And what a week it was. Herein are some observations, random and not so much, about the week just past in the intersecting worlds of news, culture and marketing:

• 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.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS