Maybe RFPs aren't the answer

I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now and I'm still struggling with how to write this post without being too self-serving. I've been asking myself if answering Requests for Proposal (RFPs) is the best way to get new business, and most importantly, if the clients are getting what they need from them. Here's what I've been thinking in terms of the problem, a better way and the results.

The Problem

The process of writing an RFP leads a client to leap to what they believe the solution to their challenge might be. Generally, the agency that guesses the solution the client had in mind (and is one of the cheapest) will win.

There's an essential missing question that is never really answered. What if the client's solution, while probably good, isn't the best, most creative solution? What if one of the agencies had a brilliant, out-of-the-box idea that was the perfect solution to a different challenge, the real challenge? What if they left that solution back "on the cutting room floor" because it didn't jibe with the RFP?

A Better Way

I propose something really radical.

Clients should plan 2 hour brainstorming sessions with each of the agencies. Lay out a problem from the past not related to the current situation, maybe even for a different brand than the one in question. Pay for up to 4 agency employees' time during this brainstorming session. They should also write a contract that states the results of the brainstorming are owned by them, the client. Based on this process, the client then selects the agency they think is the smartest, most clever, had the best brainstorming process and resulted in the best solution to a problem that was previously solved. The client can even compare their solutions to the one a previous agency develops.

Then the client would have the new agency work with them to define the real challenge facing them now and the right strategic solution, including tactics.

The Results

1. The client is paying the agencies full price to do what they should do well.
2. The client is learning about the personalities in the agency and how they connect.
   
3. The client is seeing the best thinkers from the agencies, not just the best presenters.
4. The client is receiving ideas, even from those not selected, that might help in the future. And they are paying for those ideas, so it's equitable.
5. The client is selecting a partner, not a vendor.

I know this is controversial and might be dismissed coming from an agency guy, but that's my opinion. I'd love to hear yours.

Twitter response: "viral"

Earlier today, I tweeted this:

...and I received a slew of suggestions. Quite a few aligned, like so:


(@seanhussey, @petehealy)

The word "viral" sparked something in me, as Jeff and I had only recently been discussing (arguing) about what exactly it means.

My view-- which I believe to be fairly commonplace, but I could be wrong-- is that you can't make something viral. No matter how badly you want your message to spread like wildfire, it's up to the consumers/users/people that you're speaking to.

What you can do, and what I wholeheartedly encourage you to do, is create a message that people are compelled to spread. Give me the content that I not only want or need, but makes me yearn to propel it forward.

I'm not saying anything new with this. But this concept is something we (marketers, brands, etc) all need to understand before we move forward. Your consumers can see when you're trying to make something viral. It's a bit of a party foul.

As Sean and Pete say in their tweets, virality starts with content. You want the kind of message that your audience is aching to hear. If you are trying to repackage a useless message within a glitzy YouTube video, you have a systemic problem to deal with and should not be surprised when it lays there, sad and moldy.

If, on the other hand, you have a message that resonates... then "viral" will happen. Just as with an actual germy virus... you won't be able to contain the contagion. (That shall be the name of my first drone metal album, mark my words.) You can take credit for it, you can clap yourself on the back, but the only planning you can do is to work on the benefit you're offering the people you're counting on to talk.

Brand NAME

Okay, a very interesting discussion is brewing here. I was walking around the office (it's called management by walking around and its a real thing) and we started talking about our frustrations getting our names from Facebook.

Just in case you are unaware of what's happening, let me explain. This past Friday night at midnight Facebook started allowing users to register their own names. This means you can now have an easy-to-remember url to drive people to your Facebook profile.

This has always been an issue for me since I have such a common name, Jeff Jones. I was smart enough to get my own name as a domain, jeffjones.com, more than a decade ago, before blogs, Twitter, and even Facebook. But now it's not as easy for two very important reasons. First, most people are online and understand the importance of a simple url. Second, and this one's a surprise, I can't stay up late anymore.

As I was laying in bed, laptop on belly, waiting for my iPhone to click over to 12:o1 am, I fell asleep at 11:00 pm. I woke up long enough to set it aside the computer, deciding to get up early and get my name. Alas, I was too late to get jeffjones and had to go with a variation. This is not unprecedented, my AIM handle is one thing by Skype name is another, my LinkedIn profile is still another etc., etc. I have a total of 7 different variations of my name or nickname on different social media. This is frustrating.

So here's the solution. From this point forward, future moms and dads must realize the importance of personal branding. Name your kids with a unique name that no one else will pick. I suggest using a strong password generator like the one here. I'm thinking about going with Jeff v22&O'3 or maybe j243"\X Jones. What do you think?

National Soul Patch Day is HERE!

At long last, National Soul Patch Day has arrived, and with it, the end of our Soul Patch Contest. The competition was fierce, and deciding who the winners were was one of the hardest decisions we've ever made. But, here they are...

Judy Thompson wins for Most Creative Soul Patch with her Ad Club Patch.

Jason Caudill wins in the Most Dramatic Change category.

And Lisa Alexander wins the coveted Judges' Choice Award!

Honorable mention goes to Greg, Alisa and Russell. Great job everyone!

Contact us at jmunkey@wondergroup.com with your mailing address and your t-shirts will be sent to you. Thank you to everyone who participated, helping make this the best National Soul Patch Day ever!

In defense of the tweetup

This is a picture from a tweetup that I attended in Pittsburgh, PA.

Now's as good a time as any to jump into the FAQs:

--> What's a tweetup, Erica? It's an event where Twitter users meet in person.
--> Why would you want to do that? Because these people seemed cool.
--> Did you know the people you were meeting? No, I had never physically met them.
--> Did you know the person you drove with? Not in real life.
--> Were you afraid of getting murdered, lol? No.

Great! Let's move on.

I believe most people would agree that social media connects people. However, people's ideas of why we connect are more disparate. Often, the social media detractors act as though social media is a replacement for real-world contact; that instead of going outside or joining a book club, We of the Social huddle near our computers and imagine false connections because we can't do better.

The detractors have never been to a decent tweetup, I'd wager.

Social media is a tool for connecting people, not the connection itself. And thank heavens for that tool, because I've discovered a handful of people who understand me, laugh at my jokes, and are moderately interested in what I ate for lunch today.

I received quite a few cockeyed looks from people before I struck out for Pittsburgh, but the reasons never made much sense. No, I hadn't met the people I was to hang out with, but is that so different from sitting in your local bar? No, I wasn't worried about the trip-- I had much more questionable road trips in college, with people I had met, and no one ever batted an eye.

People fear it because it's not the traditional way of doing things... but I say that choosing friends based on proximity to your house is much odder than choosing them based on shared interest and conversational rapport.

I am seeing more and more people using social media as a method of organizing real world, physical events. It's a fantastic way to find people, plan things, share details, remind people, reserve a table, whatever. This is where social is heading... it became large and faceless, but is easing back into the personal, the face-to-face. You will see more of this. You will give me less cockeyed looks.

Thank heavens.

P.S. Pictured from left: Twitter users @gordonshumway, @texburgher, @lindstifa, @bcompton, @tony_d.

What's the Difference Between Audience, Users and Consumers?

Yesterday I was preparing a presentation for a major Dutch candy company. I noticed I kept interchanging the words audience, user and consumer. I found this interesting and an example of the blurring of roles that's taking place in marketing and media consumption today.

Audience seems to have attached to it an assumption of passivity. As an audience member, you are expected to sit quietly, observe and clap when everyone else claps. Certainly, I act as an audience member sometimes. When I went to see Star Trek last week, I didn't add my own commentary, and I'm sure the rest of the theater was thankful for that. However, about an hour into the movie, I did pull out my iPhone and tweet about how awesome the movie was.

Consumer, on the other hand, may be passive or may be active. If we are talking about consumption of content, that process may be a pretty inactive one. However, if you are talking about consumption of a product, then, of course the consumer must take action. They must call a phone number, get up and go to the store or log on and order.

An user is a completely active. They are clicking, dragging, opening, inputting data, commenting and sharing with their friends.

But think about this, when I am watching Lost at ABC.com on my laptop, am I an audience member? Of course I am. Then while watching I see a commercial for a Subaru WRX. At that moment I am expected to act like a consumer, right? Then if I start playing with an embedded widget that's delivered with the ad, I've obviously, become a user at that moment.

Therein lies the beauty and danger of online marketing. You can never treat your target as only one of these. They can switch from an audience member to a user, to a consumer at the blink of an eye. They also, can switch from a vocal advocate to vocal critic just as quickly.

When is the time?!

Russell sent me the following article: Advertising's new model: Clock-watchers no more.

The premise: Coke is paying their agencies based on value (results) instead of hours. This is a fascinating premise to me and you should read the whole thing, but there's one section in the article that stuck out heinously to me:

The industry, already sick because of the recession, turned a bit bluer in the face at the news. (...) It is hardly an opportune time to discuss a change in compensation models.

What?! When is the time, then? It seems to me that when times are tough, clients and agencies are desperate, and old measures aren't working anymore... that is the time to change the old models. Or at least give it the ol' college try!

Try try try! Shake shake shake! And if it doesn't work, where are we? Back to the difficult place we are now?

Your Career and Social Voyeurism: a Response

Toward the end of last week, I received a tweet from @Joseph_Yi: Hi! Just wrote a new blog post: Your Career & Social Voyeurism: http://tinyurl.com/pwycmk Would love to hear your opinion!

Why not? Yes, he sent the same tweet to a dozen other people, but he was quick to respond when I asked him a follow-up question. You can market your content without acting like a bot, see?

The post that Joseph wrote is about "social voyeurism"-- the concept that your future boss can see your Facebook pics, your family can see what's written on your Twitter account, etc. And because you're being tagged in notes that your friends write, and your coworkers are writing snarky comments on your wall, and your ex-boyfriend is posting photos of you that show up in every feed you have... this content is not always under your control.

So! Is this bad? Definitely, for the people who consider their work lives and their home lives separate. I have plenty of friends who work for the weekend, then loosen the tie and become someone they'd rather their coworkers remain unaware of.

But I want to take a more contrary opinion. More and more, I believe that these walls should come down. Today's agency (as Joseph's post speaks specifically about careers) is changing, opening up.

I know that I want to work with real people... complete with character, personality, and a life outside of work. These are people I'm going to be spending 40+ hours with each week, cramped in warm rooms, trying to bring life to ideas. Do I want to spend every waking hour with people who are completely buttoned up, free of vice and nuance? Definitely not.

I want to look at your Facebook and see the activities you're into, what you did with your friends last weekend. I want to read your Twitter account to see if you crack jokes, publish links I haven't seen yet, frequently misspell words. I want a chance to see the sides of you that I would never see in a formal interview, but which are important to the dynamic of a creative environment like an advertising agency.

This works in moderation, of course. There are things you don't want to share with the world, and that's understandable. But the internet isn't a great place to keep things private. A certain amount of openness and honesty is the barrier to entry, as far as I'm concerned. As Joseph mentions, there are privacy settings you can engage and precautions you can take to keep your most mortifying content under some level of control. It's up to you to keep in mind that privacy is an illusion, and to take the best steps you can toward cleaning up your "brand," if that's a major concern for you.

Your thoughts? Am I being naive and extreme, as usual?

Returning to What Worked in the Past

Today I was watching one of the news channels and I was snapped to attention when I heard a phrase I've been hearing a lot lately. An "expert" talking about the U.S. said, "We just need to return to what made our country great in the first place." I've heard that sentence or one like it recently applied to businesses, churches, professional teams and now the country. While it sounds good, it's bologna.

Tactics that worked in the past, rarely will work forever. For a tactic to work eternally, everything would have to remain static. The competitive landscape would have to be the same, the consumer's attitude would have to be the same, the economy would have to be the same. This would rarely, no strike that, never be the case.

We are facing the most expansive changes we have ever seen. The economy is in a drastic flux, the competition is using methods not even dreamed of 5 years ago, and most importantly, consumers have fundamentally changed due to their new found digital power.

Tectonic changes are taking place, returning to what worked in the past is a recipe for failure.