Prime Group

TechCrunch reports on a backlash among Facebook users, http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/21/cbssports-facing-march-madness-backlash-on-facebook
-this-app-blows/, for an application provided by CBS to track March Madness. Apparently, it doesn’t work very well and there are countless four-letter filled posts beating them up for it. One of the more high profile errors was not crediting Texas A&M with the win over BYU.

Here is one post from the TechCrunch article that identifies a bit of a theme from the Facebook posts minus all the f-bombs.

“this is really about brands taking the leap onto facebook and the potential pitfalls. It’s something many, many companies are exploring and this is a great example of how not to do it.”

Is this really the case of a brand who so desperately wanted to be connected to Facebook and its users that it went to market with a beta application? Maybe, though that seems highly unlikely since, as another TechCrunch poster correctly states, the same Texas A&M bug was on their main site as well.

What is almost certainly true, as anyone at CBS tasked with reading the Facebook threads will find out, is that online, social networks can serve as the world’s biggest echo chamber with one purveyor of information making a claim – e.g. CBS rushed to market because they were desperate for a Facebook strategy – only to have it repeated over and over again by like minded people until most people assume some variation of it to be accurate.

Of course “rushing a Facebook strategy” is probably better than the alternative, echo-chamber “truth” percolating on Facebook – “CBS f-ing sucks.”

Saturday’s New York Times carried a front page, above the fold story with an accompanying college photo of Barack Obama and the headline: “Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama’s Young Life.” I wonder how many readers, like myself, reached the fifth paragraph before discovering that the three letter word in the headline was “BIT” and not “BIG.” More importantly, I wonder how many readers never got that far in the story and will forever believe that Obama was a serious drug abuser as a youth.

There is plenty of research on reading, cognition, and comprehension that suggests that readers “fill in the blanks” with what they think they already know. If you’re quickly scanning headlines, there are likely to be a lot of “blanks.” Before carefully reading the full NYT headline, the information I have is: 1) NYT; 2) Front Page; 3) Politician/Candidate; 4) Drugs; 5) Dated Picture; 6) African-American. Given only that information and asked whether the accompanying story is more likely about the candidate’s abuse of drugs or the fact that he did NOT abuse drugs, how many readers would choose the latter?

Here’s what Dr. Gerald Grow, a journalism professor at Florida A&M University, has to say about reading and cognition:

“When faced with a new text, readers do not begin by “reading” in the sense of starting at the first word and moving sequentially toward the last word, they first predict what the passage will mean. Prediction, which plays a key role in Frank Smith’s cogent account of reading, can be understood as “the prior elimination of unlikely alternatives” or “questions we ask the world.” …Such predictions may be simultaneous with the first decoding of the letters on the page, and, since a reader can be led to know what to expect by illustrations, the nature of the publication, or other contextual cues, such predictions may even precede reading. Most of this activity is unconscious and appears to be part of the way we orient ourselves in the world. (Read more http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow/StrategicReader/StratModel.html)

I am not big on conspiracy theories – whether they be “vast right-wing” conspiracies or “liberal media” conspiracies. So, I suspect this was just a failure to notice that the entire meaning and import of the headline hung on a single letter. But for Senator Obama or anyone concerned with their reputation or brand, it is worth remembering that what people THINK was said about you is just as important – and potentially harmful – as what was actually said.

In only the rarest of cases does one successful product make a successful company.

LeapFrog, once an industry darling is now trading 90% off its highs. Its blockbuster LeapPad product, once over 60% of revenue, is no longer meeting the often fickle needs of consumers in the edutainment space. Their strategy going forward, as articulated by the current CEO, is heavily centered around getting back to their core demographic, children age 3 to 5, (their marketers will stretch both ends of that demo) with an instructional reading product that includes a real web component. The NY Times article, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/technology/28leapfrog.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=leapfrog&st=nyt&oref=slogin describes the core product, Tag, designed to be the centerpiece of this strategy as,

“…a thick, white and green plastic stylus that turns paper books into interactive playthings…Parents who purchase additional titles, which will cost $14 each, have to connect to the company’s Web site to download the digital versions of those books into the Tag’s memory. At the Web site, parents will be encouraged to create a profile page for their child. Every time they connect the Tag to the computer, a record of the child’s activities will be uploaded to that profile, giving parents a detailed look at what the child read, learned and struggled with…”

Well, one thing is clear, it’s a really good thing the NY Times isn’t in charge of writing the ad copy for Tag. What else is clear? Well, we know none of these edutainment products have any solid research demonstrating efficacy as reported by a Kaiser Family Foundation study but perhaps, none need it if they all maintain a “détente” on real proof. And who knows, maybe such a claim isn’t a primary driver of consumer choice. We also know there are parents who spend significant dollars because they believe (or hope) it will provide educational advantage. And let’s not forget the other benefit of the child being able to entertain themselves for a few minutes of the day.

With that, here are a few questions to consider as Tag hits the shelves,

-How straightforward is the online process and how much time commitment on the part of the parent is required? In an age where 4 clicks is at least 1 click too many this could be the weak link.

-Is this product truly entertaining for children? LeapFrog was and past history and anecdotal evidence about Tag suggest they’ll probably deliver here.

-Is there any incentive, for the child to have an online relationship beyond downloading new titles? The CEO references NeoPets and WebKinz a lot when describing the goal of the online component. Based on the NY Times description, this is an incentive model with the parent as the beneficiary (resource, updates, reading diagnostics) versus the child (e.g. games, point accrual, virtual shopping).

The product does appear to be simpler than some “smart-pen” predecessors, it is probably ingenious and probably deserving of design awards but this is praise from the few. Answering these questions and others in the “right” way will dictate if they receive the only praise that really counts, sales.

The National Football League knows a thing or two about branding. Forty-two years ago they created one of the most successful, high-profile, hyped events in the history of branding – the Super Bowl. Ads running during this extravaganza are the most expensive on television. Around the U.S. and the world friends gather in bars and restaurants, at home Super Bowl parties and anywhere else there may be a television to watch the spectacle, cheer on their favored team and celebrate professional football – and, yes, the NFL makes it all possible. Well, now we learn that some of those gatherings over the years have been taking place in, of all places, churches. “It takes people who are not coming frequently, or have fallen away, and shows them that the church can still have some fun,” said one pastor. God and football. God and Tom Brady. Who could ask for more? Well, the NFL, that’s who. The league has let it be known that, this year, there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy. If pastors want to entertain their flocks in front of a big screen TV in the church basement and munch Doritos and talk football and, maybe, a little religion they will now run the risk of being sued by the NFL who, as anyone who has ever watched an NFL game through to the final moments knows, says that “use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent is prohibited.” And, that includes you, God. Now, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is a smart guy. He’s the son of a U.S. Senator so there’s some politics in that DNA. And, he came up through the ranks of the League office starting in, of all things, public relations. So how could he allow such a bone-headed move? Are the pastor-pirates really threatening the livelihood of the league? Does he worry about the camel’s nose under the tent and that, if we let the pastors get away with this, Vegas will be next? (In fact, Vegas and other similar sites – including your local sports bar – have an exemption and can show the game on the big screen for their customers.) Does he not think that the faithful of the world will rise up to smite this decision? And, what if God, Himself, should get involved – is the NFL really powerful enough to take Him on? I predict the policy will be rescinded – possibly before this post even makes it to our site. Most, but not all, dumb moves by smart brands are short-lived. Furthermore, I hope to learn that Goodell knew nothing of it and quashed it as soon as it came to his attention. And, although irrelevant to this post, I hope the Giants beat New England and do it fair and square. I ,for one, will be watching…but not in my parish church (wherever that is).

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.

–Ecclesiastes

I was reminded of this well-worn biblical passage when my college-age son, home to collect his birthday presents, asked me the origins of the Quaker Oats man on the cereal box. Hmm. It is not as if he needed to demonstrate once more that the old man doesn’t know all things under the sun. So, we looked it up together in that modern source of all knowledge – Wikipedia. And what a great lesson in the ancient art of branding it turned out to be.

The “Quaker Man”? was registered as a breakfast cereal trademark (the first) in 1877 by the Quaker Mill company – one of the three predecessors to the Quaker Oats company (since 2001 a division of PepsiCo.). Why? Because Quaker Mill partner Henry Seymour came across an entry on Quakers in an encyclopedia (an actual book – how quaint) and liked the religion’s association with the qualities of “honesty, integrity, purity, and strength”? – just the qualities he wanted to be associated with his company and its products. Presto, a brand was born. Of course, if Seymour’s company had a little more “honesty and integrity”? he might have checked with the Quakers before hijacking their identity and its very positive associations.

What’s great about this story is that long before “branding”? existed as a word, concept or industry, clever business people understood what it was really all about – not just a name, logo, and tagline (Nike. Swoosh. Just Do It.) but the attributes that are or can be limked with that “identity.”? Furthermore, they (or, at least, Seymour) understood that brands don’t need much “literalness.”? So what if his company had nothing to do with Quakers and he, himself, was not of that faith? So what is there is no such thing as a “Quaker”? oat? And, today, so what if Quakers don’t dress like the Quaker Man anymore. With enough advertising, marketing, and merchandising muscle, a company and its products can “own”? an identity and its attributes and logic be damned.

In an interesting twist, Richard Nixon, the U.S. president often credited with introducing Madison Avenue techniques to political image-making, (read Joe McGinniss’ “Selling of the President”? if you haven’t already), made little use of his Quaker roots and faith to lay claim to the virtues of “honesty, integrity, purity, and strength”? but, then, maybe this just proves the wisdom of an old saying in the business, “You can’t brand shit.”?