer waiting to be force-fed.

Those who understand that every eyeball has a choice, that every input must pass through a filter, that people want to share and interact with what they consume and that modern media consumption is no longer a well-balanced plate but rather a limitless buffet of choices, those are the people who will prosper in the future.

The producers, whether they be ad agencies, bloggers, or something else, who continue to survive on mediocre output will find that their days are numbered.

Mediocre is dying a slow death.
Thanks for taking the time to filter through the dreck and find this post.

Labels: clay shirky, cognitive surplus, deep thoughts, hugh macleod, sunday morning philosophy

Earlier this week the people behind The Pirate Bay were convicted of piracy crimes in Sweden and sent to jail for a year. Of course, the media industry is calling this a big win over illegal piracy of their precious copyrighted materials. I call it delaying the inevitable.

The RIAA, the MPAA, the whomever thinks they should sue the fuck out of their customers next group, you are all sorely short-sighted.

Bottom line: Piracy will continue until legal alternatives are actually useful.

I could drone on about all the bullshit that has gone on with copyright infringment in the last decade or so, but I think we all know the story by now. Instead, I'll try to offer some insight.

Example of the problem:
One of the few shows I watch regularly on TV is Rescue Me. It is easily one of the most well-written and thoroughly interesting shows to be broadcast in a long time, but I digress. I choose not to pay for cable, so I have to rely on streaming internet sources for my Rescue Me fix since it plays on FX. Turns out that some dumbass at the network decided that the streaming episodes on Hulu should come out eight days after they play on broadcast TV.

Eight days.

Now if I'm an avid fan, and I have friends who are avid fans and I want to discuss episodes with them you have completely broken down my means to do so in a timely manner.

So what do I do? I bit torrent the episodes the next day. It takes about 20 minutes to download and I can watch them in HD without commercial interruption. I'd gladly save myself the hassle and watch them on Hulu with commercials, but they aren't available when I want them. So they lose.


Solution:
Make the episodes available online at the same time it is broadcast. Build in a chat room functionality. Get me engaged with other fans. Maybe get advertisers to sponsor special promotions to engage us during the normal broadcast commercial breaks. Make it a community.

Remember how CNN and Facebook teamed up to stream the inauguration with a live chat with your FB friends next to the streaming video? Bring that sort of engagement to TV shows. Let me crack jokes alongside SNL. Let me use your networks so you can more accurately gather stats about who watches your shows (and make nielsen families a thing of the past.)


The alternative is that the big networks drive more and more fans away in seach of better solutions. There is no reason why the big networks shouldn't implement something like what I'm suggesting. In fact, it's in their favor to capture and grow these online communities now before consumers form habits of getting their media fix from someone else.

Think long term solutions. Offer your fans what they want, when they want it.

Obsolete yourself before someone else does.

Labels: deep thoughts, pirates, rescue me, sunday morning philosophy

Yesterday morning I read the superb article "The Quiet Coup" by Simon Johnson in The Atlantic regarding what sort of advice the IMF would give the US about our current crisis if the US actually gave a shit what the IMF thinks. While the article is worth a read for its look at the causes, the current plan and what ultimately must be done in a way I've yet to see articulated, I'll do it the great injustice of paraphrasing: some really tough decisions must be made and the future of the US / financial system will not look anything like the past (if we are to be prosperous again.)

Which brings me to every other industry right now that's crying "Save us! Bail me out too!" This includes advertising. We've all see the layoffs, from varying degrees of intimacy. Surprisingly enough, it was harder for me to watch eight dedicated people get their walking papers one afternoon and be asked to leave the building than it was to see 300 people be told their areas would be shut down by the end of the year.

But here is where I feel The Atlantic article's advice meets the advice that everyone, from Timothy Geithner to your local ad shop's CEO, needs to hear: some really tough decisions must be made and the future of your organization cannot look like it has in the past if you intend to be successful again.

I think that's the hard truth that few are embracing right now. Sure, you can make layoffs and cut costs here and there and limp along until "this thing turns around" (if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that I'd have enough to turn this thing around.) Or you can act boldly. Act offensively not defensively. Instead of reacting to the pressures of the outside economy create your own success.

This gets to a personal mantra of mine, a pet peeve in a way. Anytime someone says "good luck" I'm always tempted to say "I hope luck has nothing to do with it." That's because relying on luck is a really shitty way to go through life. That basically gives you an excuse for anything that happens to you and absolves you of all personally responsibility for the course of your life. Bullshit. I believe we create our own luck. When you work your ass off, suddenly you seem "luckier" you know why? Because you are creating new opportunities for yourself rather than sitting back and hoping that by some cosmic occurrence you get exactly the outcome you want.

And it is from this belief that I offer this advice to agencies or business or individuals everywhere who are willing to listen: go forward boldly.

Take risks. Fail boldly. Succeed boldly. Reinvent yourself. Do not remain static. Do not recoil into the fetal position and hope this all blows over. You will not emerge stronger on the other side if you emerge that same as you went in.

There is a need for [insert your service here] but that need is not fixed. It's dynamic and ever changing and so you must be as well. If you're not obsoleting your own business model every few years you should be very afraid. Because someone else will.

And there you have it. My Sunday Morning Philosophy for you. Let's hear your take in the comments.

Labels: deep thoughts, justin mccammon, sunday morning philosophy

What’s the best way to develop new talent in advertising? Current thinking says that aspiring creatives should get an internship to get some experience under their belt, but is there a better way? A way to benefit agencies AND young talent? Dave Trott over at CST thinks creative youth teams are the way to go. It goes something like this: decent sized agencies (and arguably this is only possible in medium and large agencies) have a junior and a senior creative department. The junior department serves several purposes:

One, it puts heat under the senior department. The juniors are hungry to make their mark and willing to put in the long hours necessary to take their work to the next level. This in turn puts pressure on the senior team to bring their “A” game because if they don’t there’s a junior waiting to step up at a moments notice.

Two, the agency gets a talent at a reduced cost. Obviously the juniors won’t make as much as the senior team, but they will make a decent wage. They might have to pick up a weekend job (when they aren’t at the agency), but they aren’t working for free.

Three, the young creatives benefit because they get full-scale real work, not just scraps. Too often interns get table scraps from the other creatives instead of getting the true real-world experience. The regular creatives keep certain work for themselves, which is fair in an internship situation, but it doesn’t give the maximum experience to the intern.

Four, the agency has a unique edge to pitch clients. They have a youth team that is a little younger than most creatives. A little edgier. A little hungrier. A little closer to “the streets.” This sort of thing can become an asset when pitched to brands looking for that youthful vigor. And a lot of brands are looking for some youthful vigor these days.

Five, the next Alex Bogusky (or insert your favorite creative here) is out there. She might be interning for you right now. Or he might be putting in 14 hour days for your rival across town. Would you know it if they were working for you right now? (every CD reading this shakes their head yes) I don’t think you would. Because that is the inherent problem in most unpaid internship programs. They only get scraps of real work so their chances to shine are reduced. They aren’t paid, so most have to hold down second or third jobs to afford to give you a couple days a week for free, so they can’t always give you as much time as they’d like to. Sure, these could be viewed as excuses a lazy young creative would give. But if you think highly enough of them to bring them on for an internship in the first place, why not maximize their chances of showing you their greatness?

Where do internships fit in? Reserve them for those currently in school at the junior / senior level or as a short term trial before becoming joining your junior creative team (after all, someone has to put pressure on the junior team.) Let them get some scraps of real work, but also give them some full campaigns (even if it’s not real work) so they can show their skills. It’ll help you better evaluate whether to offer them a junior position or not.

I know a lot of agencies have junior creatives. But why not expand it into a department, complete with a junior CD? Why not leverage it as an asset rather than making it a place for the overflow from the senior creatives? Why not light a fire under your senior staff? Why not push your agency to be better?

Labels: aspiring creatives, deep thoughts, rants

With the onslaught of "new media" solutions being developed by ad agencies blurring the line between agencies and places like Disney, Google and Apple, are ad agencies really just that-advertising agencies? Are they something more? Something less? Creative companies? Is it all just semantics? I ponder these thoughts a little bit over at Karsh\Hagan's blog, give it a read and chime in with your thoughts.

Labels: deep thoughts, karsh hagan, the future of advertising

Why do some great ads go unnoticed and other seemingly lesser ads win gold the world over?

That's the question posed by Lunar BBDO as they try to figure out why this ad didn't get much notice at all:



While another one (which is so basic and mundane I don't even feel like posting it) wins big.

It's an interesting thought, and makes you wonder just how much of this whole advertising thing is really just chance.

See their full take on these ad at: If this is a blog then what's Christmas?

Labels: deep thoughts, great ads, lunar bbdo

Lunar BBDO puts forth an interesting thought: for much of recent history analogies have been looked down upon in ads, sort of a second class. But now they seem to be everywhere, winning awards and hearts left and right. Is this the result of globalization of brands or award shows (or both)? They also offer a few great examples of ads using analogy, including Cadbury's gorilla, which I bet you haven't yet watched today. I won't steal their thunder, so check it all out here: Analogy Schmanalogy.

Personally I see it as not only a reaction to globalization, but also a way to break through the clutter (pardon my cliche). It's seems easier to find a "I've never seen that before" kind of concept in the world of analogy (like a gorilla playing drums, for instance). What do you think?

Labels: deep thoughts

Brandweek has an interesting article from Brad Nierenberg and Charlie Jones about how only 15% of brand managers actually get it. It being what it takes to make great advertising. An excerpt:

Here's a little something to chew on: The agency universe is suffering a rapidly declining population of managers who get it. In fact, on average, we submit that only 15% of all agency people actually get it.

So, what is a get-it person? Because, regrettably, there's no official ID card for certified members, the task falls to brands to pick them out. It's actually not that difficult. Use our handy guide and start right now. Fifteen percenters add value to strategic and creative discussion, but also translate creative thinking into business constructs. Fifteen percenters work effortlessly with a mix of ideas that are both highly logical and analytical (business analytics, quantitative), and talk about more abstract ideas (customers emotional need states, creative voicing).

Read the full article to understand the traits of 15%ers. (via Adpulp)

Labels: 15%, brandweek, deep thoughts

Lunar BBDO poses an interesting question: Should writers get "professional" help to aid their writing? They note that most other professions use specialists for specialized tasks but copywriters rarely turn to comedians to humor things up or other experts to help achieve whatever tone / style is desired.

I suppose one way to look at it is that copywriters are the specialists since writing for advertising is different than other forms of writing. But would a TV writer help you do a better commercial? I don't know. Thoughts?

Labels: copywriting, deep thoughts