In today's FT piece on the future of Google TV, there's a buried quote that cuts to the heart of Google's TV strategy and should give everyone pause:

Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of WPP, this week said that he was worried by the potential for the search company to gather viewing data and undercut traditional forms of TV advertising.

Couple things worth unpacking here:

• Red herring. Sorrell is trying to scare people in to thinking that Google's TV play is just another way it is gobbling up everyone's data and threatening privacy.    What he's really saying is that if Google gets a network set up with their superior performance based monetization engine, it will take a Texas-size bite out of the TV ad market.  The efficiency of pay-for-performance vs. "spray and pray".  Advertisers could now target people with ads that are far more relevant for viewer and brand.  To quote Mel Karmazin from Ken Auletta's book Googled, "You're fucking with the magic."  Here's a telling passage from the book that speaks directly to Google's march in to TV (and whne the book was written, Karmazin's comparison to TV advertising was only theoretical--Google TV was not even on the market.  This was just in relation to AdWords.):

• Google vs. "The Nielson Family": Google wins.  Finally advertisers could benchmark their ad buying with true analytics--imagine (literally) a Google Analytics for TV advertising.  
• Content Gets Better: By the way, this would not only be better for advertisers, but transformational for content providers--imagine the money saved on bringing out a new show with granular analytics to measure viewer engagement.  $10MM for the pilot of the new ABC show "Pan AM"?  Really???
• Google is obsessed with TV ad dollars.  OBSESSED.  Next to magazine advertising, it might be the most inefficient media market still in existence, and one that has not seen the precipitous drop print markets have seen.  This means that a smart company with the right kinds of algorithms could systematically take share (of market and viewership) with much higher margins. 

But, it will be slow.  There is alot of money and powerful corporate firepower poised against replacing our DirecTV box with the Google TV box.  Perhaps the big question is how Google turns the popular perception of YouTube from a network for teens where you can see pirated conent and videos of cats on surfboards to something that might support Mad Men or Sons of Anarchy.  The establishment in Hollywood is betting against it.

It's pretty easy to get depressed or ambivalent about the economy right now.  The volatility of the market over the last couple weeks is only making traders happy, and a glut of foreclosed houses continues to stall the real estate market.  Leave it to Warren Buffet to put things in perspective.  I know that the big news was his editorial in the NYT on how the rich should be taxed more, but this video of him on Charlie Rose was interesting in his long view of the economy and a kind of economic American exceptionalism (not the tea party variant of exceptionalism, mind you).  I felt somehow better after watching our nation's richest grandfatherly figure discuss the current situation.  Worth a watch:

I have been skeptical of this new frenzy around QR codes.  I am also biased as the place I see them the most is in magazines, and especially trade magazines.  They struck me as a last gasp attempt to create relevance in a dying media--tying an "online" experience to a loose collection of printed pages.  What was this, some half assed attempt at a "digital edition" (which are really abhorrhent--I would rather read the print, thank you)?  Anyhow, I was really not a fan, and I had seen something in the 90's bubble that was similar and required a special "pen"--even met with the company a couple of times and realized quickly nobody was going to use this.  

Skip to last week having lunch with my buddy Tyler (who has started an incredible little service called Skweal).  He was very keen on showing me this video on how TESCO, the #2 shopping market in South Korea drove increased sales through embedding QR codes with pictures of purchasable foot items in subways.  The idea is that consumers could simply scan their purchases via QR code while waiting for their train, say, on the way to work, and how those groceries were delivered later that afternoon, presumably in time to cook for their evening meal!

So, this got me to thinking about how QR codes might have the ability to facilitate immersive experiences where "enlightened canvases" open up around you.  It is somehow turning the digital in to the spectacle (or vice-versa).  Oddly, it took the hum-drum act of buying groceries for me to realize this connection (and maybe it piqued the part of my brain that is is me but in a parallel Snow Crash universe), but this is the inchoate form of something much bigger that will connect our gaze with new possibilities. 

http://searchengineland.com/seotable

Watching as many World Cup matches as possible over the last 2 weeks, I have seen my share of the 2 tentpole commercials from Nike and Adidas.  I actually saw the Nike "Write the Future" commercial well before the WC started and my wife had to force me to turn it off after the 10th time.  I saw the Adidas "Zidane" piece on TV and was thoroughly bored.  Why?  Nike put the fan (me) at the center of the message.  For the commercial to work, I had to identify with it, embrace it and care about it.  The Adidas commercial completely forgets this--it's a dystopic sci-fi explosion of ego and false drama that separates its athletes from their fans, creating some kind of otherworld where only gods play.  I don't care what happens because I don't feel at all connected to these people.  Adidas has given the consumer ersatz fantasy; a "future" not written by the people, but by a crap art director.  Nike, on the other hand, implies each of us in the writing of history--it is the fans at every turn that are writing the future (kid ripping Rooney poster off wall/Youtube and Facebook Ronaldhino tributes/everyman Homer Simpson Ronaldo spoof).  As of today, Ronaldo is the only star from the commercial that is still in the World Cup--everyone else making early and unremarkable exits (Ronaldhino not even chosen for the WC squad)--yet, this commercial still has wheels.

More than the athletes it sponsors, Nike has written a love letter to their fans.  These fans also happen to be the audience for the commercial and most importantly they are the people buying Nike products around the world.  Nike keeps the consumer at the center in a deeply aspirational way. 

This is the key to any marketing campaign: make your customer the hero.  Once they feel a part of your message, as opposed to a spectator, they will engage.

Here are the videos:

Nike "Write The Future"

Adidas "Fast v Fast"

Our sales team at Dentalcompare (@dentalcompare) has been using Twitter to stay on top of what is happening in the dental industry--from manufacturers (our clients) to our competition and the key thought leaders in the industry (KOLs).  The good KOLs are passionate about doing great dentistry and want to share their discoveries with other dentists through social media.  Many of these folks have relationships with manufacturers and take the time to tweet or blog about the latest and greatest products--often times before that product is widely available--egging on all of the early adopters.

Recently, one of our reps noticed a KOL talking about a product from a company that was one of our biggest "missing advertisers".  We had been working hard to find a way to bring this company aboard.  Our rep also knew that this particular KOL was excellent on camera and very professional about his product endorsements, so he called up the manufacturer and pitched having our video crew do a case demo in that KOL's office.  The client loved the idea and several weeks later we had a day long shoot with the KOL and now that prospect is a client doing regular business with us.  This same rep also noticed the KOL tweeting about another product by a current client of ours and we piggybacked a shoot for that product--essentially driving 2 sales at once through Twitter.

For us, we had an opportunity to cultivate a relationship with a new client, enhance our relationship with an existing client, formally work with a fantastic KOL and drive some extra Q4 revenue.  The next step for us will be to establish some best practices around this process and accelerate it to establish a new stream of leads and revenue for our business.

To begin the discussion on best practices, I took away several key learnings from this small example:

• Twitter is a simple and powerful way to keep in touch with multiple points of information within a single industry.
• With careful selection, you can curate a constellation of market intelligence that points in the direction of an opportunity.
• Your clients (whether they say it or not) are very curious about Twitter and social media, and any time you can provide them with feedback on their products that has appeared in a social media context (example above: one dentist talking to hundreds about your product), they will be interested--a nice opportunity to start a conversation.
• The market is using social media as a way to extend conversations about products and brands, but these conversations are not clearly organized--happening discreetly and all at the same time--like a noisy cocktail party (this is the reason some companies and people dismiss social media as a business tool).  By using tools like Tweetdeck, you can organize some of the conversations in to useful  streams on specific topics and then focus in on the opportunities for lead generation and sales.

 What are your thoughts on potential best practices?  

According to research by BtoB Magazine, it sounds as if ad spend is going to increase in 2010 with 40% of respondents indicating budgets would go up.  The lion's share will go to online and video.  The most interesting point made was that over the last year B2B marketers have been forced to figure out what actually delivers ROI among their media options.  The recession has presented them with one choice rather than the luxury of dabbling until they get a desirable result.  According to Mark Wilson, VP- Corporate Marketing at Sybase:

We have developed very measurable and productive expense management [processes]. In 2009, we made it a science; and we will continue it next year.

Imagine that--marketers have been working harder at developing the optimal mix of assets for results--a science, even.  This will now force their media partners to innovate and come prepared.  The smartest thing for media companies to do right now is to reflect that science back to their clients, and through consultation and discussion find a way to help their clients get better and more efficient.  Simply put: be partners, not salespeople.  

This also reveals what I have thought to be the most transformational aspect of the downturn: there is a lot of media out there that marketers just don't need anymore.  They have learned that cutting a substantial amount of print does not mean a collapse in sales, and that a focus on measurable results pleases all stakeholders in the company (with the exception of the old-school CEOs who see their ads in trade magazines as proof of life--but these behaviors are succumbing to generational change).  The focus on measurable results has also forced the smart media companies to innovate and discover new revenue streams from lead generation to video and online events.

Also realize that agencies are fast getting in the game and filling the spaces left open by B2B media companies that have not evolved online competency and measurement.  We are going to witness a fundamental change in the role of an agency over the next 3-5 years from a consultant that buys media and develops creative to a full-service media shop capable of developing and selling their own channels.  

Spent a few minutes today reading FOLIO's interview with Drew Schutte to better understand how McKinsey has shaken things up at the most glamorous place on earth.  Back in the day, I remember pitching the newly formed digital group on a couple of projects that ended up in the dead letter office.  Arguably, as the thinking goes, back in 1995, Conde Nast had the biggest advantage in staking out their web fortunes: massive brand equity.  Unfortunately they have spent the better part of the last 14 or so years squandering that advantage. However, this is well-trodden ground.  What actually struck me as interesting in the interview was this statement from Schutte:

As a company, we continue to stay focused on both print and online. We believe there is a tremendous future in both print and digital, and especially in the two together, as more advertisers want integrated programs. We’ve seen an increase from 8 percent of advertisers buying integrated programs last year to 15 percent this year.  Approximately 30 percent of the top advertisers buy both print and digital.

I say interesting because he is flacking the same message heard over and over from publishers right now: print is massively valuable.  Really?  This is a message that is pushed down the throats of advertisers continually--especially in the B2B space.  Also, with most publishers, digital opportunities are not offered unless an advertiser chokes down a few print pages as well.  I am not sure if it is meant to console advertisers that have already committed to print or if this is code for: we need print revenues, and we have no real value proposition for our web offerings.  

Dear Publisher that continues to push this message: you are drawing dead.  Your advertisers already know the value of effective online advertising and they are really curious about how social networking can help them get for free what they are paying you for (and still not getting).  Seriously, if you care to listen, this is the conversation they are aching to have with you.  However this would mean admitting that print is not entirely efficient, so we go the "integrated" route, kind of a 2 card monty, wherein the advertiser can't  justify where the value is coming from because publishers bake costs in package deals.  Just try and find the ROI.  

Now, before we all get hot and bothered, there are truly some great print products that deliver value--not throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.  In fact, the brand power and circ story at most Conde titles is still very relevant.  But these titles need to articulate a metric that can surface this value and tie it in to the conversation.

Most publishers will need to get much smaller and more interested in what's on their clients' minds to really unlock the power of this transition to online media.  It all starts with the clients--they tell us everything we need to know.  Back in the day when traditional media was a limited proposition, the producers had all the power.  Now the consumer is the producer, and for every Conde Nast, there are thousands of new producers in garages plotting their downfall.  Just ask Rupert Murdoch.