Ever since Geraldine uttered the phrase “What you see is what you get,” back in the 70s, and then the late 80s adoption of the same technological standard WYSIWYG for computing, we as consumers have also adopted that philosophy. Companies that provide products and services should be keenly aware that realistic expectations need to be set on the front end so that they don’t get caught up in the consumer backlash from not delivering all that was promised or what we saw was not what we got.

This brings us to an industry in which, not unlike Hollywood, we have to suspend disbelief… fast-food restaurants. I think there is still a little too much “magic” going into food photography, especially when it comes to fast food. Isn’t there a happy medium somewhere between the overproduced food images and the reality of how it is served to us at the restaurant?

Maybe if I saw this,

before I placed my order based on this,

I would have changed my mind!?

How much does the expectations gap influence the experience? A little. Does it affect taste? Not at all. Could it taste better with fresher ingredients? Sure. Are we eating fast food because it is fresh and scores high on presentation? No. We eat it because it’s convenient, inexpensive, and often a tasty, guilty pleasure for us adults.

Maybe today with all the emphasis on healthy foods and eating healthy it is time for the fast-food industry to adopt WYSIWYG. Domino’s took a step in the right direction with their “Photo Promise” and their “Show Us Your Pizza” campaign last year. Who will be the first in the burger world to step up?

I never tried Internet dating. It wasn’t available to me during that period of my life. But, I’m sure you have seen and heard all sorts of horror stories or even jokes about a misleading photo or inaccurate profile description.

So how long has it been since you updated your photo or profile on your favorite social networking site(s)? Will a prospective client, vendor, or employee be able to recognize you out in public based on what you have posted on the Internet? What does that say about your personal brand?

If imitation is the highest compliment, Motorola’s XOOM Superbowl ad is a backhanded nod to Apple’s 1984 Mac commercial. Apple freed us from the tyranny of DOS and its ugly cousins, only to connect us (via nice white earbuds) to chic closed systems singing the siren’s song of retail therapy.

Apple’s 1984 Commercial

Now XOOM will triumphantly arrive on the scene and save us from the evil anti-open-source Mr. Jobs? Maybe… but I have to admit I like the white vs. dark, grungy vs. clean analogies at play here. So what about the messiness of the vast array of Android versions in the wild today, will Google allow that same fragmentation to occur in its tablet OS releases?

Motorola’s 2011 Commercial

Honestly, I would like to own both an iPad and a XOOM. Android holds a lot of promise, just like iOS. But if I had to pick just one…

In a (very) informal poll of friends, wireless “4G” was quickly identified as techno mumbo jumbo. A recent post on Engadget will confirm that it is a highly technical topic, but rooted in good old marketing… positioning, if you will. I have to say that this article will leave all but the stalwart wireless followers a little loopy. But one thing is made very clear—”4G,” like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

A variety of carriers with a variety of technologies are claiming to own “the best,” or “the most expansive” 4G networks. Carriers are basing their claims of 4G network readiness on network speed, bona fide 4G technology. The “G” in 4G stands for the Generation of the wireless technology… and typically follows guidelines set by the ITU. However, given the lofty performance standards the ITU demands of 4G, many carriers are using the 4G moniker in a “well this is a big step forward in speed compared to 3G” sense. MarkeTingle 101 might call this MARKETING SPIN, not really the truth… but not fully a lie.

So read the article (which will leave you a little tipsy) and see what you think. Is 4G so much marketing spin?

Blekko’s integration of social and search just may be the next big thing… and if its concept of using your friend’s Facebook "likes" to rank and filter search results gains traction, it will have implications for your digital marketing strategy, and how you think about social channels.

It’s no big news that social plays a big role in search. But for the most part, the "like-ability" of a site isn’t considered. Blekko search gives more weight to the sites your Facebook friends like. After all, the company we keep says a lot about us… birds of a feather flock together… and all that jazz.

Today we employ social listening and measure sentiment in an effort to judge our success, and in an effort to find opportunities to engage clients/customers… those with both positive and negative opinions of our organization, product, or service. Blekko distills sentiment down to a binary black and while, like and don’t like. 

Facebook should be pleased, as this is yet another innovation that, if successful, will add even more momentum to its Open Graph protocol.

If you haven’t already, do you plan to add a "Like" button to your site? Be sure to check out Blekko.

I sometimes like to imagine that Rodney Dangerfield was an accountant, because accountants often don’t get much respect. A superhero’s mild-mannered alter ego is never an accountant. You never see accountants as reluctant action heroes in movies. Other than John Grisham’s The Firm, accountants don’t make great works of fiction. Plus, The Firm was about tax attorneys, so again accountants lose out. Accountants don’t get cool nicknames either. We are saddled with “bean counter,”  “pencil pusher,” or something that rhymes with “gas coal.” Accountants also get a bad rap when it comes to innovative thinking and risk-taking. We are often blamed for squashing business ideas and dreams with reality, and that is simply not true.

So why is that, you may ask.

I think that it has to do with the fact that as an auditor you are taught to logically test anything that one considers "true" and to test new information before one accepts it as "true" (healthy skepticism), which sometimes is confused with pure skepticism or pessimism.

In order to maintain and protect the company’s financial health, we need to know the downside and the upside (risk and reward) associated with an innovative idea. Everyone should play a part in maximizing the reward and minimizing the risk, not just the accountant.

As Richard Branson put it in a recent OPEN forum article, “But while, to all appearances, we do have an unusually high tolerance for risk, our actions always spring from another principle: Always protect the downside. I think it should be a guideline for every entrepreneur, or anyone involved in business ventures."

So before you get upset and call your CFO something that rhymes with “gas coal” because he or she had some tough questions about your latest innovative idea or risky proposal, ask yourself these questions:

Did I fully understand the risk and reward and communicate them accurately?

Did the reward far outweigh the risk, or vice versa?

Did I know what the total potential exposure was and present how to adequately protect the downside?

Flash mobs make for some awesome marketing opportunities. Check out the Opera Company of Philadelphia participating in a flash mob at a local Macy’s store. Talk about a win-win situation: the opera company generates some great PR and Macy’s gets some extra traffic and good press.

The Knight Foundation sponsored the event as part of its Random Acts of Culture initiative.

This is just the sort of cool event that makes its way to the social web. And where did I learn about it? My wife’s Facebook feed. At my last check, it had over 616,638 views on YouTube since it was posted on November 1, 2010. Nice. Go Handel.

I’ve been pondering ways to tie this post to something "marketing communications" for a few days now. My superiors and the blog czars here at our Memphis B2B branding firm might scold me for going off course. What can say? (I just got a few key words in there.)

Well, I can say that I really hope you are inspired to watch ESPN’s 30 for 30 documentary on Marcus Dupree, The Best That Never Was, from writer-director Jonathan Hock. You might instead read one of the numerous articles that have emerged in the past few days. You can find them from NPR to USA Today, and even a chat with Marcus on ESPN Sports Nation. This is my favorite.

So, what’s the deal? Well, I am from a very small town. Philadelphia, Miss. to be exact. When I was five years old, Marcus Dupree was the most sought-after college football recruit in the nation and the idol of every boy in town, black or white. At least every boy I knew. Once he began racking up yards as a freshman at Oklahoma, I asked Santa Claus for a #22 Marcus Dupree OU jersey. Not as easy to get replica gear in those days; I instead got a red "t-shirt jersey" with #22 in white vinyl (?) numbers. Close enough.

You can watch or read about Marcus, the highs and lows of his journey over the ensuing 10-plus years, and what’s going on with him now. I hope you will. It is a compelling story.

How does this relate to marketing besides my pushing nearly 10 different brands above? I don’t know that it does. But we "ad wizards" talk at length about establishing emotional connections via marketing communications, and the brand buzz chatter du jour is all about the personal brand.

A heavy percentage of my few blogs are sports-related. I am a sports nut. (Incidentally, I do read books without pictures.) However, the Dupree story transcends sports. Sports provided the medium for what happened in my town in 1980 and 1981–a community with a checkered past rallying around this young man to take a step toward a better place. That’s the literary point of view at least. In fact, Willie Morris wrote a book about it.

For a 5-year-old, however, it was simply about having a hero, wanting to be a high school football player, and knowing that somebody you knew was, like, the best running back who’d ever lived. Then he’s on national TV scoring touchdowns just like he did right in front of you. Your hometown hero. Innocence personified. Emotional connection for life.

Not much more to say really. If you’re from a small town, enjoy sports, and are prone to illogical bursts of nostalgia like I am, then you will understand why I and many others still feel connected to this brand, Marcus Dupree. Many people hold on to some small part of their experience with it today–very much the brand definition of that intangible quality of a tangible "something." In this case, a human being. Interestingly enough, Marcus’ personal brand left his control early on because of his talent. 

I’ve told friends about Marcus Dupree many times and am glad Jonathan Hock saw fit to do so as well. It will be interesting to see if this brings any closure to the "relationship" or reintroduces it in some way. Let me guarantee that if they make a #22 throwback jersey…I’ll buy one in a heartbeat.

Imagine my surprise when I saw my recent Tweet on my LinkedIn page. The LinkedIn version picked up an image from the video section towards the bottom of the Reuters’ page. Although my Tweet about supporting the elimination of the new 1099 reporting requirements for 2012 was great news for many business owners, I can see how it could be overshadowed by Victoria’s Secret model Adriana Lima wearing a new two million dollar diamond, sapphire, and topaz studded bra. Technology has voted and the winner is…clearly not proposed changes to the 1099 requirements.

Being a bit of a language curmudgeon, I was prepared to bristle at the video featuring Stephen Fry in my colleague Todd Strickland’s recent blog post. Instead I found myself examining my sometimes pedantic viewpoint and admitting that often I don’t like words just because they’re new and I think they’re ugly. There, I said it.

Case in point: morphing “incentive” into “incent,” “incentivize,” or worse yet, “incentivization.” My eardrums itch as I write this. What’s wrong with motivating, prompting, provoking, or encouraging your audience? Although these incentivizing buzzwords have been around for years, the purist in me wants to fight their inevitable transition to acceptable usage. The worst case of “izing” I’ve encountered is the word “Mississippianization.” True. Look it up.

And another thing. Coming from a science background, I balk at using terms such as “organic” and “granular” in a business context.* My marketing-minded coworkers usually pry the red pen from my clutches while offering patient explanations and justifications. But I’m generally cranky about it. And they use this knowledge against me later, working my pet peeves into conversation. Frequently. And maliciously, I might add. You know who you are.

As an editor in a marketing firm, I understand using inventive language to get your message across. It’s creative, it’s subjective; we’re not all going to agree on what’s “right.” The point some people miss is this: You need to understand the rules in order to break them effectively. In his talk, Fry uses the “10 items or less” example. Yes, it should be “fewer” instead of “less,” and he’s right, everyone understands the meaning despite the wrong usage. However, the incorrect word here doesn’t contribute to the message; in fact, for those readers who understand the distinction, it can lower, even if slightly, their opinion of that business. It might not keep them from shopping there again, but that impression remains. Why risk it?

There are times when breaking a rule makes sense. We all know the most famous split infinitive, “To boldly go where no man has gone before.” Imagine if a hair-splitter had insisted on adhering to the rule. Star Trek would’ve begun with Kirk intoning, “To go boldly…” or “Boldly to go…” Talk about needing more power, Scotty.

What about ending with a preposition? It’s often more pleasing to the ear than wrangling a sentence to fit the rule. Which would you rather read?

• Oden’s the company I want to work with.
• Oden’s the company with which I want to work.

Awkward sentence construction can distract readers from your message—the last thing you want.

Bottom line—know your audience. If the context is formal, by all means play the grammarian. Rearrange a sentence for conformity’s sake. But if the right way sounds forced or unnatural to your audience, bend the rules. The trick is knowing when to bend and why.

The maddening but delightful thing about English is that it evolves, constantly adding new words and incorporating new uses of old ones. I’m learning not to rule out new potentialities. However, there is one “never” on which I will never budge—“nucular” is incorrect, no matter how many people use it.

*But note my use of “morphing” above, originally a biology term. See, it’s subjective.