Oden

Risk is an inherent part in any promotion, no matter what media you’re using (e.g., TV, radio, direct mail, e-mail, website, social networking), so it is incumbent on you, whether you are a client or an advertising agency, to know your promo. Just because you farm it out to the “professionals” does not mean you have eliminated any potential damage to your brand if things go wrong.

Dr Pepper’s recent Facebook promotion is a good case in point.

As brand consultants, we all want to produce the most engaging promotions incorporating social networking, as well as other channels. We want to smell like a man while generating brand awareness and sales. At the same time, we need to make sure both client and agency understand the risks and implications associated the media, technology, design, messaging, audience, and distribution methods we choose for a promotion, not to mention the legal complexity that may be involved.

Remember, there are no dumb questions, just those that go unasked. What is more important, the perception that you are cool and edgy, or protecting your brand by asking a couple of simple questions?

If someone at Dr Pepper (Coca Cola) had asked a couple of simple questions, they could have saved a lot of time, money, and embarrassment. Unless they subscribe to the theory that any publicity is good publicity!?!

Thomas Cook’s requested signing-on fee has advertising agencies crying foul. Although the request is a little more blunt, how is it too terribly different from requiring spec creative? I know they are wanting cold, hard cash up front for the privilege of working on the huge media account, but why the shock? 

I’m not saying asking for what most would consider a bribe is acceptable; I’m just saying it is merely one step up from asking for free work (e.g., spec creative). 

We get paid for our ideas and execution because each has value. If we agree to give away ideas to one client that another client would pay for, aren’t we offering the client a bribe? Maybe not on as grand a scale as what Thomas Cook is looking for, but a financial incentive to say the least. 

Again, I’m not condoning a sign-on fee to work with a client, but I wouldn't be paying the fee unless I got the work. When you agree to do spec creative for an RFP, you still may not get the account.

I hope other business owners (that’s right, it’s a business) learn an important lesson from Dan Gilbert. Font selection can be just as important as the business communication itself. If you want your “written” communications to be taken seriously and have the most impact on your audience, make sure you think about the font you select. Don’t let your font selection overpower, outshine, diminish, or dilute your message.

If you need help, Font Conference will give you a humorous look into the world of fonts.

(Not responsible for any advertising or adult language that may accompany this College Humor video posted on YouTube.)

Read more about how Ford and General Motors are reducing their carbon footprint. Or read an article published by the Hartford Business Journal Online.

While both companies are making more efforts to become eco-friendly and help reduce waste, I'm sure it tremendously helps market their brands and make them stronger.

What do you drive? With the exception of a hybrid, is it green? How is the automaker of your vehicle reducing its carbon footprint?

In a sometimes brutally competitive industry where some clients request spec creative (i.e., free work) along with all ownership rights to any materials submitted, and many firms are willing to do whatever it takes to get their foot in the door, it is refreshing to see a client RFP that financially rewards the top contenders for their ideas. According to Adweek, Prudential Financial has narrowed their search down to 3 contenders, and each will be paid significant fees (a couple of hundred thousand) for their creative contributions. Thank you Prudential for recognizing that a branding firm’s ideas submitted in response to an RFP have significant value, even if they don’t come from the brand consulting firm that was awarded the business!

You have the next big product, and it’s about to have the biggest launch ever, but it has a small problem. You can’t hold it in the way that seems most natural.

The world prepares to recognize the 1-year anniversary of the death of one of the world’s most influential entertainers of the past 50 years, who also has a nickname…the Gloved One.

These two seemingly random/independent events occur within the exact same week and almost on the exact same day.

What are the odds?

The Apple iPhone 4 debuted in homes, offices, and stores on Thursday, June 24. Reports started hitting the Internet early that reception was weaker when the new phone was held with the palm if your hand versus being placed on a surface and dialed. Apple did release a statement that "Gripping any phone will result in some attenuation of its antenna performance, with certain places being worse than others depending on the placement of the antennas. This is a fact of life for every wireless phone," and “If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use one of many available cases."

The anniversary of Michael Jackson's (the King of Pop) passing was on Friday, June 25. Michael was known for making wearing a single glove a global fashion craze.

How strange is it that a pop superstar’s fashion statement of the past could be one solution for Apple’s antenna problem? Stranger still is the fact that there is an iGlove already in existence. Time to dust off the patent paperwork and start production.

Eerie marketing strategy or just strange coincidence? Before you pass judgment too quickly, remember the Nike commercial with Tiger’s dad?

I’ll let the marketing conspiracy theorists separate fact from fiction.

Once upon a time in the not so distant past (20 or 30 years ago), there were no smart phones, no digital cameras, no writable CD/DVDs. You may have had a computer at work, but more than likely you had a terminal connected to a mainframe, a word processor, or a typewriter; Al Gore was still in love with Tipper and working on creating the Internet; and your choice of television channels was limited to 4-6 different stations.

Back in the day, plagiarism took some effort. Your sources were very limited. You could use your newspaper, encyclopedia, or your family’s copy of Time, Life, or National Geographic magazine. If you didn’t have access to any of those sources at home, you would have to venture out to your local library, and you would have to lug all of your pens, pencils, notebook paper, tracing paper, and other materials with you. It was a very labor-intensive process. You learned early on from parents, teachers, and mentors that copying someone else’s work was wrong, a form of cheating, and sometimes illegal.

But today there are “adults,” young adults, and teens that grew up during or after the consumer-technology revolution. Many have had cell phones, computers, printers, cable/satellite television, and the Internet most of their lives. School projects, book reports, term papers, research papers, arts and crafts, illustration, design, writing, architecture, engineering, journalism, television… are all just a couple of clicks away.

In a world where content is king and everyone is being judged on speed and efficiency, is it any wonder that copy-n-paste has become an alternative to hard work and creativity? Have we become so politically correct that when little Jane has clearly copied someone else’s work, we turn a blind eye so that she feels good about herself, and hope that she learns right from wrong later? Is this “someone else has already said it or done it, probably better than I could, and the clock is still ticking, so since it will let me copy it, it must be OK for me to use it as my own” mentality more prevalent in one generation over another? Is copy-n-pasting someone else’s intellectual property just becoming more acceptable?

The sad truth may be that until it directly affects our wallet, we can afford to look the other way, and it is probably not as generational as you might think.

Brilliant minds may go to waste the more they rely on copy-n-paste!

Aretha Franklin said it best: "Think."