Congrats, Rachel

SBB sends out the heartiest of hearty congratulations to Rachel on her new gig. The Public Information Officer position is a great match for her intellect, communication skill, and professional approach, and she will serve the city, its citizens, and the media very well.

Sadly, Rachel's new job means that Be Part of the Solution is leaving the blogosphere. In the short time that it was up and running, BPOTS quickly became a go-to site for measured, informed, rational discussion of local issues. Rachel also was incredibly generous in sharing both ideas and her technical knowledge with other bloggers, both of which have been a huge help to me in starting SBB.

On a personal note, I'll miss commenting over at BPOTS, and since Rachel was employed by a client, I'll miss working with her in the real world, too. But I also know this is a tremendous opportunity for her, and I know she'll do a great job.

So good luck, Bea Pots. Keep in touch.

PowerPointless

SBB thinks there's a lot you can learn from those who create truly different, truly great PowerPoint presentations. But we also like the video about what NOT to do posted at AdFontes on Tuesday.

Scrabulous Scuffle leaves players at a loss for words

Game players love it. Hasbro hates it. And now, it’s in a war that makes the battles in Stefan Fatsis’ Word Freak look like child’s play.

It’s Scrabulous, the web and Facebook phenomenon that borrows more than a little from Scrabble, the world’s best-selling board game. How similar are the two? Just a glance at a Scrabulous board (see above, and note the trouncing I’m taking from Martha and Rebecca) tells the story. And now it’s gotten serious enough for the lawyers to be involved, as Reuters reports:

Game companies Hasbro, which distributes Scrabble in North America, and Mattel, which is responsible for its overseas trademarks, have reportedly asked Facebook to remove the game from its application directory.

One interesting note that says something about the power of social networks: Scrabulous was living a pretty great life out on the web (where I first discovered it), but Hasbro didn’t seem to care until it become all the rage with the kids on Facebook. All’s fair, apparently, until someone pokes your brand in the wrong place.

The Scrabble Scuffle has also started an interesting online debate about whether Hasbro would be better served to collaborate with the makers of Scrabulous or fight it out in court. In a comment to his post on Tuesday, Scott at Collective Wisdom argued that “Hasbro can be the hero by buying Scrabulous and mak[ing] money, or wast[ing] a bunch of cash on lawyers.” Others, however, think that Scrabulous is not exactly being above board by encroaching on Hasbro’s intellectual property rights in particular and the rules of fair play in general.

As both a rabid Scrabble fan and a Scrabulous junkie, I’m caught in the middle (along with everyone else in Facebook forums like "Save Scrabulous!" and "If Hasbro Kills Scrabulous, I Will Die!"). I definitely see where Hasbro’s getting screwed, but I applaud Scrabulous for giving players a free online option that doesn’t suck (unlike Yahoo’s lame Literati). And it gets even more complicated when you consider that Scrabulous is making serious money off their version, which Hasbro probably could have done if it invested in innovation instead of legal fees.

The whole thing reminds me of the music industry and Napster. Sure, artists should get paid for their work, but you gotta love a system that gives you exactly what you want at no cost. My guess is that we’ll see a similar result here, with Scrabulous going the way of Napster (blown up only to be resurrected as something about 5% as good), Hasbro going the way of the music industry (enjoying a short-term win while still contemplating long-term irrelevance), and players going the way of music fans (using Lime Wire to get around the system until we feel guilty enough to buy a couple of songs on iTunes).

In the end, the whole thing is likely to leave Scrabulous players at a loss for words. After all, disputes like this having a happy ending are as rare a triple word-score bingo.

"Hey, marketing: here's a sow's ear…can you PhotoShop it into a silk purse?"

I had at least three conversations today about marketers being left out of the product development stage, only to be asked to make the product a success through the magic of advertising. The problem is, it doesn't work that way. The earlier you get marketing involved, the better the marketing's going to be. It's just that simple.

Here's a thought for anyone who's in the room at a product's conception: What's the downside of getting marketing involved right from the start?

If you think they're going to get in the way, give bad advice, or waste your time, then you have the wrong people. You don't need to wait to get them involved--you need new people, whether you're talking about in-house marketing staff, an agency, or a consultant.

But if you do have the right people, they'll know when to listen, when to ask questions, and when to offer suggestions about the best way to make your product salable. They'll help you make it better, and they'll give you objectivity that will lead to insights you'd otherwise probably miss. And they'll certainly have more buy-in when it comes time for them help you tell your product's story.

There's no such thing as getting marketing involved too early. And even if there were, it still would be much better than getting them involved too late.

Photo: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

You call that a sign ordinance? THIS is a sign ordinance.

Did you know that there are no billboards in Vermont? I didn't, until I read a great AdFreak post today about the Green Mountain State's law:

The proposal became law back in 1968 mostly thanks to the efforts of one man, Ted Riehle, a state legislator. Riehle faced stiff opposition from farmers, who made money leasing their land, and from advertisers, who wanted the ad space. But Riehle convinced the state that it would benefit financially and aesthetically by taking the existing billboards down and banning new ones.

The post also includes a defense of billboards from Steve Simpson of Goodby, Silverstein & Partners. Simpson's defense, in summary? Yes, billboards can be ugly, but they also can be pretty. And sometimes they're in front of stuff that's even uglier, like strip malls.

Simpson's argument reminds me of DDB New Zealand's "Say No to No Billboards" campaign, which made a compelling counterpoint to the "billboards blight the landscape" claim. Sometimes, it's actually the landscape that blights the landscape. And in that case, a billboard might be a little easier on the eyes.

SBB's take on billboards? Aesthetically, as AdFreak suggests, it's hard to make a case for them. But as a marketing strategy, it's also hard to argue against them--and this is important--when they're done well. The audience can't turn them off, they're big, and sometimes they can be incredibly cool, but you have to know their limitations:

• No more than six words. Ever.
• Nothing that takes more than three seconds to read, including phone numbers and web addresses.
• One central image. One.
• Not all locations are created equal. And some are behind really overgrown trees.
  

How about you? Are billboards part of your marketing plan? Why or why not? Let's hear your thoughts in the comments.

The best 8 min., 19 sec. you'll spend on the web today

Phenomenal, thought provoking stuff from "Shift Happens" creators Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod.

Idol worship

Last week, SBB discussed the $2.7 million average price tag for a Super Bowl XLII ad slot. And while the Big Game still commands the biggest dollar by far, it's only a once-a-year opportunity for the network and its affiliates. That's what makes American Idol such a phenomenon. As the Los Angeles Times reports, the show begins a new season tonight unmatched in its ability to bring in ad revenue week after week:

[A]ccording to TNS Media Intelligence, which tracks ad spending, "Idol" last year collected $810 million in revenue, up 39% from 2006. Some analysts estimate the show's ad revenue could soar 20% this year. […]

Fox initially sold commercials in this year's "Idol" for as much as $750,000 per 30-second spot. As the writer's strike has dragged on, advertisers have been shelling out $1 million or more for a single commercial that would run as the show's grand finale draws closer, according to people familiar with the situation. No other series on television commands such premiums. Commercial spots in original episodes of other highly rated shows, including CBS' "Survivor" and ABC's "Grey's Anatomy," sell for $250,000 to $450,000.

As with Super Bowl spots, keep in mind that this price tag reflects the national rate. Rates for a local ad insertion are much lower, but still proportional to the size of the show's audience. In other words, aside from the Super Bowl, American Idol is still the most expensive buy in just about every market.

This season, Idol is stronger than ever, since the writer's strike has resulted in weaker interest in sitcoms and dramas among ad buyers. This is causing a ripple effect that benefits Fox as a whole, says the Times:

Higher ratings for "Idol" means more viewers will see promotions for Fox's other programs. […] [Also,] Other Fox shows that run on the same night as "Idol" enjoy a big ratings bounce. "House" faced cancellation when it debuted in 2004 before blossoming into a hit after it was scheduled to follow "Idol." Fox now uses the singing contest as a launch pad for other shows. Fox-owned local TV stations also benefit from the "halo effect:" "Idol" delivers viewers to the stations' 10 p.m. newscasts and gives stations fresh clips to use during their morning programs.

One thing's certain: with both Super Bowl XLII and Idol in its stable, Fox executives will be signing "We're in the Money" when it's their turn at the mike.

Hmmm...that whole "Google" thing seems to be working out O.K.

Interesting wire story on website names in today's Journal Gazette. Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi decries the recent barrage of "oddly named companies":

So why the rampant cuteness? Is the idea to make tech-related companies feel warm and fuzzy and not so sterile and impersonal?

Many tech companies tend to follow two naming strategies these days, says Anthony Shore, global director of naming and writing at Landor Associates, a San Francisco design company: the “nonsense” name (Joost) and names that use familiar-but-misspelled words (Flickr).

Shore, for one, likes neither strategy: “It just feels like they’re throwing in the towel. It’s easy to find an existing word and drop out a letter. It’s easy to come up with arbitrary sounds, or to just add an ‘oo.’ It’s far more difficult to come up with names with real words that have meanings and connections with people.”

Don't be so quick to take Shore's advice, however. On his blog, for example, Seth Godin called Flickr a "good name," in large part because it's a little odd. Odd names, Godin explains, allow you to be first in a Google search--and being first on Google sure beats being 3,475th. None of this should be surprising, though, from a guy who named a website "Squidoo."

My take? I'm somewhere in the middle--and Google itself is a great example why. The name "Google" is a play on the word "googol,*" so it's not complete nonsense. But part of the reason it works is that it's fun to say. Which means it gets repeated. Which makes it sticky.

But there's a more important reason why the name "Google" works: they have a phenomenal product. Even though it's fun to say, there wouldn't have been much to talk about if it were just another website.

So what should you name your website? Well, the experts seem to have mixed opinions. But one thing's certain: if you have something phenomenal to offer, people will go out of their way to remember your name, no matter how goofy it is.

*No lie: without even thinking about it, I looked up the definition on "Definr.com," which follows the Flickr model of names. Why do I remember it? Because it's a great, fast online dictionary.

Job opportunity

The first SoundBite Back job posting comes from none other than my employer, Asher Agency. We're looking for a full-time, entry-level account coordinator. The ideal candidate would have an understanding of all facets of marketing, along with these skills/abilities:

1. Managing Projects – track jobs through process
2. Attention to Detail
3. Work closely with client
4. Work closely with Asher media, creative & production departments
5. Media added value – maintain spreadsheets & communicate with media outlets
6. Communication skills
7. Writing skills
8. Research & new ideas

If you're interested, e-mail me at ajjuliano@gmail.com. I also can add your resume to the SoundBite Network, if you'd like.

A Whopper of a recall rate

Today's "3 Minute Ad Age" reports that the Burger King "Whopper Freakout" campaign has generated the highest recall rate in the six years that IAG Research has been tracking viewer response to TV ads.


The "Whopper Freakout" spots certainly are memorable, but the long-form video has one major flaw: if someone orders a Whopper and you give them a sandwich from Wendy's, it only makes sense that they're going to get a little angry--and not because he or she is a Whopper purist. If you give me something from altogether different fast food chain, it says something pretty bad about your quality control. I'd be freaking out, too, wondering what other surprises might be waiting for me in my fries or my drink.