The intro to this song has been stuck in my head for weeks as it is the background to a car commercial I see no less than 10 times a night. I finally googled the song (which was shockingly easy to find despite me not remembering what brand the commercial was for - 2008 Ford Edge - and the fact that the snippet of the song they sampled doesn’t contain any lyrics).

I figured maybe if I put it in your head it would get out of mine.

This came up a few years back (can’t remember if I posted it) but I called someone at the office Grimace today and that led to a discussion of the origins of Grimace. Back when he debuted in 1971 he was actually referred to as “Evil Grimace,” was to shakes as Hamburglar is to hamburgers, and sported 4 to 6 arms.

Evil Grimace

I want read/see the origin story of the “Evil Grimace.” I want to know how he found redemption and became Ronald McDonald’s Robin.

Apparently the young girl in this commercial is Jodie Foster. She totally sells her “No Shakes…” line. I get sad contemplating the lack of shakes in McDonald Land.

While attempting to draft my last post evangelizing Tide to Go, I naturally went looking for a picture of the product. When I got to the site, I right clicked on the image and was greeted by an alert box that said “Sorry, right click has been disabled for pictures.” [1]

What type of marketer goes to their web development team and says, “Be sure to disable right click. We don’t want anyone stealing our pictures!” [2]

It’s a 400px by 100px picture of a disposable consumer product. If I worked for Procter & Gamble, I would be begging people to take my content and republish it. Why proactively make it harder for your fans to spread the word?

=-=-=-=-=-
[1] This was technically not true. They forgot to code for Firefox so it was, in fact, not disabled.

[2] Apparently only the marketer in charge of Tide. Notably, other P&G Brands such as Bounty, Cascade, Crest and Tampax don’t employ these tactics. Makes me wonder what Tide is trying to protect itself from.

The BBC has an article on the Starbuck’s short cappucino. It’s not on the menu, but you can order it. They have the cups and an appropriate button on the register. I mention this because I was thrilled when I learned about the short cup last summer. It brought me peace of mind.

Prior to learning about the “short” I railed against the Starbucks naming conventions. I purposefully ordered larges instead of Ventis.

“I’d like a large coffee please. Thank You.”

“One Venti?” the barista replied.

“Yes. One large.”

I can handle pretentiousness, but it was really the fact that they deemed their small coffee a “Tall” that really got my goat.

I wonder if Tall feels vindication now that his little brother has been outed. Does he want to scream out at the top of his lungs “See I AM tall! And I DO have a girlfriend… she’s just… well… she lives in Canada.”

A few posts ago, I talked about how I struggled with Charlie’s use of the word vulnerable in reference to the relationships that are evolving between brands and their consumers. I was reading Tara Hunt’s wonderful blog this morning and lo and behold, she too used the word vulnerable in reference to marketing. I can honestly say that I never associated the word vulnerable with marketing, branding, advertising, and the like, before this past wekeend, but I am beginning to like it.

Tara uses vulnerability to identify a different part of the marketing process, but it is equally appropriate as Charlie’s reference was.

Where Charlie was referring to the vulnerability that comes with letting the relationship with consumers occur on the consumer’s terms, Tara analyzes the vulnerability that comes with open source. According to Tara:

“Open source is the most vulnerable thing I know… Making oneself publicly vulnerable is scary. Putting yourself ‘out there’, offering up source code, telling your ’secrets’, involving your community (which could include…your enemies!) - yikes. There is something to be said for surprise and delight - which is a whole other story, but my point is that community is built on trust and someone who puts themselves out there honestly has a leg up when it comes to community.”

And likewise, someone who puts themselves out there - honestly - will have a leg up when it comes to brand loyalty as well.

Vulnerability lies at the heart of both Charlie’s notion of MeVertising and Tara’s vision of open source. Companies must let go. Smart companies are realizing that in order to build a real relationship with a consumer, they must offer those things that foster meaningful relationships between people - namely honesty, respect, and the resulting trust. I am excited to see this shift in norms as corporations and consumers begin to reenvision their relationships with one another.

It makes sense. Think about your most healthy relationships with people. Likely they are founded on mutual respect, honesty, and the trust that arises from the first two. It might seem too much to ask of the folks that make your jeans or your browser, but should it be?

Charlie O’Donnell of Oddcast has a thoughtful post about the changing dynamics in branding and marketing that are afoot. According to Charlie:

When the brands woke up from being dazed, it seemed that they began to like us… to want to get closer to us. They wanted to be in our networks, to be friends with us.

At first, I started calling this phenomenon “Brand Association.” The things I buy wanted to be closer to me.

Then I realized that, even more than that, they wanted to be me, and me to be them… and to a large extent, I am them. I don’t drink, so when I’m out at bars, I’m Sprite guy. Its become a running joke, but ask any of my friends who they think of when they see a Sprite, its probably me. I am a Mustang and Jamba Juice, and Macy’s, too… I am self identifying with a number of brands. I have a relationship with brands that I am committing a part of myself to.

At first this sounded scary, reminiscent of Single White Female (Allie’s new room-mate is about to borrow a few things without asking. Her clothes. Her boyfriend. Her life).

Charlie notes that lifestyle marketing is not new, but that he is seeing a new trend where brands are “opening up and becoming vulnerable to form a stronger tie to consumers.” I struggled with the notion of a brand becoming “vulnerable.” It makes me think of lovers sharing intimate secrets with one another in a quiet whisper.

But he is on to something here. Brands have lost control. The dynamic has shifted. Brands once managed the terms of their relationships with consumers. You were cool because you wore Guess Jeans (do they still make those?). But that model is quickly being tossed out the window. A brand is now only as influential as its consumers. In that sense, brands are extremely vulnerable. You are no longer what you wear. But what you wear (the brand) is increasingly becoming you.

Charlie has come up with an interesting term for what he sees as a blurring of one’s own identity, brand association, consumption, and the like. He calls it “MeVertising.”

Seth Godin makes a great point about the words we choose when we are advocating (or marketing… aren’t they the same?). Seth outlines some of the problems inherent in the way that the global warming debate has been framed, starting with the term “global warming.” According to Seth:

Global is good.
Warm is good.
Even greenhouses are good places.

How can “global warming” be bad?

I’m not being facetious. If the problem were called “Atmosphere cancer” or “Pollution death” the entire conversation would be framed in a different way.

I have been thinking about framing a lot recently. A similar problem exists in the abortion debate. The right has coined the term “partial-birth abortion.” Who could be for a partial-birth abortion? And the term has been highly effective because even the left is forced to use the term when engaging in the debate. I wonder how the debate would turn out if the left refused to use the term - refused to reinforce the framing chosen by the opposition. I am not Seth and haven’t been able to come up with alternative word choices that are as effective as his “atmosphere cancer” example for global warming. But I think the problem is the same. Or perhaps its a mirror image - that is - “partial-birth abortion” is as graphic and as negative as “pollution death” and the left needs to not only shift away from focusing on the extreme procedure all together, but find more harmless sounding words to describe what is going on when a family decides to end a pregnancy.