It’s interesting to me that these four individuals were marketing and media icons of the first order.

Of course, the three celebrities are Michael Jackson, the "King of Pop," Farah Fawcett (no longer Majors) and Ed McMahon, the longtime sidekick to Johnny Carson. The fourth person, the true marketer of the group, is Billy Mays, one of the most famous pitchmen ever to haunt the TV screen.

All of these famous (and sometimes, infamous) people were, in their own ways, marketing and media icons.

• Michael Jackson — Not much more can be said about him, other than the fact that he was (and now is again in his premature death) a true force of nature in media…and marketing, too. Michael Jackson in many ways defined the modern multi-media entertainment figure. He also had a brief but highly visible career in advertising, with some famous Pepsi ads. But, his position as a marketing icon goes well beyond his direct work in the business. His cultural impact had a huge influence on all aspects of marketing, particulalry the central role of celebrity and music in the marketing business. I really can’t see anyone matching his impact in the future.
• Farah Fawcett – For a kid growing up in the 70s (like I did), Farah Fawcett was a cultural and sexual touchstone (kind of like "Laugh In" was for comedy). She was the sex symbol of her time and every girl wanted to look like her (especially her hair), and every guy wanted to be with her. Compared to our current electronically interconnected world where someone can be famous for 15 seconds on the web for a homemade video placed on YouTube, Farah Fawcett was a global celebrity in a time of three major TV networks and a handful of media and newspapers ruling the media landscape. She was ever-present in all of those media, and everyone knew her and in some way admired her. Like with Jackson, it is doubtful that in today’s fragmented media environment, we will ever see the likes of a phenomenon like Farah Fawcett. Of course, Farah’s looks, presence and hair also had a major impact on the marketing business, as all cultural phenomena do.
• Ed McMahon — The ubiquitous sidekick to Johnny Carson was also an important part of our culture. In addition to being a great foil to Carson (with his wonderful bellowing laugh and genial nature), McMahon was a true marketing pitchman (like Billy Mays, but with more class). McMahon hawked cheesy products on the Carson show and elsewhere, but he was also a spokesman for some legitimate brands, too. Perhaps he is most famous for his longtime partnership wth the Publishers’ Clearing House. To this day, I am still not entirely sure what PCH actually does.
• Billy Mays – The "purest" marketer of the group, the late Billy Mays, was a modern day carnival barker. He brought his fast talking, booming voice pitches to our living rooms, hawking a slew of obscure and seemingly cheap products (The Big City Sliders!). You wanted to hate the hirstute pitchman with the faintly porn industry look and shoeblack hair, but you really couldn’t. He created excitement about his cheap products and got you to be intrigued by their fabulous and questionable performance and attributes. Vince the Shamwow Guy was a pretender to Billy May’s throne, but he was never really in Mays’ league as a pitchman extraordinaire. And then Vince got busted for beating up a hooker (the Internet photos of Vince and his lady friend are pretty gruesome and classic!). Billy Mays was a marketing institution. In ad circles his work had the auteur quality of certain Patrick Swayze movies — earnest, unintentionally funny and so bad they are good.

All in their own unique ways, these four marketing and media icons changed our lives and made us laugh, smile and always take notice. They will be missed.

• D-Day Anniversary — Yesterday was the 65th anniversary of D-Day and the beginning of the end of the War to End All Wars WW II (too bad it didn’t end up that way). Of course I had to watch "Saving Private Ryan" for the umpteenth time on Friday night (it really is much more powerful than the D-Day movie of my youth "The Longest Day"). What a triumph of movie story telling and spare, honest acting by Tom Hanks et al. It was nice to see Hanks at the 65th Anniversary Celebration the next day at the American military cemetary at the famed Omaha Beach in France. President Obama gave a strong speech, but it was not his best. Frankly, it was a bit flat and formulaic. The best and most moving speech of the day was delivered by the embattled Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Britain. He did make one little gaff, and it was a doozy. In referring to Omaha Beach, Brown called it "Obama" Beach. The crowd and the world snickered loudly. It is going to take a long time for Brown to live that one down. One thing is interesting in these various anniversaries and world events involving our new President Obama. The world really loves this guy (and why not?!). Every world leader, and everyday people the world over, just cannot hide their admiration for our president. What a pleasant change for all Americans to have a president who is respected and admired across the globe. That said, French President Sarkozy took it a bit too far. In a post speech joint press conference with obama, Sarkozy literally could not hide his "man crush" for Obama. It was actually kind of cute! And, if Carla Bruni and Michelle Obama are not the most elegant and beautiful first ladies in the world, I don’t know who are!
• GM’s Future — Fascinating and important piece in today’s Washington Post about the debate within the now bankrupt GM (and outside of it, too) on what will be the actual products (cars!) that point to a better future for the faltering auto manufacturer. This is a huge question. Make no mistake about it, the only way GM can in fact succeed in the future is to come up with the right cars, at the right prices, for the right buyers. Competing against Toyota, Honda, BMW, Audi, Mercedes and even Hyundai, won’t be any easier in the next fews years than it has been in the past. GM will win or ultimately lose by its ability to come up with great cars that ingnite the imaginations of car buyers through design, technology, value, performance and a lot more brand "magic," a vital ingredient that has been notably and dangerously missing from most GM products in recent years (with a few notable exceptions, including the continuing appeal of the Chevy Corvette, Cadillac’s mostly strong lineup and the improbable and apparently growing success of the Buick brand in China). The Post article noted how retiring GM "Car Guy" Bob Lutz was lauding the cool new Chevy Camaro SS (with its retro muscle car 400 HP engine), while at the same time extolling GM’s environtmentally sustainable future exemplified by the Volt plug-in electric vehicle. Both of these Chevrolet’s sort of represent the bi-polar challenge that GM faces. On the one hand, the company wants to re-claim that old 60s magic of the famed Camaro brand. On the other hand, GM is trying to blaze a path to a high tech, high mileage future with the much ballyhooed (by GM, that is) Volt electric vehicle. The Camaro could indeed be a key part of GM’s future, but it will always be a niche vehicle. The Volt is critically important, of course, but the pricing seems to be way out of whack — $40K is just too high for a mass market car. The third generation Prius is now hitting show rooms with more power, better features and a lower price. And Honda is looking to beat Toyota at its own Prius game with its new Insight Hybrid, which looks a lot like the Prius but costs $5K less. One more thing. In all the discussions about the future of GM, one definitely sees a confusion with GM "the brand." The fact is, GM is NOT a brand. It is an auto manufacturing holding company that builds and markets brands, like Cadillac, Chevy, GMC and Buick (goodbye Hummer, Saturn, Pontiac and Saab). As such, the people at GM must continue to build genuine excitement, value and demand around its remaining brands, and spend less time on GM. People don’t buy GM autos…they buy a Buick instead of Lexus (good luck), or a Cadillac instead of a BMW or Audi (double good luck). Not to be too self serving here, but the future of GM’s remaining brands comes down to great marketing. And that includes, first and foremost, products (followed by pricing/value, promotion/advertising, and place/distribution). If they can get the product right, the rest should fall into place. It will be very interesting to see how this pans out for the "New GM."
• The Paid Content Debate — Over on my favorite advertising blog, George Parker’s AdScam, there is a really smart debate raging on Web content. The question of the day is: Can Web publishers charge for their content (as some are already successfully doing), or do they have to give it away and hope to make up the difference through selling ads (which is increasingly looking less profitable and effective as an online business model). This is also the big debate for nearly all journalism publishers, especially newspapers who are coping with declining circulations and ad sales and less than robust ad revenues from their online versions. Here is where I come down on the issue. I don’t blame publishers who decry the fact that their valuable content is used without payment by online aggregators and basically given away free on the Web. The fact is, people will pay for certain content online (WSJ is one famous journalism example), but it has to be fairly specialized and have a perceived unique value. It is going to be very tough for publishers of "general content" to get people to pay for it on the Internet. Factiva and Hoovers Online can charge for their business research content because they offer something different (and they hope, better) than you can get from Google, Yahoo, Ask or the new Microsoft search engine Bing. Disney charges parents for allowing their kids to access Club Penguin online. Again, a percieved value, especially when the kiddies are screaming for it. Publishers need to find pockets of exclusivity and value in their specialized content, and then match that up with the people and/or businesses that need and want it. The example of the magazine world is very instructive in this regard. General interest mags are hurting big time, but many specialized publications are still flourishing. A bow hunter wants his specialty bow hunting magazine every month, but if he wants general news and sports, he will just go online and get it free, or watch broadcast TV. One more thing. The online news and content aggregators should not be so darn stingey with their success in generating traffic on the Web and selling ads against it. AP and other news organizations have a point when they accuse sites like Huffington Post for selling a lot of ads based on their content. I love HuffPost, but they should realize that they have a symbiotic relationship with those journalism outlets. It is not enough just that HuffPost drives readers to the sites of those content owners. Why can’t HuffPost just create revenue sharing agreements with all of its content owners (including its bloggers, who also get paid nothing on the site), so everyone wins, and everyone can survive (especially the journalism entities) to keep investing in creating that critical content? Arianna Huffington, I hope you are listening to and reading these suggestions. Don’t be such a cheapstake. Sharing the revenue is the way to go so we don’t kill the goose laying the golden eggs for all of us online.

I am not talking about just the usual groaners, like TV spots for toilet tissue or even the mini masterpieces from Billy Mays — the OxyClean, MendIt and Big City Sliders pitchman. I am talking high cheese here. The real stinky stuff.

For that you need to turn to Rx advertising, specifically the ads for ED drugs (that is erectile dysfunction to the uninitiated). I blogged a year or so ago that the snappy "Viva Viagra" ads were perhaps the worst and most cringe-worthy advertising I have ever seen. And, I have seen a lot of awful advertising in my time.

But, the ED category is quite competitive in the cheesiest/worst advertising category. Viagra has not yet topped the transcendant dorkiness of the group of "cool" Boomer dudes playing their axes and singing Viva Viagra like it was the best Elvis song ever written (by the way, the guys in that ad look like Travolta and gang from that cheesiest of movies, "Wild Hogs." I am sure you understand that is not a compliment to either production!).

And, Levitra has been pretty quiet of late…but you gotta love the name "Levitra," with that wonderful hint of "levitation" hanging over the brand! Levitate? Erectile dysfunction? Get it?

It is thus up to Cialis to seize the cheesy mantle for 2009. OMG…it absolutely delivers every time, big time. Have you seen the Cialis spots? They are a veritable potpourri of hackneyed, outdated and delightfully bad advertising cliches. I have never been able to figure out why marketers seem to think that insulting your audiences’ intelligence and imaginations is a good communications strategy. But, it’s all there writ very large in the Cialis spots.

Where does one begin? The Cialis "Signature": The spots feature the guy and gal in their his and her bath tubs. You know, those old fashioned "claw foot" tubs, which are now a key part of the Cialis brand. The image of the two lovers in their personal old timey tubs is now central to the Cialis corporate identity and even the logo (shouldn’t they actually be in the same tub? We are talking about sex here, right?).

I also love how the campaign hits every ethnic group — from the African American couple to the perfectly coiffed and tanned (a rather leathery tan, I might add) white Boomer couple, to the new spots with the Hispanic pair. The only group I have not seen represented in the Cialis campaign are Asians. Now, why is that? Is ED  not a big problem in that community?

The Cialis spots also have that wonderful voiceover talent James Naughton (the former Broadway star) reading the laughably serious copy with his incredible basso profundo voice. The whole thing feels terribly ironic, but you know it’s dead serious. Which makes it even more ironic and ultimately hilarious, in a creepy sort of way.

The Cialis ads would not make the grade for cheesiest spots if they didn’t include the ED money line: "If you experience an erection lasting longer than 4 hours, seek immediate medical attention." I remember when those spots first aired, the comics had a field day with that line. They noted quite correctly that the prospect of the "four hours" was exactly why dudes bought the drugs in the first place. Actually, I was dating a doctor at the time and she told me some pretty gruesome stories of what they really have to do with gents who come in to the emergency room with that 4-hour problem. Nuff said on that one!

Perhaps I am totally missing the point on the Cialis advertising. Maybe I am being too literal in my interpretation and criticism. Clearly, the ads seem to be working, as they keep running them (the fact that I see the Cialis ads all the time unfortunately brands me as part of the target demographic…what can I say, I do watch the evening national news programs, and I am a Boomer).

Forget Saturday Night Live. If you want a good laugh, check out the Cialis ads on any of the weekend evening network news programs. They won’t disappoint, I promise!

Indeed, when the moment is right for you to watch the cheesiest advertising on record, you will now be ready.

We shall see if we end up respecting — or "disrespecting — this Bing.

The Microsoft marketing people are trying to conjure up a fanciful image of the new Bing brand as being "the sound of found" for people looking for all kinds of things on the Web (don’t know about you, but "sound of found" sure is a hokey line!).

So, instead of signifying Bada Bing, or Bing the cigar chomping faux business columnist of Fortune, Microsoft’s new baby Bing will be the search product that represents the sound of finding exactly what you want in the massive online universe called the Web. Not the worst brand name or value proposition I have seen for a new Internet product.

Bing certainly is a better name than "Live Search," the essentially failed Microsoft search brand it replaces. Of course, snarky Web wags are already calling BING a synonym for "But It’s Not Google." Darn, wish I had thought of that!

Bing seems to have more of the functionality of an online shopping decision site (like those ubiquitous e-commerce aggregator sites such as NexTag or Smarter.com), than just a typical search engine. Perhaps that is a good idea, but it also just might get in the way for many people who don’t want shopping, or any kind of, advice when they are searching. I cannot yet vouche for the Bing experience as the site will not launch until next Wednesday, June 3.

BTW, the URL is www.Bing.com. That certainly is a strong, short and punchy Web address.

Will Bing succeed when every other Microsoft search venture has failed against the Google juggernaut? It might make a dent, but it might just crater, too. Microsoft’s track record in search is nothing to brag on. With all the money and senior management time Microsoft has invested in search over the years, the company only accounted for 8.2% of searches in the US during April 2009. Now that ain’t beanbag, but it’s not close to Google, which has continued to grow share.

Microsoft is certainly putting plenty of money in the launch kitty for Bing. According to the NY Times story, the launch ad budget is north of $100 million. The company has also inked partnerships with big computer makers like HP and Dell to put the Bing search button on the PCs of those companies. All told, the marketing budget for introducing Bing is said to exceed several hundred million dollars. That is serious stuff.

Good for Microsoft. As they say, go big or go home. This time, the Bing might finally get some respect.

So far I have received a few good ideas (thanks, Athena!), with most of them coming in conversations off this site. I appreciate all the great thinking. Please keep submitting your recommendations on this blog and to me directly. There has got to be a workable, sustainable business model to keep newspapers and journalism alive. Here is a recent article on the subject from The Economist magazine.

On a completely different but favorite subject — the damage that major corporations frequently and inadvertently inflict on their own brands — Ad Age had an interesting piece today on the legal battle that P&G had been waging in the UK to try to keep Pringles from being labeled potato crisps (chips here in the US). Seems that if they are potato crisps (rather than mysterious crisp-like thingeys in a can), then Pringles are subject to a 15% VAT tax.

P&G apparently lost the legal fight and will now have to pay millions in taxes to the British Government on the UK sales of Pringles, which are now officially labeled as potato crisps in the land of Bangers and Mash and Bobble and Squeak (don’t ask what that is!). However, that’s not even the brand damaging part.

Since P&G’s legal challenge was very public — and Pringles have a devoted following, many of whom sing the product’s praises online and in social networks — the dirty little secrets of the legal proceedings leaked out. Apparently, in arguing that Pringles are indeed NOT potato crisps (most decidedly NOT), P&G divulged what is actually in the things: less than 50% potatoes, with the rest being wheat and corn flour, fat (lots of it), emulsifiers and spices. Some wags even said, incorrectly, that Pringles include sawdust and ground up newspapers in them.(Now there’s a potential use for all those old newspapers!)

Speaking of ground up non food stuffs in food, did you know that ground coffee has a small and legally permissable amount of ground up insects in it, including roaches? Yep, it’s in there and it’s perfectly allowable under FDA rules. Seems the roaches get in the bags of coffee beans and are then ground up with the beans. Can’t really help it. Hey, it’s all protein!

P&G probalby should have just paid the darn UK taxes instead of waging a public battle to claim that their billion dollar brand of mystery crisps is made of not exactly the most appetizing stuff. But that has never stopped sales of the Pringles mega brand. People don’t seem to care what is in Pringles. In fact, I think many consumers take a perverse kind of pleasure in knowing Pringles are not really potatoes, and that they probably have a half life of a thousand years or so!

From a brand management standpoint, this Pringles case demonstrates the unintended consequences of letting the lawyers and bean counters run your brands. Terrible idea.

So, keep those "Saving Private Newspapers" ideas coming, gang. If P&G can make pots of money selling mystery crisps that they claim are not really potato-based, then we should be able to come up with an idea to save journalism.

• Oprah Gains a Million Twitter Followers — That is a clear demonstration of the mainstreaming of Twitter, and social media in general. It stands to reason that media mega celebrities like Oprah will be just as popular (and followed) in the social media world as they are in the traditional media space. Now, what happens next in the Twitterverse? Who the heck knows? But, it is becoming very interesting to watch the Twitterlution. Twitter certainly has become the topic du jour in the marketing world. I think the big trap for marketers is that they will use Twitter in pretty much the same way that they have always used media, which is for broadcasting…one to many. That, of course, flies in the face of what social media should be, but it is the trend nonetheless. Certainly Twitter stars like Oprah and Ashton Kutcher (and Megan McCain), are not conducting one to one conversations on Twitter. They are using the Twitter megaphone to broadcast to their fans. Brands are starting to do the same thing. We’ll see how that works for them.
• Green Shoots Go Brown? — In a case of hopeful self-fulfilling prophecy, many of us have been heralding the "green shoots" poking out of the wrecked economy. You know, the signs that the recovery is starting to take hold. Then Wall Street had to ruin it all last week by moving back into semi bear market territory. That said, I do believe the economic free fall is over…thank God. I am no longer afraid to look at my 401(K) and, believe it or not, the value of my home on Zillow has stopped falling through the floor. Indeed, there is a floor there! But, the recovery will take time. Unemployment is still high, and that is not going to change anytime soon. Companies are still reluctant to investment-spend, which hurts us all (especially marketing firms like mine, which rely on clients getting back in the game and mixing it up). What do you see as the most accurate sign that the recovery is starting to pick up steam (or not)?
• Healthcare Reform is Moving? – Or perhaps not. Who knows? For healthcare reform it always seems to be two steps forward, three backward. Clearly the momentum is there on so many different levels and from varying groups who have a strong incentive to ensure major changes in our broken healthcare system. But the entrenched powers protecting the old dysfunctional healthcare system are just so strong and implacable. Indeed, the Healthcare Swiftboating has already begun. I am constantly amazed at why the public just does not rise up and demand that every politician fix healthcare NOW. Except for the fear of losing a job, there is no greater stress creator for the typical American family than rising healthcare costs, and the fear of a catastrophic illness for a family member. But, even with that, the American people just kind of sit back and let the special interests fight it out in front of them. It’s Go Time for healthcare reform, and it will be interesting to see if the Democrats actually have the smarts and the courage to finally make it happen. I remain dubious.
• Al Ries Argues for Less Math in Marketing — Good for you Al, to take on the rising influence of "quants" in the marketing world. Ries wrote a pretty provocative piece for Ad Age recently in which he argued that the marketing pendulum had swung too far in the direction of the numbers crunchers. (You know, the current obsession of CMOs and their ilk with measurement and the dreaded ROI!). Ries commented that the only thing that matters in marketing — what really breaks through and differentiates your brand in the minds of consumers/prospects — is the creative expression you use to tell the brand story. Well, I agree with him to a large degree. As we all know (at least I think we all know), marketing is a careful mixture of "art" (the creative) and "science" (the math and ROI). If you get those two key elements out of balance, that is a problem. It has been fashionable of late (especially by the afore-mentioned CMOs and also digital marketers) to emphasize ROI and measurement, seemingly to the exclusion of creative. That is wrong, and it’s where I particularly agree with Ries. But, effective marketing is neither just about creative for the sake of creative. The creative you put out there has to be based on sound strategy, which is also a mixture of art and science (especially real research that comes from, more than anything, listening to the people you are trying to sell to). The reason I like digital media and interactive marketing so much is that they allow for both creative and powerful analytics and measurement. Best of both worlds of art and science.
• Will Adam Ultimately Prevail? -- Naturally, I am referring to this Tuesday’s American Idol final. It is now down to the Arkansas pretty boy, nice guy crooner, Kris Allen, and the force of nature banshee (in a good way…mostly) Adam Lambert. As much as I love Adam because he truly is original (for Idol), I think the young girls who constitute the prime Idol voting block will probably go for Kris. Also, you would think that Kris will win over most of the Danny Gokey votes now that the Gokester is gone (thankfully). One interesting story about Idol this week revealed that even as the total viewership has steadily declined in recent years (that is all relative, the show is still a ratings powerhouse), the Idol "franchise" is more profitable than ever. Idol has really become a major brand, and as such, it is being exploited in inumerable ways to generate ever growing revenues. According to the story, the Idol producers and Fox are making a killing in all of the merchandising, licensing and advertising sponsorship tie-ins and cross promotions that Idol enables. Now that is smart marketing for the 21st Century!
• Saving Private Newspapers…Now!  — The fashionable thing to say these days is that, as a medium, newspapers are dead. Certainly, the evidence for that thesis is all around us. But, I strongly disagree that newspapers have to be on the endangered list. I love newspapers (showing my age?!), and do believe they have a future in an increasingly digital world. I also don’t believe that future has to be about an alternative viewing/reading device like Kindle. Nothing wrong with eminently portable, disposable, readable paper to me (works for books and they are still very popular worldwide). Newspapers (including their digital versions) need to find a way to become valuable and relevant in people’s minds and lives again. I don’t have the life-saving answer yet, but I think we need to come up with one. With that I am herewith starting the "Saving Private Newspapers" Business Model Contest. What is your suggestion for a new business model that will ensure the continued and sustainable future of newspapers? Is it a shift to a non-profit foundation model, as some have suggested (David Geffen is reportedly looking to invest $200M for a 20% stake in the NY Times to keep it in business as a non-profit)? Or, is it figuring out some clever and compelling way to charge for content, a la the Wall Street Journal’s success (it’s the only major newspaper that has succeeded at this)? What is your answer to Saving Private Newspapers? We will post all of your suggestions on this blog, and then widely publicize the most promising ideas. There is no financial prize…yet. We are working on that. David Geffen, are you reading this? Stay tuned!

Now, what were your favorite marketing/media/culture stories of the week?!

That was, of course, wrong. Publicity is anything but free. It takes a lot of work and diligence to generate publicity, especially to do it right. And, that takes money — either to pay your own team driving the PR machine or an outside firm or consultant. It certainly is not "free."

Today, with social media as the next hot thing — and, in the opinion of many, including myself, the future of PR — there is a similar myth that social media programs are inexpensive. Equally not true.

A new media blogger, Jason Baer, recently posted on the myths of social media, and the common misconception that social media is cheap was his first point of six. (Baer’s "myth’s" post got a lot of positive play on Twitter and other sites, quite justifiably. Based in Flagstaff, AZ, Baer is a social media and email marketing consultant. BTW, have you noticed, especially on Twitter, the exploding number of social media "experts" out there? Pretty amazing!)

Needless to say, I agree with Jason on this particular myth point…and his others, too. My firm, THUNDER FACTORY, develops, implements and manages social media programs for a number of clients, and we charge a fair price for this work. In fact, a social media program pretty much equates to an ongoing PR effort in terms of fee (it typically requires an upfront set-up cost and then an ongoing maintenance and management fee, which varies depending on exactly what and how much you do the client).

For some clients, we develop the social media strategy and then establish the basic program infrastructure. Typically we would also help with ongoing social media monitoring, tracking and results measurement. We also have some clients who employ our firm to write the actual blog(s) and develop other content, based on their input and in line with a content development schedule we establish upfront. This content schedule is continually updated and refreshed to reflect what is happening at the company and in the world/culture/market.

Naturally, the fee varies by the amount of work we deliver, but I certainly would not call it inexpensive. That is because, as Jason Baer notes in his post, social media takes plenty of time and effort. Equally important, social media communications and engagememt is of very high value (in my opinion) and thus deserving of an appropriate recompense. There is no free lunch…even at Google!

But, even with all of that, some companies and organizations still tend to view social media as some kind of amateur undertaking. They really don’t take it all that seriously (yet…they will). Consequently, you often see companies (even big ones!), giving the social media outreach task to a low-level and definitely low cost "intern." Sure, that intern is being supervised, but, still, this is a bad reflection on the importance accorded the social media function by too many companies.

Believe me, Domino’s Pizza doesn’t underestimate the importance or power of social media anymore. Not after their disastrous (near death?) experience with two venal employees who created a disgusting video about Domino’s and posted it on YouTube. Prior to the crisis, Domino’s clearly was not a major social media proponent or participant. Hence, they were dangerously slow to recognize and understand the Force 10 Hurricane that was about to envelop the Domino’s brand on various social media sites, especially Twitter. They learned quickly and rebounded after about a day and half, but not before getting reamed online for the offending videos, and especially for being so flat footed in their crisis response. (Dealing with a crisis is never cheap. A company will pay pretty much anything to make it go away, or at least just respond effectively to it.)

Lesson? Social media is deserving of your A-Team efforts. It is now an increasingly important part of your communications universe (whether you like it or not), because people are talking about you and your brand online (whether you want them to or not).

Given all of that, you shouldn’t just relegate social media to your organization’s farm team. Certainly not just an intern (not that I have anything against interns), because social media takes more experienced people at the helm to manage it effectively and to good effect. And that is just on the "normal" days when the news and chatter is mostly neutral or even positive. When an issue emerges, you need real pros on the case or you could quickly have a full blown Domino’s like crisis on your hands. Then you will wish you hadn’t just hired an intern to handle your social media function.

None of this is inexpensive. That said, compared to all the other channels and tools for communications, monitoring and marketing, social media is still a pretty good value.

So, it was with that perspective that I was intrigued by a recent Ad Age guest commentary on the use of customer segmentation in marketing. The provocative headline of the piece,"The Death of Consumer Segmentation," ensured that I would read it. Because, I am a strong proponent of having a clear understanding of who you are marketing to. The commentary, by Michael Fassnacht, an EVP of consumer intelligence at DraftFCB, makes its case based on three observations:

• Traditional views of consumer segmentation are changing dramatically because of the volatility of the current society and culture, and the major changes wrought by the recession (makes good sense to me).
• People are frequently part of different consumer segments…and they like it that way (I never thought personal "choice" was actually factored into which segments we placed consumers).
• Consumers are gaining more control of marketing activity (I certainly agree with that).

After that impactful headline, Mr. Fassnacht equivocates by stating that the "shift from brand controlled segmentation to self enabled segmentation" does not really diminish the need for marketers to understand their various segments and tailor their messages and offers accordingly. I agree.

For me the bottom-line here is that there are new marketplace and demographic factors that you need to consider in identifying and clarifying your consumer/customer segments, but that does not mean the practice is dead. Far from it. It is probably more important than ever before.

A few years ago my firm did an in-depth customer segmentation study for a huge retailer of outdoor supplies (hunting, fishing, camping, sports, etc.). This category leader had never done a customer segmentation before. As we got into the research process we quickly saw that they were missing a lot of opportunities (and wasting plenty of money) because of this lack of a clear picture of who they were targeting and what made them tick.

More recently we’ve been working with a leading healthcare company that is finally getting serious about mapping its customer segments in one of the brand’s major business sectors. This enhanced customer understanding is already having a profound effect on the marketing communications aimed at the sector, product development and sales operations (including training).

Again, customer segmentation is more important than ever before. It ain’t dead!

When we undertake a customer/consumer segmentation strategy, we examine four key factors:

• Needs
• Behaviors
• Attitudes
• Demographics (mainly for consumer brands)

By mapping our clients’ customers and/or consumers against those four areas, we can start to identify the segments that are most valuable and targetable. And, that is a critical building block to a successful marketing campaign.

As they say, you can’t always judge a book by its cover. This recent Ad Age commentary had some good thinking in it regarding how to optimize your customer/consumer segmentaiton activities. But, you had to first get past the misleading headline.

• I noticed a fascinating statistic this past week about typical users of Twitter. Seems they are a bunch of middle-agers (just like moi), usually in their mid-forties to early fifties. That actually makes sense to me. Twitter is about information, news, writing and reading. Those are all things one likes to do as you get older.
• Speaking of Twitter, I am pretty amazed at the growing and innovative use of this social media channel by marketers. Nearly every day I see yet another example of how a brand or some other marketer or communicator is launching a new product or undertaking some marketing initiative through Twitter. Those who see no future in Twitter or claim it has no business model, have not been watching closely enough (and that includes the estimable George Parker, the author of the world’s best blog on the advertising industry, who loves to  bash Twitter). Actually, Twitter has become the new star for marketers, even more so than Facebook, which probably has tweny times Twitter’s user base.
• I am a true car guy at heart, so I frequently write about the auto industry. The new Volkswagen Golf GTI (or Rabbit in the US) just won the "Car of the Year" honor from some global auto group. A neighbor has a gray GTI that, I have to admit, is pretty sweet.  I had a ‘96 VW Passat and I was none too impressed with it. It was underpowered and not terribly reliable. Maybe I should give VW another look.
• Of course, I am still waiting for that most hapless of American car companies, Chrysler, to close its deal with Fiat. The only reason I care about this deal is that it would mean that Chrysler can bring the wonderfully retro Fiat 500 (the "Cinquecento") to the US. I would buy one of those little gas-sipping beauties in a NY minute. Either in white or red (of course, if it comes in orange, I might buy two of ‘em!).
• Speaking of cars, I was reading about the NY Auto Show in the Times today and there did not seem to be any really interesting new models or concepts debuting at that famed event. Too bad. The launching of new cars is still a joy for many of us gear heads.
• Americans have dangerously short memories. Just a year or so ago gas prices soared to over 4 bucks a gallon and eveyrone was clamoring to buy hybrids and the Mercedes built SMART car (a good friend has one in San Francisco and he loves it). Now, with gas prices in the low two dollar range (in the Bay Area…gas prices are even lower around the country), auto dealers can’t give away Toyota Priuses and SMART cars. In fact, a Silicon Valley dealership has a very large parking lot brimming with hundreds of Prius hybrids waiting for buyers. They are even offering $2,500 off the sales price! A year ago, you paid a premium of up to $5K for the right to drive a Prius. When will we ever learn?
• WPP Group, the big ad agency holding company, folded its ill fated "Agency of the Future" Enfatico into Y&R this week. Seems that Enfatico could not make it on its own, even with a multi-year, multi-billion dollar contract from its sole client, Dell. AdScam’s George Parker predicted this eventuality a year and a half ago when Enfatico was launched with great fanfare by Sir. Martin Sorrell, head of WPP. George was dead on in his analysis that Enfatico was just another badly conceived "house" agency, one that did not come close to living up to its ridiculous, overly heated hype. Lesson: If you are going to create the "Agency of the Future," it better be better than the old model, or at least different. Enfatico was neither, and now it’s essentially gone (at least as a standalone agency brand).
• Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has terrible PR advisers (for her sake, I hope the Botox queen and Fox News host Greta Van Susteren is not one of them, as is widely rumored). The past week saw Palin getting into a very public and quite undignified p—ing match with her former son in law, Levi Johnson. The young Johnson lad went on several interview shows (including the CBS Morning Show and Tyra Banks) to tell his side of the story of his relationship with Bristol Palin, their child Tripp and ultimate break-up of their "engagement" (which was pretty trumped up from the get-go). The governor was not pleased about Levi singing to the media so her PR drones issued a vitriolic press release. And, then Palin herself commented on the subject at her press conference in Alaska. The fact is, Palin brought this on herself when she trotted out Levi and Bristol during the recent presidential campaign. She should heed the old saying, "when you find yourself digging a hole, deeper and deeper, stop digging." Governor Palin: Obviously your PR people have not given you this advice, or you have chosen not to take it, but do  yourself and your family a favor — shut up and stop digging!

This bad news was not an isolated occurrence for Dell. The Round Rock, Texas computer maker had been experiencing a string of bad business news during the past few years. Sure, they could explain away their current business decline by pointing to the disastrous economy — the recession did play a role in Dell’s negative numbers — but Dell’s troubles went far deeper than that.

It has now been nearly two years since founder Michael Dell rode back into the company to restart and relaunch the Dell franchise after most agreed it had lost its way. But the Michael Dell calvary was not having much effect. As a result, the company that had been the leading PC maker for years, was struggling in a very public way.

Dell had also recently announced major changes in its marketing department. This is the same group of "world class marketers" that had been assembled fairly recently by Chairman and CEO Dell to reignite interest in the Dell brand and get sales and revenues flowing again. Well, it was a spectacular bust. The much heralded chief marketing officer, who had been hired just about 18 months before, left the company with no real results. His chief lieutenant followed suit shortly thereafter.

Dell was stuck in the muck up to its axel! And, there was no tow truck in sight.

My Austin friend and I wondered what Dell needed to do to pull out and get back on track. I said that it would take a lot more than a new ad campaign, fancy colored PCs, or yet another price cutting effort. For Dell to regain its competitive edge, it needed a true "Game Changer."

A Game Changer is a strategy that can make people — buyers, employees, distribution partners, key influencers such as reporters, bloggers and analysts — sit up and take notice. And once they are up and paying attention, hopefully those people would say or think, "Wow, that really is different, and worth checking out." (The recent Business Week cover story in focused on Game Changing ideas in a difficult economy.)

Dell needs a Game Changer strategy…badly.

An incremental plan just won’t work. This is especially true in a severe economic downturn like we are mired in today. To get its mojo back, Dell needs to completely change the game in the computer industry. Michael Dell already did it once, when he first started selling PCs from his U. of Texas dorm room. In the process he reinvented the sourcing, manufacturing and distribution model for the computer business. That was a true Game Changer.

I am not going to suggest what Dell’s Game Changer strategy might or could be (they ain’t paying me for that…yet!). But, I promise you it’s out there and it’s not an impossibility. Not by a long stretch.

But, that doesn’t mean Dell is going to find it, either. From my perspective, the company has been suffering from a chronic lack of imagination for a long, long time. It is going to be hard for them to get those Game Changing Thunderbolts flying, but it can be done.

To understand the incredible redemptive power of a Game Changer strategy, consider these standout examples from relatively recent business history:

• Hyundai — Formerly the laughing stock of auto manufacturers because of its carboard and chewing gum cars that defined cheap and flimsy in the 80s, Hyundai is now rivaling Toyota and Honda on many key dimensions. How did Hyundai completely change the game in their business? First by improving the design and quality of their products, and then putting their money where their mouth was by offering a Game Changing 10-year warranty. That got people looking and listening and thinking, "Gee, if they can stand behind their cars for 10 years, they must be pretty good." The rest was automotive history.
• Apple – Of course Apple had to be on this list…it is one of the most innovative, Game Changing companies in the history of business. Apple’s (Steve Jobs’) massive Game Changer was the iPod. In one fell swoop, Apple fundamentally changed (to its own design) the global music industry, putting Apple solidly back in the winner’s circle. Apple then followed that monster success with a phone industry Game Changer, the iPone. Great companies are built and lead with these kinds of Game Changers.
• McDonald’s – The Golden Arches brand was pretty moribund a decade ago, pulled down by indifferent food and service, declining store environments, terrible marketing communications, a lack of product innovation, and more agile competitors (like Wendy’s, which now is need of its own Game Changing comeback). McDonald’s decided enough was enough, and their Game Changer strategy was essentially a return to basics. They improved quality, tightened store standards, made sure food was always hot and fresh, developed interesting new offerings and got the pricing just right. In short, they polished everything about the McDonald’s brand. And they then crowed about the "new" McDonald’s by launching a smart global campaign under the tagline, "I’m Lovin’ It." This total integrated marketing effort was a true Game Changer for McDonald’s. In fact, it literally turned the company around. Today, because of its new focus on quality and service, and also consumers’ desire for low priced restaurant options, McDonald’s is one of the few bright spots in the global recessionary economy. All due to a Game Changing strategy that was effectively and consistently implemented over time.

Just look around, and you’ll see other examples of companies that have come roaring back, or substantially grew their business, through Game Changers. Toyota and its focus on hybrid engines (the Prius). My old company E*TRADE, and its great competitor, Ameritrade, in launching the online brokerage revolution. And, pretty much everything that Target does is a Game Changer, from clever advertising to hip and name brand designers, offering exclusive products at low prices. Target truly changed the game in discount retailing.

In addition to Dell, there are also quite a few companies that desperately NEED a Game Changer in their business (perhaps your company would fall in this category, even just a little!). As I have noted many times in this blog, Starbucks, once itself an historic Game Changer, now sorely needs a new one (oatmeal is a nice addition, and a marketing success for Starbucks, but it does not rise to the Game Changer level). Sears, the once proud All American retailing brand, has been in search of a Game Changer for years (Penney’s found its comeback strategy with fresh fashion offerings). In the high technology space, Sun Microsystems is badly in need of a Game Changer. Palm may have finally found its Game Changer with its new iPhone competitor announced at the CES recently in Vegas. If that doesn’t work, I don’t see how Palm survives.

Another brand that is in dire need of a Game Changer is Reebok, the formerly high flying athletic shoe and apparel brand. When Adidas acquired it a few years ago, Reebok’s share was 9% of the category. Today’s Reebok’s share has dropped to just 2.5%…a truly dramatic decline! According to Ad Age, Reebok is pinning its future on reverting back to its women’s fitness roots. The company’s Game Changer will supposedly be a women’s fitness workout routine called Jukari. We shall see! To me this is just another example of how most mergers and acquisitions don’t work in brand driven categories.

What is your Game Changer strategy? It could be out there right now, but it will take some work, and a lot of collaborative imagination, to bring it into view.

One of the best sources of Game Changer ideas is your customers. Talk to them, engage them, and co-create with them. You will be very surprised what they tell you. In fact, they have probably been suggesting Game Changing strategies to your company/organization for years, you just haven’t been listening closely enough.

Get your Game Changer strategy going now! If you don’t your competitors just might change the game without you.