In the Sunday NY Times (11/9/08), David Carr wrote about Obama’s Internet strategy dating back to 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.html?em.  How, at the time, the proposition of leveraging social media seemed ridiculous and unlikely. Carr goes on to write about the campaign’s success and the implications of Obama’s social network resources as he turns to governing, “The juxtaposition of a networked, open-source campaign and a historically imperial office will have profound implications and raise significant questions. Special-interest groups and lobbyists will now contend with an environment of transparency and a president who owes them nothing. The news media will now contend with an administration that can take its case directly to its base without even booking time on the networks.

“More profoundly, while many people think that President-elect Obama is a gift to the Democratic Party, he could actually hasten its demise. Political parties supply brand, ground troops, money and relationships, all things that Mr. Obama already owns.”

It’s a fascinating discussion and one that reflects many of the conversations taking place in the marketing industry today.  In brainstorming and strategy sessions, networking events and tradeshows, we find ourselves asking questions like whether companies will continue to need traditional advertising services, or how much of a voice should a company allow its consumers to have in its brand?  Or, how do you engage consumers to participate in a conversation?  And what do you do with that information once you have it?  We’re asking the same basic question the music industry was asking just 5 years ago - will this [Web 2.0] be the end of our industry as we know it - how do we innovate?

But it occurs to me that perhaps we’re asking the wrong questions.  We continue to ask how, will and what if.  But a closer look at Obama’s campaign tells us his questions weren’t how and what if, but simply who and what - who is he and what will he ask of his audience?  We keep asking questions about the medium and the mechanisms, but Obama’s strategy wasn’t about technology, it was about establishing a clear identity and then giving his core audience a clear call to action.  By giving his supporters the opportunity to engage, let their voices be heard and offering a consistent brand promise - “change” - he established a winning brand.  It’s a formula as old as marketing, but much like the politicians of yesterday, too often big business forgets to introduce itself and ask something of the consumer.  Manners can go a long way.

But Carr is wrong.  Obama will always need the media - to challenge, validate and keep his brand accountable.  He will always need database experts to purge, build and ensure his constituency never becomes stagnant.  And he will always need to manage his brand to ensure that his presidency, while transparent, is still his own legacy.  If you ask me - that sounds like Obama still needs the marketing communications fundamentals.  He’s just remembered his manners and brought them into the 21st century.

Writing a weblog today isn’t the bright idea it was four years ago. The blogosphere, once a freshwater oasis of folksy self-expression and clever thought, has been flooded by a tsunami of paid bilge. Cut-rate journalists and underground marketing campaigns now drown out the authentic voices of amateur wordsmiths. It’s almost impossible to get noticed, except by hecklers. And why bother? The time it takes to craft sharp, witty blog prose is better spent expressing yourself on Flickr, Facebook, or Twitter.

Paul concludes:

As a writer, though, I’m onto the system’s real appeal: brevity. Bloggers today are expected to write clever, insightful, witty prose to compete with Huffington and The New York Times. Twitter’s character limit puts everyone back on equal footing. It lets amateurs quit agonizing over their writing and cut to the chase. @WiredReader: Kill yr blog. 2004 over. Google won’t find you. Too much cruft from HuffPo, NYT. Commenters are tards. C u on Facebook?

I encourage you to read the entire essay. While his logic is flawed, he does introduce an interesting argument. As with most emerging technologies, blogs have now been adopted by mainstream media and corporations; however, I don’t necessarily agree that there is a vacuum of authenticity. Just because bloggers are no longer amateurs doesn’t make content any less valid or compelling. In fact, when journalists, corporate executives and other professionals blog, I believe it might actually increase genuineness since their posts might exist outside of editorial or legal filters.

I don’t disagree with Paul that there is tremendous competition to now be heard and read online, but I do disagree that it is necessarily a bad evolution. When blogs first started, an amateur could publish anything. If their post ranked high in a search on the subject, the content, true or not, was given credibility. Remember the Kerry gunboat blog posts during the 2004 Presidential election. Well, I think creators of online publications such as blogs should be clever and insightful as well as diligent in checking their facts and making known a bias just as their traditional counterparts, whether they are amateurs or not.

Furthermore, Paul is on to something when he quotes Scoble stating that he keeps his “blog mostly for long-form writing.” Isn’t that what a publication is for whether it is online or not? If you want the Cliff Notes, then Twitter might be the place. But do Cliff Notes ever do the original text justice? Is it engaging? Does it move you? I can never remember being moved or significantly influenced by a 140 character Twitter message or Facebook update, but I have been impacted by numerous blog posts, both amateur and professional.

“Brevity and character limits puts everyone on equal footing” is nonsense. It rings of anti-intellectualism and a puerile understanding of mass communications. Would we want a lawyer blogging about civil rights to be limited to 140 characters? Would Twitter as a communication medium really provide the means to articulate his or her position? Is this equal footing, really? If the lawyer’s position is truly compelling, it will be found, linked to and virally passed and this is the true power of being able to easily publish online irregardless of the quality of the design or interactivity of the content, i.e. video and pics.

It was James Madison vs. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney in 1808 (everyone remembers that epic battle right?). One party was called the Democratic-Republicans (look it up) and the other was Federalist. The names may have changed but did they really wage a marketing campaign that much different from what we see today?

Today we have branded (party/candidate sites/blogs) efforts and “unbranded” efforts( issue-based and “independent association” sites). In 1808 there were pro-Madison and pro-Pinckney flyers and op-ed pieces in newspapers and you had “anonymous” advertisements posing as articles in newspapers and flyers distributed around town outlining what was wrong with one or the other candidate’s policies. They were printed in newspapers and posted in store-fronts and on community message boards in the town square. Today messages are printed in newspapers, posted in store-fronts (and lawns) and on community message boards (which just happen to be on line). (Hmmm.) Then they had town meetings where anyone who was in walking or horse-riding distance could attend. Today we have town meetings where anyone with a radio, TV or internet access can attend. (Hmmm) Today, if you are looking for friendly help from the media, you go to the friendly media outlet. Then if you didn’t like what was printed in the paper you either had your supporters buy the paper or start your own – either way you got what you wanted out to the public in “unbiased” fashion. See, it’s all very, very different.

So what does this mean, why does this matter? The old adage is that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Well I think that’s only half the story. (This is not a political statement no matter how much you want to make it one – it’s about marketing). From a marketing standpoint we’re always using and trying to improve upon what has worked in the past and discarding or taking notes on the things that have not worked. In order to make solid marketing strategies from yesterday work today, you have to know how to apply them today. You cannot apply them effectively today if you have no idea what tools and techniques are available to you. More specifically, how your audience is using or will use and interact with these tools. You have to have an education on both what has worked in the past and what is available today - and maybe most importantly how it works. The collision of those things is where innovation and great ideas come from. To me it doesn’t matter whether you’re marketing a political message or tennis shoes, the principles are the same. You need to break through all the noise. Sometimes the breakthrough marketing technique or idea makes all the difference. In some cases the quality of the product becomes secondary – sad but true.

If you think Madison would not have had a MySpace page or Pinckey would not have figured out how to use YouTube, think again. The more important question is whether you would have – or will.

With that said, you should not be surprised to find that it has turned up as a topic of one of the feature articles in our newsletter series. You should also not be surprised to see the chief digital officer authoring the article.

I believe digital practitioners tend to have a bird’s eye view of integrated marketing, because today, the digital component is often the hub of a campaign or the glue that holds the campaign together, and it’s definitely the piece that provides the earliest indication of whether or not the campaign is working.

Why is digital integration so important? Could you launch a successful campaign today without a digital  component?  Of course. Would it be stronger if you incorporated a compelling digital component? Based on our experience, absolutely. Would your tracking and measurement be more effective if you integrated digital into your marketing program? I could almost guarantee it.

Technology has created a fundamental change in how consumers interact with brands. So, as marketers, we’ve had to rethink how we engage our target audience, including everything from how frequently we communicate, to our ability to personalize the message, to how quickly we can optimize a strategy that is working, or adjust a strategy that isn’t working. And, digital media has affected every aspect of our business:

• Television networks now air many of their popular series online in addition to their regular slots in the primetime line-up, providing marketers with new opportunities to reach viewers.

• We can now conduct research in real time through online surveys and gather target insight through user profiles.

• Direct marketers now have tactics, such as “search,” “email,” and “online lead generation programs” at their disposal.

• Public relations professionals now must monitor blogs and social networking sites to effectively manage a company’s reputation.

But, even with my bias toward digital media, I strongly believe it should rarely be considered as a stand-alone tactic. Like every other type of media, it works best when incorporated into an integrated marketing strategy.

How do you make real integration happen? I have one word for you—Collaboration.  And, I don’t mean handing a brief to your digital experts and asking them to come back to you with some ideas. We agree with the industry experts who say that it’s not about having a digital practice within your organization, it’s
about everyone in the company understanding the space. But, the flip side of that coin is just as important, because without strong traditional elements either driving or supporting a campaign, the digital component
will almost always fall short of expectations.

One of the most critical decisions we’ve made through the years was to continue to build our digital marketing practice after the dot-com bust in 2000 when most agencies abandoned the discipline. We also did away with the traditional agency model years ago, forcing our various discipline experts—including
digital—to come out of their silos to sit at the planning table together, which has resulted
in highly successful, innovative marketing ideas that have driven remarkable results for
our clients. We even introduced a one-profit- center business model to ensure that there was no internal conflict about how the client’s marketing dollars were being allocated.

We’re doing something even more radical now to break down the walls. We’re taking the professionals from our award-winning digital marketing group and integrating them into the other areas of the agency. We believe the only way to promote true integration is to live it.

We know that there’s always a cost to change whether it means investing in training or battling any push-back we get from employees. But, we’re prepared for it. We know it’s the right thing to do if we’re going to continue to deliver smart integrated strategies that drive results for our clients.

As we all know, in 2004, Howard Dean was the Internet candidate.  Despite a failed campaign, Dean proved a candidate could successfully leverage the viral nature of the Internet to corral grassroots support and fundraising.  In 08, Barack Obama has taken that movement to the next level, becoming the first candidate in history to wave public funding in favor of his online machine that has garnered hundreds of millions in $5, $10 and $20 increments.   Essentially, both candidates used the Internet to develop an online brand that became the lifeblood of their campaigns.

Indeed, much of buzz this year has been given to Obama’s online fundraising prowess.  However, what has been largely overlooked, but I suspect will play a substantial role in this election, is how the youth vote has rallied via Facebook and MySpace.   I’ve been spending some time on both candidates’ social networking pages, and the debate taking place there fluctuates between the ridiculous and fascinating.  High school kids unable to vote along side college students, 20-somethings and even a few Gen Xers are having honest debates about the economy, war and America’s global competitiveness.  What’s most interesting is how long the conversations can last.  There are more than a few regulars on these pages who sound off against each other daily, picking up where they left off despite dozens of posts in between.  Youth is no longer apathetic, there are times when you can almost see how a pair of individuals face-off in the battle of Wiki-pedia or Google-for-an-argument.  And while it’s comical to think of a high school student in Des Moines pulling stats on the cost of the war or finding obscure quotes from historical figures to argue against a law student in on the East Coast, it’s also encouraging to imagine a high school student caring enough to go and find that information to justify his stance.

What’s more is that the conversations aren’t limited to the candidate’s walls.  Many of my “friends” - in their late 20s and 30s - have used their pages to support their candidate, elevate the debate and try to convince each other to change their vote.  The conversations are everywhere and as more people text in their twitter updates (frequently with a political slant), post video of Palin interviews or John Stewart commentary, or leverage Digg to share favorite articles and websites, the conversations are increasingly surrounding all forms of media.  I think on 08, the pollsters are going to be surprised to find the youth vote far more educated, engaged and even more important than the much heralded women vote in this election - and much of it might be chalked up to social networking and Web 2.0 conversation.

When Dean launched his candidacy via the Internet, the Internet was scarcely a new technology.  And in this election, social networks are hardly a new phenomenon either.  With 100 million people on Facebook alone, it’s hard to call it “bleeding edge.”  But what’s clear is that technology is what’s “rocking the vote” in the 21^st centurty - and in ways far more grassroots and impactful than marketers have yet to discover.   That said, marketers need to look closer a these successes and find ways  to create and incent brand ambassadors that have the tech savvy to keep the conversation going around their own brands.

Finally, as we look at ways to learn from better use of today’s Web 2.0 applications, we need to also start thinking about 2012.  Will it be the year of mobile politics?  Is the Obama camp’s use of text messages to notify its core constituencies of key announcements a precursor to 2012?  The arrival of the iPhone and 3G certainly open up doors for new, unimagined applications.  Or will Web 3.0 arrive and usher in a new world of Semantic web-agents, or 3D media or pervasive Internet that greets us at our refrigerator, or car dashboard?

So I ask this…would you pay for your favorite blog to keep it around?

I would…In fact, I would pay for several (some web sites too). Why? Because the content is consistently good and I feel that I have a relationship with the blog(s) and their owners. They have become a part of my daily routine.

Is your product, service, web site or blog a part of someones daily routine? Is it something your customers, clients, members or fans would be willing to pay for in order to keep around? Or, is it a “me too” approach with just enough to get by?

The “Would I Pay? ” question is an excellent way to determine if your initiative is worth the effort.

Here are a few I would pay:

http://sanderssays.typepad.com/sanders_says/

http://www.presentationzen.com/

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/

As a sponsor, we have a booth. As a fun, innovative, interactive shop, we have some fun, innovative, interactive stuff planned for that booth. Be sure to check it out.

Mark Hass, CEO of Publicis’ Manning Selvage & Lee, recently stated the following in the July 28, 2008 Advertising Age article $80 Billion? Online Display Market Is Being Overhyped:

Advertising ought to be designed to support the social-media program, because the tip of the marketing spear ought to be the consumer-generated media piece. Let’s see where consumers take the product and brand, and shape advertising and the rest of the marketing opportunities around that.”

The hypothetical example he provides in the article is “how Febreze might target college students by handing out samples on move-in day. Soon it becomes a subject of conversation within a social network of that community (and if it doesn’t, a brand can suggest it become one, asking students what they’re going to do to make their rooms smell better when their parents come to town).”

While we haven’t been as bold as Mr. Hass, we too at Brunner Digital espouse to our clients that they should be engaging social-media and utilizing it to help mold their advertising campaigns. As our own Creative Director, Ernie Mosteller, wrote in his last post about effective websites, we know it is about content. Content that is compelling to consumers. Content consumers will keep and that they will share. Discover what consumers are doing with your brand on Facebook, MySpace and relevant blogs. Update your site with the brand engagement trends you see in these social-media. You already know it will be attention-grabbing because consumers are creating and sharing it on their own.

The same standard can be applied to 360° advertising campaigns. Given digital dynamic printing and digital production, your direct marketing and broadcast should be able to morph as quickly as your website.

For this to happen, advertisers need to seriously reflect about themselves and their brands. Consumers now expect more-engaging forms of content in every brand marketing communication. If social-media isn’t the tip of your marketing spear, it should at least be a plane of the blade.

There is no doubt that standard metrics will make it easier for all of us. But at the same time, with all of the press regarding metrics today, you would think that the industry doesn’t know how to effectively measure digital campaigns. I would contend that we know more than we give ourselves credit for…we (collective we) have been doing this for quite a while!

So while we’re waiting for the IAB, the Four A’s and everyone else to sort through the standards that will eventually give us a common language, I’m suggesting that we keep a few of the tried and true best practices in mind:

1) Start with your business goals and objectives in mind. I would start with 3 or 4 and scale up from there.

2) Don’t start out by “measuring everything”. That never works, and you’ll get lost in the data minutia.

3) Build strong relationships with your technology team - they are critical in helping to put the tools in place in order to get the reports that you’ll need.

4) Get comfortable with some of the new metrics that are available to you — engagement time, brand interaction rates and video views. But don’t treat them like they are the be-all-end-all metrics anymore than CTR’s are. They are pieces of the puzzle.

The direct marketing world recognizes that every campaign is different. Every company is different. Although there are more options within the digital realm, if we stick with what we already know, I think we’ll be surprised how effective, and relatively painless, our measurement efforts can be.

In June, the commercial won a Bronze Lion at Cannes and we at Brunner Digital find it . . . well . . . simply hysterical and right on point. The first commercial was so successful Geert did a sequel. They both promote the advancement of one-to-one, integrated and smart digital marketing in a thoroughly entertaining fashion. Take a look below:

If you would like to learn more about the making of the commercial, check out Geert’s blog, Bring the love back. And oh by the way, Brunner Digital is here to help you bring back the love. Lot’s of love.