It is possible that the social networking world is headed toward a pivotal moment. Three separate signs appear to point the way.

“I am out of here.”

Sign 1: Word came earlier this week that Bill Gates is giving up on his Facebook page. Seems the number of friend requests he got was just too much trouble. He says that 10,000 people wanted to be his friend. The fact that he bailed isn’t the sign of the approaching social networking apocalypse. The sign is that only10,000 people wanted to be his friend! Come on people! This is one of the two richest guys on the planet. You would think that millions of social media denizens would be trying to suck up to the guy. Heck, if people will become a fan/follower/apostle of a beer brand in hopes of scoring a free brew, you would think more than 10,000 of them would chase a Benjamin or two. It’s obvious that Web 2.0 has pulled a lot on slackers into the social media world.

Uploading Made Easy

Sign 2: On Monday I learned about Posterous, a free service that takes all the hassle out of uploading text, pictures or video to Facebook, Twitter, flickr, etc. Now it is faster and easier for every clod on the planet to share their random thoughts and boring pictures with every other clod on the planet. I actually view the need to have some rudimentary computer knowledge as a sort of filter to keep the really hopeless from broadcasting every detail of a life most people don’t care about. Plus the need to upload separately to each of the social media sites offered the slim hope that they might nod off before they finished. Now it is faster and easier for these poor souls to share their every waking moment with an unsuspecting world. Server farms are going to spring up all over the world because storage is going to get used up at an alarming rate.

Don’t Follow Me!

Sign 3: And just when I thought all hope was lost I stumbled across a site selling just the type of apparel I need. With bold statements such as “Don’t Best Friend Me” and “LinkedOut” they will soon be the rage for every social media curmudgeon. Mine should be here any day now. Can’t wait to upload a picture of the latest fashion statement to my Facebook page!

Skywriting has been superseded. Twenty-story building projections are behind the times. Giant crop circle logos are a little out of date.

Because now Utah-based Moon Publicity LLC is promising marketers the moon, by inviting them to pay as little as $46,000 to reach every person on earth with advertising on the moon.

Just in time to take advantage of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the moon, they introduced a brand new form of environmental advertising that’s literally “out of this world.”
“New Shadow Shaping technology creates images on the moon that can be seen from Earth.  Robots are used to create several small ridges in the lunar dust over large areas that capture shadows and shape them to form logos, domains names or memorials.”

Is it a well-intentioned but impractical pipe dream or an elaborate hoax? We’re not sure. But we do have a few ideas about critical issues that marketers should consider.

It’s a really, really, really long term commitment.
According to Moon Publicity, sponsor ads will be visible from earth “…for several days every month for the next several thousand years.” By contrast, the oldest continuously-operated business on earth right now is Hoshi, a Japanese inn founded in 718.

There may be a seasonal tie-in promotion opportunity here on earth.
Moon advertisers will have a big advantage over competition if the anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing becomes something like President’s Day. Should we be looking forward to a cartoon Neil Armstrong shouting “we stack ‘em deep and sell ‘em cheap” to shoppers? We hope not.

Some products are better positioned to take advantage of moon advertising. A little imagination suggests that the ideal target audience will be people who shop at night. Imagine a Wendy’s Eat Great, Even Late ad beamed to every midnight snacker on earth. Marketers with “moon equity” may also benefit: Blue Moon beer, Moon Pie (but never these two together, please), Revlon Moondrops lipstick, and even all 39 The Honeymooners episodes on DVD. Or maybe not —remember that ads on the moon will reach all 6.77 billion people on earth, not exactly a tightly defined target audience.

Once in a blue moon, a breakthrough marketing opportunity comes along. Marketers who buy into this one may be farsighted early adopters. Or they may be just a little bit spacey.

You probably think of customer relationship marketing as a task that’s done by human beings. Marketing and sales people understand the product or service, understand the customer, then develop activities and communications that build the relationship. That’s how it’s always worked…until now.

Writing about Kindle, Amazon.com’s wireless reading device, ThinkEquity analyst Edward Weller said: “…Kindle firms up and solidifies Amazon’s connection to its most important customers, and not just the heaviest users, but a special class of heavy users who were at the beginning—and probably still are—at the very heart of the franchise: better-educated, higher-income, early-accepting, serious readers, the kind most motivated by depth of selection, the kind that seem increasingly dedicated to Amazon as the default go-to for media… and, increasingly, everything else.”

This is one small example of a trend identified by futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil. He believes that machines will eventually take over the world: “If all the AI systems in the world suddenly stopped functioning, our economic infrastructure would grind to a halt. Your bank would cease doing business. Most transportation would be crippled. Most communications would fail….Of course, our AI systems are not smart enough — yet — to organize such a conspiracy.”

According to Kurzweil, this will not happen for another two or three decades. But it may be starting in marketing right now. Kindle is just one example; others include:

OnStar, the GM in-vehicle system that diagnoses mechanical problems and alerts owners to maintenance needs and recalls, disables stolen vehicles and automatically responds to crashes, uses voice commands for hands-free calling and provides turn-by-turn navigation.

MedSignals, the personal medication management device that alerts users to four different prescription-taking times and records them, announces warnings, uploads data automatically to a remote server, and communicates with caregivers.

And of course, the Apple iPhone – a phone, an audio/video/games entertainment device and an Internet device, all continuously personalized with each user’s choice of thousands of apps.

Could this be the future of customer relationship marketing? Will a product do it on its own, working with the customer to personalize itself and to initiate and sustain the dialogue that creates an individual user experience?

Will The Terminator be taking over from you?

While the word that Starbucks beat third quarter profit expectations was seen as good news by many, there are indications that they still have a tough road ahead. The continuing decline in revenue, same store sales, and the number of transactions indicate that recession-weary customers may have departed to less expensive alternatives or are dropping in for a latte less frequently.

“No company can save themselves to prosperity.”

Fans don’t equal customers.

One last point: The comments by Mr. Schultz on increased competitive activity by McDonald’s and others being  a help for Starbucks is a double edged sword. While it may have raised awareness of the coffee category, it has also seen the competition raise the quality of their coffee and their overall marketing game. The atmosphere at Starbucks was one of the reasons for their initial success. The fact that they delivered a much better cup of coffee was probably a bigger one.

I recently dusted off some old books that were quite the trend-setters in their day. Well, maybe. In hindsight, how accurate were the popular Megatrends books? Here are a few highlights from authors John Naisbitt http://www.naisbitt.com/ and Patricia Aburdene. http://www.patriciaaburdene.com/

Megatrends (Published in 1982)

· We will move from a national to world economy. [Okay.]

· The U.S. will no longer be an industrial economy. [Yea.]

· We will shift from short term to long term planning. [Hmm?]

· Centralization will give way to decentralization. [Not.]

· The population will move North to South – to CA, FL, TX – From Chicago to L.A., Houston and very hot Albuquerque. [Albuquerque??? And as of today, Chicago’s hanging in there.]

· “We will eventually do some shopping by computer, but only for staple items.” [So opposite!]

· “Teleconferencing is so rational, it will never succeed. People want to go to the office – people want to be with people.” [At least they got “rational” right.]

Megatrends 2000 (Published 1990) http://www.amazon.com/Megatrends-2000-John-Naisbitt/dp/0380704374

· The internet is not mentioned on the eve of its explosion. [Where were the futurists?]

· Apple computers are mentioned, only in context of Western Eye Press of Telluride, Colorado – book editing and design.* [Apple introduced Macintosh in 1984 with an historic Superbowl ad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8. And who’s Western Eye Press?]

· Computers are mentioned for designing apparel and biotechnology.” [What were they writing their book with – a Smith-Corona?]

· “Corporate sponsorship of sports will plateau, while art sponsorships continue to grow dramatically.” [Michael Jordan was at his peak. Tiger Woods was on the rise. The Grand Old Opry was outdrawing the opera.]

· Among the growth companies cited were:

> Old Jefferson Tile – Texas

> Superior Technical Ceramics Corp – St. Albans, VT

> Schauer Manufacturing Company – Cincinnati – Battery Chargers

[Definitely not Warren Buffet’s picks.]

*Note: Desktop publishing began full-swing in 1985

Megatrends 2010 (Published 2007) http://www.amazon.com/Megatrends-2010-Rise-Conscious-Capitalism/dp/1571744568

· “The Dawn of Conscious Capitalism.” Top companies and leading CEOs are re-inventing free enterprise to honor stakeholders and shareholders. Will it make the world a better place? Yes. Will it earn more money? That’s the surprising part: Study after study shows the corporate good guys rack up great profits.” [‘Nuff said.]

(By the way, Michael Naisbitt is creator and author of UFO-Blog.com. Any relation to John?)

Faith Popcorn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Popcorn is a little more difficult to pin down because of her amorphous observations. I don’t know if we “cocooned” more in the 90’s than we did any other decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocooning St. Norbert College researchers concluded that The Popcorn Report had a 50% error rate versus her 95% claim, not something to base your business plan on. http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/mma/1999/25.pdf One skeptic observed, “If Popcorn is any kind of genius, it is only for marketing and self promotion, for she has packaged pure fantasy and sold it to some of the highest-level executives in U.S. industry.”

By the way, has your One-to-One Future happened yet? In 1996 Don Peppers’ and Martha Rogers’ monster seller renamed “Relationship Marketing” and had the nation believing that soon, we’ll all have personal dialogs with each of our favorite brands. http://www.amazon.com/One-Future-Don-Peppers/dp/0385485662 [They’re still riding that wave.]

Keep in mind that many future developments are self-evident, and even we non-futurists can predict many trends – we just don’t write books. Also keep in mind it’s a market-driven economy in publishing. Books about Roswell, the Bermuda Triangle, conspiracies and marketing buzzwords will always outsell scholarly approaches to those subjects. So, if you’re going to finally write your ground-breaking best-seller, err on the smoky side. As for my predictions, invest in quick reads with catchy titles, but don’t bet the farm on their predictions.

Tim Hortons, the Canadian coffee shop chain founded in 1964 by hockey player Tim Horton, has the potential to take significant business not just from Dunkin Donuts but from Starbucks. Their authenticity, reputation for a good product, and mystique may be the motivation that pushes consumers to abandon $4 lattes for good $2 cups of coffee. Being able to brag about the new Tim Hortons that finally opened in your town can completely disguise the fact that you have traded down in price in the midst of a recession.

We had this great beer in Cabo.

The consumer products and services segment has numerous examples of  brands that have garnered that magic something by being unavailable to the general public or all areas of the country. Long before Corona Extra took off in the US, a buzz was created by vacationers returning from Mexico talking about the great beer in the clear bottle they were served with a wedge of lime. Coors generated a mystique by not being available east of the Mississippi. And this does not just happen in the beverage category.

Teens and young adults reserve copies of the newest version of their favorite video game months in advance of the release. People who have visited The Cheesecake Factory in LA stand in line for two hours when one opens in Milwaukee. Still others live in anticipation of a Wal-mart opening in their town because their cousin has told them how great the values are. In some cities, like Chicago, they wait and wait and wait.

A New York Times article on the changing of 10 New York Dunkins Donuts to Tim Hortons appears to be generating some buzz. Anticipation appears to be growing around the expansion of this venerable dispenser of good coffee and donuts to Canadians for over four decades. It has a cachet not of the nose in the air kind but of a place Canadians go for good coffee and good food. And Americans are doing it at 300 locations already in the US.

Fire up the Mirth Mobile. We’re getting donuts.

The key elements of the Tim Hortons mystique are based in popular culture and in cross-border traffic. Tim Hortons was the model for the fictional cafe “Stan Mikita’s Donuts” in the 1992 film Wayne’s World. Countless 20 and 30 somethings know that Garth preferred a sugar puck during their late night stops. The cross-border aspect is not unlike the Corona experience. Thousands of Americans have visited Timmy’s with good friends after a night on the town to “soak up the poison.” Now they can do it in Manhattan.

Being cool can be a heck of a crosscheck!

The reason that Tim Hortons will be able to pressure Starbucks is that they are going to be perceived as cool. And the hip nature of the discovery will bless the purchase of a decent cup of coffee for $2 in place of a $4 low fat latte status symbol. Saving money during a recession camouflaged by the “in the know” aspect is a recipe for success. McDonald’s isn’t cool. Dunkin Donuts isn’t cool. Krispy Kreme was in but now it’s down and out. Timmy’s is becoming hip! Watch for celebs showing up on TMZ after a night of partying and you will know it has been “discovered” by the beautiful donut munchers.

Later.

For some companies brand development is a haphazard process governed by a vague mission statement. It takes place almost entirely in the marketing department alone, it can take forever, and success depends largely on luck.

For other companies brand development is governed by an elaborate and rigid set of rules and procedures run by the “brand police.” They assure consistent copy and graphics but can stifle creative thinking and marketing innovation.

That’s why it’s refreshing to read this recent Newsweek article about CEO Bonnie Hammer’s development of the USA Network brand.

“She is insisting that her top executives—including those in the marketing and promotion departments—not just have a vote in selecting shows, but also a voice in each other’s plans for molding, rolling out, and supporting them.”

“When Hammer and her lieutenants consider scripts, they spend up to two days in their own conference room, using charts to map out exactly how a proposed show matches the “blue sky,” “aspirational,” “fun,” and “character-centric” values that viewers identified as key attributes of Monk. Today the network sees those qualities as the core of USA’s brand identity.”

The result: USA Network’s brand is built into the product that customers experience. It goes way beyond being just a mission statement, a marketing department function or a set of copy and graphic rules.

Some companies are following the “throw it against the wall and see what sticks” trend in brand name development. That’s what came to mind when I read my colleague Lowell’s post on Brink’s Home Security changing its name to Broadview.

Let’s start with an assumption: All other factors being equal, a brand name that communicates relevant meaning about product/service features or benefits has a marketing advantage over a competitor that does not.

Sometimes the brand comes first, and then the meaning. That’s the traditional way; many famous brand names are founders’ names, or the name of the company’s primary product or service – Brink’s, Ford, Hewlett Packard, Coca Cola, IBM. These names are neutral when they’re new, but gain meaning over time.

Other brand names start out with intentionally created meaning. Tide evokes the idea of water washing away stains and dirt. Google is a play on the mathematical term Googol, 1 followed by 100 zeros. It communicates organization of the immense amount of information on the Web. PlayStation is a central location for fun.

And then there are the brand names that do neither. Broadview is one example – it sounds like the name of a suburb, not a home security service. Microsoft’s new Bing is another – to me it’s name of a dark red cherry, or maybe the sound of a doorbell. And Armada, Nissan’s large SUV, brings to mind one of the greatest maritime disasters of all time – the sinking of the Spanish Armada in 1588.

These are not the names of the founders, and they are not descriptors. They seem to be chosen at random, as if they were picked out of a hat, or selected by throwing darts at names posted on a wall.

Yes, yes, I know that companies will provide elaborate rationales for their new and incoherent brand names. Here’s what one Microsoft representative said about Bing:
“We needed a brand that was as fresh and new [...] A name that was memorable, short, easy to spell, and that would function well as a URL around the world [...] the name needed to clearly communicate that this is something new, to invite you to come back, to re-introduce you to our new and improved service and encourage you to give it a try.”

And here’s what Steve Ballmer himself said:
Why Bing? Obviously we needed a better name, says Ballmer. “We needed a name that says this is all about search.” Ballmer doesn’t seem to really know. “I’m not the creative guy, here…short mattered…people like to ‘verb up’…works globally, doesn’t have negative connotations.” Walt: So everyone is going to walk out of here and say “Bing me”? Clearly that’s Ballmer’s hope. “This is a very important step…it’s not a substitute for innovation, but we need to build brand equity in addition to technology equity.”

The problem is that prospects and customers will never see those rationales, or would care if they did see them. Over time Broadview and Bing and Armada may gain the positive meaning they need to be successful brand names. But wouldn’t they have been smarter to start out with that meaning built into their names?

With all the none stop buzz about internet this and online that, it is refreshing to read about cases where someone seems to get it right instead of merely being a Black Hole for venture capital. That was my reaction when I came across a WSJ article on “private sales” of designer apparel. The topic alone made me stop and read. Who wouldn’t when the third paragraph discusses the availability of YSL “hobo” bags at darn near half price!

It seems a small group of online retailers have quietly and virally built a nice niche for themselves. Gilt Groupe, RueLaLa and HauteLook run member-only sales on limited amounts of merchandise. There are no member fees but you have to sign up. Sales are announced via email and merchandise quantities limited. Plus the merchandise list is expanding for some of them to cosmetics, spa packages and travel. If these folks find a way to get me Clarins at a discount they will have me for life.

“Is anyone working in this department?”

This member-only, discounted designer offering is one of the few bright spots in retailing, online or otherwise. This at  time when quite a few upscale retailers have locations that look more like museums than stores. I was in a Saks Fifth Avenue the other day and had the whole second floor to myself, literally. You can pretty much bet that this WSJ article made the rounds at headquarters by 9AM with a note demanding a plan of how to do the same thing. For some of the upscale stores, it might be too late.

“I just took the tags off to try it on. I want to return it.”

One consumer segment that may love the emergence of this online designer option is the “buy on Friday/wear Saturday night/return on Monday” crowd. Spend anytime working designer clothing in an upscale store and you will realize it’s a bigger segment than you would believe. Now imagine that you can buy online, wear it to a wedding and return it the following week saying it is too big. Some outfits may make appearances at several weddings across the country before finding a permanent home. Any of you in retail know this is a real problem. At one time it was easy to tell if an outfit had been worn before it was returned — the smell of cigarette smoke. With so many smoke-free environments, it is getting harder and harder to tell. Maybe these leading edge online retailers have found a way around the problem. I am sure I will find out when I fill out my membership apps at each in the next few minutes.

Happy shopping!

After seeing last week’s Ad Age story about Brink’s Home Security changing its name, three things struck me:

1. Spending $120 million over two years to replace its current name with Broadview Security seems like an awful lot of money.
2. The home security business hasn’t changed much.
3. Whatever they spent to get the name and logo was probably too much.

My first thought when reading the article was that Brink’s is probably the best name you can have in the security business. It conjures up images of armored cars and gun-toting guards watching over mountains of cash. Not a bad connection when you are talking about selling a service to protect a homeowner’s most important stuff and family. So why change? The article really didn’t say. It turns out that they have to. The home security business has been divested by Brink’s through the creation of a company called CFL and with stock handed out to the Brink’s shareholders. The new company is currently licensing the Brink’s name and will have use of it only until October 31, 2011.  Hence the urgency. That’s  a lot of yard signs and window decals to change out.

Another issue causing the urgency and the high level of spending is that the home security business is a cut-throat, sales-driven driven business where participants will spending just about anything to sign up a customer. The reason for the marketing hardball is that each customer represents a valuable prize: a recurring revenue stream. Sign them up once and get cash every month. We really saw the attractiveness of the business model during the home security consolidation in the 1990′s. Before then home monitoring had been pretty much a Mom ‘n Pop business. When folks with big check books realized the way the numbers would add up, they traveled the country gobbling up any small home security company with a few thousand customers. And they paid a lot for them.

A lot of these recurring revenue streams will be up for grabs. The challenge Broadview (nee Brink’s) will face is a full court press by ADT to poach customers. Home security salesmen make the “Glengarry Glen Ross” crew look like a bunch of missionaries. Sure the wireless touchpad is free, but they’ll find a way to up charge and add on until you have no idea what you are paying.

Naming by focus group

Speaking of ideas, it seems as though focus groups played a big role in creating the name Broadview. It’s kind of bland and not very memorable. But it probably got a lot of votes when put up on the rail in front of the one way window. That seems to be the trend with product and brand naming. Names of late appear to be condensations of the benefit. Guess it won’t be long until “Whiter Whites Laundry Detergent” appears on shelves. Hey I better copyright it.

Later.

In April Pepsi introduced special Throwback Pepsi and Mountain Dew products, made with natural sugar instead that controversial sweetener high fructose corn syrup. Then in June they snatched them away.

Their press release announced:
“Pepsi and Mountain Dew are offering consumers a taste of the past with their own versions of Throwback, two new limited time only products inspired by the ’60s and ’70s, sweetened with natural sugar in a retro-look package.  For some, it will be a trip down memory lane, but for those too young to remember, it will be
a chance to experience a new twist on their favorite brands.  Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback will be available nationally for eight weeks only, beginning April 20.”

There’s a problem here. But it’s not the health advantages, if any, of sugar vs. corn syrup. Nor is it the Throwback name and retro 1960s/70s creative. Pepsi’s mistake was in thinking promotion when they should have been thinking product.

In the kids’ game called “keep away,” aka “monkey in the middle,” two players toss a ball back and forth, trying to keep a third one (usually a younger brother or sister) from even touching it. It’s kind of cruel. And it’s a little like what Pepsi did with Throwback. They introduced it as something better, persuaded us to try it and buy it, then proceeded to play “keep away.”

There’s excitement in added value that’s available only for a limited time. For products like Pepsi, this usually means something like a larger size or a novelty promotional package But this is a case where the fundamental long-term value of the product itself is made better (or better for you), then allowed to regress to its former state.

Brands like Log Cabin, Snapple, Starbucks and Ocean Spray are all replacing high fructose corn syrup with sugar – permanently. This increases the perceived value of their products. But with Pepsi the value is here today, gone tomorrow. Could this sweet end up leaving a sour taste in lot Pepsi drinkers’ mouths?