The Lost Art Of The Mid-Range (Retargeting) Game

Jerry West, AKA The Logo

Longtime readers of the blog may remember my fondness and long-term enthusiasm for the NBA. With this year's Finals nearly upon us, I started thinking a little about the game, and how one aspect of it relates to digital marketing.

In the past few years, professional basketball has seen a radical change in tactics, with teams getting better at and taking more long three point shots. With the area that teams have to defend extended, the other most efficient offensive tactic, high percentage two point shots from close in, gets easier to achieve.

So the goal is three pointers and dunks, and what has been steadily beaten out of the game is the long 2-point shot, known as the mid-range game. By the numbers, it's a losing proposition, since it goes in about as much as the three-pointer and is, of course, 50% less valuable. Take enough long twos, it's presumed, and you are most likely going to lose.

But if you watch the actual games, rather than just the statistics, what will you see deciding the outcome in close contests? More often than not, it's the unloved long two. Because it's the shot that you can take when everything else has been taken away, with the defense guarding the arc and the paint. And when the difference between teams is close, whether or not you make those shots may be the difference between winning and losing.

The corollary to the mid-range game in digital advertising is mid-term retargeting. For the most part, short term retargeting is settled law. You dynamically populate the item that was abandoned into your ad unit, maybe goose it with a sale price or shipping offer, and create the digital advertising equivalent of a post-it note to remind users to complete an action.

Long-term retargeting is less settled, but also usually a done deal. You shock the user with a previously unseen, presumably very aggressive, offer. Perhaps you give them ultimatum copy that tells them they are being opted out of offers. The difference in branding will be strong enough to provoke a reaction, and so long as you are taking seasonality and working from good data in terms of estimating the buying cycle, the tactic should work to re-start the weaker parts of your funnel. Or maybe you just send them your best acquisition ad, and consider the retargeting behavior no longer valid.

But what should you do with the leads that are no longer white hot, nor ice cold? Assuming your impression count and due diligence are up to the task of having mid-range ads in the first place, you generally use an expanded set of items, and maybe mix in search functionality, soft sell content, or a social media play to get the leads re-engaged.

But all of these suppositions are just that -- theories that marketers use to add meaning and rules of the road to a churning universe that can seem devoid of consistent best practices.

Mostly because many funnel strategies in retargeting make the assumption that the prospects have seen and thought about every step of the creative work to date, because the marketers themselves certainly have. (If you want to throw some philosophy at this, the Naturalistic Fallacy applies.)

So the best tactics to use in mid-term retargeting... usually start with making absolutely sure about viewability and list quality, to prove that this specific market exists in the first place. (Hint: it might not.)

Then, test a lot of the suppositions that you've been treating as settled law, and let the data drive.

And if you still need a coach?

Well, M&AD has watched an awful lot of games and seen an awful lot of data. Let's play.

A Brief Longing For The Busy Signal

Nope. Nope. Nope.

The other day, I heard one of my favorite rock songs by the British recording artist Richard Thompson. It's "Tear Stained Letter" ( here's the link to the live version), which dates back to 1983. It contains the following lyric:

I went for the phone, but the line was busy

Which got me to thinking about busy signals. They were a constant, universal and dreaded factor in everyday life that has more or less just gone away due to technology.

Busy signals used to be a very big deal. You'd dread getting them, worry about being on the phone too long and giving one to someone else, get very frustrated with whatever entity was causing it, and so on. As phone tech improved, we moved on to call waiting, and getting straight to voicemail, and at this point, voicemail is pretty much a lost art as well. If you want to reach anyone under the age of 25, text or their preferred social network is pretty much becoming your only channel, especially with the scourge of robo-calling.

But I want to get back to what the busy signal represented. There was a democracy to them. Rich and poor, urgent and trivial, the busy signal was a simple and complete hard stop to whatever the caller thought was important and had to happen right now now now. If you couldn't figure out some other way to solve your problem, your only option was to redial or wait.

Maybe really wealthy people had other options - private lines and such - but for the most part, it was a shared and universal inconvenience. At any point in the day, you had the means to immediately communicate with the person you wanted to talk to, but there was a really good chance it wasn't going to work. The busy signal encouraged back up plans, alternatives. Creativity.

Now, of course, the call goes through, but with less of a chance of success. Maybe it goes straight to voicemail. Or blocked. You can send email, but there's no guarantee it won't trigger a spam filter or get buried under other messages. What used to be an absolute and mechanical disconnect is now set to the preference of the recipient, who holds all of the power. They decide whether to answer the call or not from the information they receive on their screen.

I think this means that we talk to each other less than we used to, but there's really no way to know for certain. Perhaps we are all just busier now, less apt to do the small reach of making the first call, more prone to cultivating our feeds and inboxes and to do lists.

No one wants the busy signal back, of course, and it's never coming back. Good tech always displaces bad.

But that doesn't mean that when it went away, we didn't lose something as well.

AI, Paper Clips and Criteo Boxes

All Hail The Criteo Overlords

This is going to get pretty esoteric pretty quickly, but I think it will get to a place that's helpful to marketing and advertising folks. Let's dig in.

In a recent interview on NPR's Fresh Air, Bill McKibben spoke about his latest book, where he outlined threats to humanity. (Mostly, spoiler alert, climate change.) At the tail end of the talk, McKibben also noted the threat posed by Artificial Intelligence (AI), loosely defined as computers making decisions based on a virtuous learning loop built on data accumulation and analysis.

McKibben did so with a fairly famous thought exercise known as the Paperclip Problem, or to get more high faluting, instrumental convergence. In this, an AI robot with a seemingly good but unbounded mission (say, the most efficient manufacture of paperclips) would quickly move to terminate its human masters, since they would likely shut off the robot at some future point, and thereby prevent paperclips from being made.

Now, at this point, you might be wondering how we're getting to digital advertising challenges. And with that, I give you the Criteo Box, which is a term that some in our field use to describe template retargeting ads made (in)famous by the dominant player in the space, Criteo. (Example above.)

Criteo boxes are loathed by many design and brand marketing professionals, because they are machine and data driven utilitarian shopping bots that seem to eliminate the need for design. The challenge becomes all about the dynamic product recommendations shown in the ads, because by whatever analytic standard is being used to determine good ads from bad, the data has driven you to this, the final plateau of performance.

An inelegant bare bones box with as many recs as you can fit, Because Data.

Which might lead you to think that design doesn't matter, because it's been solved by AI. Like betting that you will win in chess against IBM's Watson, it's a losing proposition. Just accept the box and move on, with the small possible caveat that it's only solved for remarketing and not acquisition. (But will also likely be solved at some point for acqusition, again, Because Data.)

But here's where I'd like to hold out hope for humanity's continued presence in my life's work, while still being OK with analytics. My belief is that the Criteo Box is only dominant due to an over-reliance on short term goal events.

If you are judging only by clicks, an ad with multiple entry points and good dynamic SKUs might always win over something more brand related. (Side note: please don't use clicks as your goal event, as it's really a bad idea due to bad actors and fat fingering on mobile, and it's not 2001. Tangent over.)

But what if you were looking at, say, purchases? Or the lifetime value of the consumer? Or the margins driven from that value? Or...

Well, you get the point.

The reason why we don't judge ads by these longer funnel approaches is because no advertiser is going to run just display ads. They are also going to follow up with email, have a social and native presence, perform work in search engine optimization for paid and native, and upsell the user on site. All of which will have impact on the performance of the ads, and possibly not an equal one.

In addition, advertisers are going to rise or fall based on customer service, their offline presence, print and broadcast and podcast and heaven knows what else. (Oh, and a side note? Advertisers don't exist in a vacuum without competition, and if everyone in your space is making nothing but Criteo Boxes, your non-Criteo Box ad is likely going to stand out. And, perhaps, perform better.)

Because life is about a lot more than paperclips. Strong performance practices are rarely so cut and dried as to be about a single factor or a single metric. Things that you think you know probably need to be re-tested, and re-thought, rather than assumed to be settled law.

People who design ads without consulting the data are, I believe, acting in an irresponsible manner to their clients.

But so are the ones that act only from data, rather than be inspired by it.

(Also, beating Criteo Box controls? Not a new trick for me. Reach out and let's talk.)

Shovels Not Grails

Let's Get Digging

This week, a good friend and better business associate may complete a quest.

It's taken years of his life and tens of thousands of hours of work, but he's attracted great partners, and the business is nearly complete on a life changing round of funding. Soon after that, we may witness the spread of this tech for marketing and advertising professionals.

Exciting times! (And yes, I'm hoping to work with him on it, mostly because he inspires me to do good work, and you really want to spend your time with people like that.)

Why is his tech life changing? Because he's made something that other people will use to solve a problem and chase their dreams. More importantly, he's done it with a solution that is completely self serve, easy to use, and (this is critical) limited in scope. Instead of threatening the current way of doing things for people in the space, it's just a supremely cool thing that they will use to be more effective. Without a ramp-up period, a forced breaking of silos, or a lockout of current partners.

You can explain his solution in a sentence. Without leaving out stuff that some clients will value, while others ignore.

In other words, he's not selling the Holy Grail.

He's selling the shovel that you need to find it.

(Much better business than Grails, honestly. Also, he's not going to use the shovel for you.)

Part of this echoes what many of the start ups that I've worked for in the past two decades have looked to do. But while it's easy to state your vision, the details of what's involved (primarily account management and customer success) usually destroys those intentions. Clients want to know what you know, have you do things for them that they would rather not, or expand the use of your tool into areas that it might not support to the same level of expertise.

Your customers aren't wrong to want these things, of course. Their concern about your business model probably doesn't go beyond polite interest, and at the end of the day, everyone just wants to solve their own problems, not yours.

With your solution or someone else's, with the usual mix of great, cheap and fast (pick two!) impacting their business decision.

More about this soon, I hope. (And yeah, I'm under NDA, which explains all of the vagueness.)

The Peril of Perfection

The Gong Is Necessary

Back in my pre-marketing and advertising past, I was a musician.

Well, to be completely honest about it, I was a singer/songwriter, who also bankrolled a band. Musicians, generally, have more skill in their instruments than I do, and I was never completely secure in the title. I worked hard at it, took voice lessons, thought about it all the time, and hustled up hundreds of gigs. We completed four recording projects and I don't regret the experience.

Anyway, back to the story. (I promise this will have something to do with marketing and advertising. Honest.)

We had a drummer that wanted to be John Bonham (that's the guy who played for Led Zeppelin, and is also pictured above). Which is a fine thing for a drummer to want to be, honestly. But his ambitions, at least at the point in time when we recorded, weren't quite up to his chops.

On a specific track in question, he was trying to execute a particular difficult part, and he didn't quite get it right. It was close, but it wasn't in the exact point. He could have just done something simpler, but that wasn't where his art demanded him to be.

Enter technology.

At the time, we were recording on analog tape, which is prized by many recording musicians and studio engineers for its warmth. The story goes is that since digital music is all just 1s and 0s, you don't get the full nuance. (It's a similar story with people who prefer vinyl.)

Which means that you can only edit, or "punch", the tape so much before the tape degrades. And if you are editing the music in question, you have to be extremely exact, and maybe even break out a razor and do splice work, to get a "correct" track.

Which is how we spent way too much time into the wee hours of a Saturday night / Sunday morning, at billable hours, to get a single drum hit in a complicated fill to move a fraction of a percentage of a second... all so the drummer was happy. (Well, more relieved than happy.)

To him, that fix meant everything. It meant that he could hear the song in the future without dwelling on his mistake, that he could take pride in ownership, and that his dreams of sounding like his hero weren't beyond his grasp.

Needless to say, no other person in the world noticed it.

Also, everyone else in the room wanted to murder him.

Which leads me back to digital advertising, and our nearly limitless ability to get things just, exactly, perfect. Often, to the pixel.

And which leaves me thinking, far too often, about my old drummer.

And how often people need to be just like him...

Stepping In The Same River

Deep

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”

- Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher (544 B.C., so let's forgive the pronouns)

For roughly my entire career as a marketing and advertising professional, especially one who has been on the inside at places that have held the data, there has been one consistent inquiry.

"How do we get our (insert metric) up?"

Typically this is clicks, but it's also been opens (see email roles). Sometimes it's view based, other times its conversions, your best bet is probably a hybrid measurement that's mid funnel, and there's even been downloads or user time. You name the success metric or KPI, show me some creative, and I can probably tell you a half dozen things that could positively impact success.

In seconds, without research. It's something of a party trick that comes from decades in the space.

But the question also betrays a fundamental misread of the mission.

Short term wins over your control, especially if they are from something as transitory as a design only refresh, gives you a diet of popcorn -- and a very finite amount of popcorn at that. Especially in a typical marketing and advertising mix of multi-channel touch and communication, or with (and here comes the river) a fluctuating supply of impressions.

(You remember the river, right? It's important. Sorry it took me a while to get back to it.)

Especially in broad campaigns and programmatic plays, the quality of traffic can vary wildly, even among people who aren't scouring the Web for low CPMs. Online publishers are under constant pressure to keep the lights on, and that can lead to unfortunate decisions on frequency. There's also the very real spectre of outright fraud, which is slowly getting beaten down due to better tech, but, well, not all at once.

So what's needed is testing. Constant, disciplined, with an emphasis on reporting, preferably with your analysts having a strong dose in significant confidence levels. With a plan that attacks structural differences (i.e., offers) as well as surface changes, and KPIs that don't change with the weather.

Oh, and when you think you've determined, for once and for all, a stronger practice?

Well, that's when you have to run a back test... because the river has changed.

And if you need help navigating those waters, I'm happy to guide your boat.

There and Back Again

Yes, The Author Is A Short Fellow

Last Thursday (3/21/19), RevJet ended my role as part of a force reduction. It wasn't for cause, I don't bear them any ill will, and a wide range of senior personnel have reached out to express their condolences and willingness to help. There's even a chance that I'll work with them again, once they get past their current issues, and in some ways, I feel more valued now than I did when I worked there.

I believe in their application and value proposition, and the future of digital advertising is going to look a lot like what they do. As to whether it will be their name when the dust settles... honestly, I have no idea. There are a lot of good competitors in the space, and as last week shows, they don't have the deepest pockets.

Which brings me to, well, why the blog wasn't getting a lot of updates.

RevJet is many things: a boon to marketing and creative personnel, a way for ad ops people to get their lives back and do more interesting things with their time, a DAM and an ad server and a test machine and a dessert topping and a floor wax.

On a personal level, I learned a lot -- about strong practices in creative, about durable learnings in dayparting, about animation cycles and creative heat maps and reporting and a ton of far more technical ad ops stuff than I had ever been exposed to before.

It also wasn't, well, lucrative.

I took their first offer and drove to California as fast as I could to work for that company. I lived in a 200 square foot hut (that cost over 40% of my mortgage back in New Jersey). I spent the past two years away from friends and family, doing everything I could to ensure optimal service for clients. At the end of every day there, no matter how much stuff we had to do, I left with a clean in-box, set agendas for the next day, completed documentation and a sense of accomplishment.

And then I'd work 5-7 hours as a rideshare driver to cover the shortfall, and 12-14 on weekends, and served M&AD clients.

It was an interesting ride and a great learning experience, and more proof that when I believe in something, I go all-in. (See also past gigs, my time leading a rock band, putting mysef through college, and such.)

It's also made me dramatically more useful to, well, the next employer. (If that's you, please get in touch. Papa needs a new pair of health benefits.)

More about what I've learned later, and thanks for reading.

The Myth of the Indispensable Genius

And, presumably, women

This week, I've been struck by the downfall of Louis CK, the prominent comedian who has been brought low by a long history of sexual abuse against women in his field.

It's similar, in some respects, to the Bill Cosby situation, in which a giant of his industry suddenly and irrevocably has been more or less erased from the culture. Sure, some people still go to Cosby shows, but he's more or less shunned in decent society. And while there are significant differences between the men, it's similar enough to draw parallels, and, well, lessons.

If you've worked long enough in any industry, you've probably run into difficult people. Maybe you've even had periods of difficulty of your own. At its core, the CK issue is one of abuse in the workplace -- his victims were fellow comedians and personnel on shows where he worked and held power or influence -- and you don't need to go to criminal extremes to fall in the same continuum.

There's a tendency to look the other way at such things when the work is, well, good enough. And CK's stand up is phenomenal, both in its cultural impact and sheer dollars. (Personally, I have a station of comedians in my own Pandora mix, and it's called Louis CK Radio. Which really needs an edit now, and perhaps Pandora can stop emailing me reminders that it's been a long time since I came back to listen to it. Anyway, moving on.)

But here's the thing about the difficult genius: it's a complete myth and trap.

For most people, the workplace is a collaboration, and toxic people prevent that from occurring, or simply drive other people away. Life's too short for that, frankly, and while genius is always missed, there's always someone else -- or, in the case of CK, many people -- who will thrive in the absence. In every case where I've had to work with an indispensable but difficult person, in the long run, the former just wasn't true.

A final small point about this, because this is one of those areas where being a cis white male makes me way too self-conscious for comfort... if you are in a position of privilege and you are absolutely certain, beyond any realm of doubt, that this isn't your problem, you are wrong. Because even in the event that you don't fall into traps of power abuse, that doesn't mean your entire team is immune to it, or that you aren't more or less condoning its existence by not seeing it, or at the very least, not considering the possibility that it exists.

At its core, the CK situation seems to be an abuse of power. Every organization has that, and every person who wields it has the potential to do so in a less than optimal manner.

And if you really have a problem with the idea that you've got to walk on eggshells about that...

Well, I'd start to wonder if you really don't have a problem after all.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Finding Something To Sell

Brick Walls: Always Funny

One of my side interests is stand up comedy. I watch a fair amount of it, have listened to a great deal of podcasts about it, and have even done it a handful of times. It's fantastically nerve-wracking, mostly because you get an extraordinary and debilitating amount of feedback in real time that you want to act on... but if you go too far into that, you'll never get into your prepared material, and get wiped out by anything that doesn't go according to plan. You also need to project confidence even when you have it in short supply, because there's just any number of ways that it can go off the rails.

I think I'm pretty good at stand up, but I probably will never have enough time to go beyond an occasional hobby. What I've learned from the exercise is more important.

Which leads to the following bit of advice, which I've cribbed from a number of sources. For an aspiring stand up (or consultant), your first and only job is to find something that makes people want to see you. It's not to honor your heroes, redefine the medium, try something no one has ever done before, air your grievances, and so on. It's just to find something that makes people want to see you, want to listen, want to hear more. Once you have that, that's when Art or Experimentation or Indulgence can happen. Not before.

This seems like obvious advice, but what it really does is simplify your thought process as you start creating material. I've worked on honing a few pieces, working out specific punch words, listening to see when the small laugh happens, when the big laugh should go, when to slow it down or speed it up. At its core, it's about story telling, and that's more Craft than Art.

Which brings us back to the point of the column, which is marketing and advertising, and what I can relate about the day job. I generally don't try to talk about the day job too much, because it's an NDA situation and I take such things seriously... but it's fair and safe to say that as a start up with remarkably powerful and versatile tech, there are any number of reasons to use us. Some folks go for digital creative optimization advantages, some for creating testing opportunities, some for custom personal creative, and I'm really just scratching the surface.

There's no specific reason why you should buy and use our stuff. Whatever is most important to you is most important to us.

But once we've got you hooked? That's when I want to spread out and expand the offer. Go beyond the initial appeal, bring in ancillary benefits, help you learn how to change the way you work.

The first time you choose to listen to a particular comedian, you want to laugh. The second time, you want to hear that comedian. The order isn't ever in question. Forget it at your peril.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Shifts In Your Continuum

So many business images

This week at various roles, I was struck by shifts in the continuum of work. Without getting into details that will remain private for reasons of business, things are starting to change as we ramp up, and start to re-examine the way we do things.

Or, in hopefully less obtuse words...

> You can either be easy to work with, or hard. Most of us try for easy, but easy also might extend to pricing, at which point easy starts to become untenable.

> You can make what you do seem simple, by eliminating any mention of nuance or detail, or complex, by itemizing and communicating every small point.

This usually falls into a middle ground, or changes as your relationship with a client moves away from implementation to maturity, but once again -- you run the risk of making your service seem less valuable, or maybe even setting up the basis for replacing you with someone else. Simple and easy doesn't always translate into hard to replace and valuable.

The key to all of this is, of course, an effective read of your audience. Technical roles generally want the details, while creative types want the overview. But that's not always true, and very few people want to get into the weeds for stuff that's outside of their lane.

The best time to set your place in a continuum is early in a relationship, so you aren't giving up leverage, but that's not always possible due to other factors. Knowing when you can change the rules a bit, especially with existing clients that are used to certain rates on payment and turn, usually takes a leap of faith.

Faith that what you are providing is as valuable as you think. Faith that the read of your worth matches what the client thinks of you. Faith that the details that you cover matter to your client, that the merits of your speed or your competitiveness are game changers and separate you from competitors.

It's not easy. Or simple. But if your place in the continuum never changes, that means your business never changes, either.

And businesses that never change?

Tend to change in dramatic and unfortunate ways.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Wrong With Confidence

Two moments from my week that struck a chord with life in advertising and marketing.

> On a podcast dealing with the rise of alt-right political views, and how some in that movement pule over distinctions over pride in their heritage not equating to white supremacy, the following telling point from an activist: how this side is so confident in their views and beliefs, despite the long march of history noting how they've been wrong so often.

Slavery, apartheid, colonialism, Jim Crow, intolerance towards LGBTQ... it's just a long line of, well, white guys acting with complete certainty that what they believe is correct, only to find out later, well, no. (Let's exclude the very real possibility that so much of this was done just for the money, just because that's not the track I'd like to follow here.)

And yes, everyone always thinks they are right about what they are saying, because if you think you are wrong and say it anyway, you're a sociopath. Tangent, moving on.

> One of the people I met while doing ride sharing, who while conceding the fact that climate change is real, told me that's he's not going along with the idea that it's done by humans. Might just be something the Earth just does, since we've had Ice Ages before. When  I noted that he was confusing geologic history (eons) versus modern (at most, decades), his counter was that there's just no way to solve the problem without an untold number of people just ceasing to exist. (You get all kinds doing ride sharing, by the way.)

Not seeing how these relate to the effectiveness of your ad campaign? Hold on, we're getting there.

The worst experiences of my life all share a common thread: a lack of information that led to the wrong conclusion, and actions that were predicated on that conclusion. In my personal life, this manifests as various people who were important to me having severe issues that were beyond my power to assist, or their ability to change. In my professional career, that certain lists or channels were the products of faulty data, that management or venture capital didn't have the same goals as the rank and file, that promises weren't going to be kept, and so on. (By the way, to be perfectly clear -- I have no regrets. You work in this field, and with the kind of start-ups that give you front-line knowledge of the way the world works as it changes in real time, and you have to accept that the road isn't always going to be smooth.)

This lack of information translates to macro levels as well. If we had a clear cost to the environment for various energy choices, plane travel might come with a 5X price addition for a carbon offset, new phones may be 2X cost for the requirement to re-use rare elements, gas might be a boutique items for hobby cars as electrics powered by mandatory solar roofs dominated the roads, and so on, and so on. Instead, we all act on incomplete information -- the gallon of gas or plane fare just reflects the cost to the consumer, not the cost it creates when consumed -- and do the best we can.

Because, and this is the hard part...

If you wait to have complete confidence in all of your decisions, you will never make any, because complete confidence is impossible. Even for something as cut and dried as a digital marketing campaign.

So, to sum up.

1) If you are utterly and totally sure of something -- anything -- that's more about your faith in your story, rather than the merits of the decision.

2) If you never go back and test the stuff that you know is right, you are at significant risk of acting on wrong information.

3) A little humility and flexibility is more than warranted, especially in the face of all of the times we've been wrong before. Even if it's not matched, say, in public discourse, or by "strong" leaders.

Making wrong decisions isn't an indictment of your career, or the value you bring to a client or organization.

Failing to learn from them is.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Showing Up, or Five Lessons from Ride Sharing

Bodies in seats

Full disclousre: to make ends meet these days, because the Bay Area is crazy expensive and life hasn't quite worked out the way I'd like, I do ride share on nights and weekends. It basically boils down to minimum wage employment, but with the flexibility and non-compete that fits in with my career. Here's what I've learned from the experience.

> There are ways to make the gig more lucrative on an hourly basis -- work at odd hours, put up with drunk people, turn the app on and off to position yourself in more lucrative areas -- but for the most part, you just have to put in the hours. Even base rate rides can work out if they are long enough, or drop you in a position that sets up for chain work later. As the old saying goes, 90% of life is just showing up. I pretty much do this every day now, mostly so I don't have to do full days of it.

> I give my riders amenities that most other drivers do not -- water, mints, cough drops -- and a choice of in-flight entertainment options (music, NPR, conversation), because I treat passengers the way I'd like to be treated as a rider. Most just defer and ride without a lot of interaction, but the ones that don't make the gig kind of fun at times. More importantly, they tip, and those tips save me hours every week. I've even made some professional connections from it.

> The vast majority of riders pass without incident or comment, and don't make for very entertaining stories. But the ones that go beyond, either due to their position in life (I've picked up people from outside the bail bonds office, and others that work for extraordinarily wealthy individuals) or their eagerness to be very candid with a total stranger that they aren't very likely to ever meet again, make for the far better stories. I've got about a half dozen that are slowly but surely getting honed for use in stand-up comedy, because that's something else that I do. (Don't worry, riders, no names are used to protect the guilty.)

> While technology is always improving, it's far from foolproof, and when it fails you, it's utterly maddening. Network outages stop all revenue, mapping fails cause extraordinary frustration for all parties, and there are moments when the app sends you to chase passengers that are far too far away to be feasible for anyone. Cellular coverage isn't total, either. Things seem to be getting better, but I have to wonder if these issues are part of the reason why so many drivers don't make it past their first few months at the gig.

> It's really not for everyone. The hours are very erratic, since the driver doesn't know the passneger's final destination before they are in the car. It gets lonely, especially if your crop of passnegers aren't engaging, and you have to be pretty tolerant of a wide range of personalities. But the biggest problem with the gig is the difficulty of getting a true profit perspective, since you have to take into account the depreciation and advanced repair needs of your vehicle, along with higher insurance and gas costs. As with any business, gross and net are very different things, and if you don't do the math, you can get the wrong idea about how it's going.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Get Out Of Town

Tough Town!

Several decades ago, when I fronted a rock band, we'd gig at whatever venue would have us. The work made rehearsals more productive, because they gave us deadlines, and even the most ill-scheduled gig was, for the most part, better than not having it. This led to several hundred gigs, all told, in a wide range of settings and locations.

Where this is relevant to your life as a marketing and advertising pro is this simple piece of human psychology; if the band was from far away, the crowd was inevitably more interested in what they were doing. There's an ego-flattering point to this, in that if you know about bands from outside your area, it must make you a more discerning fan of music. It's also a tiny acid test for the band, in that audiences think you have more on the ball if you are from somewhere else, since the assumption is that it's your full time job, as opposed to a hobby.

Here's another data point that proves the practice. When my wife was pregnant with our first child, she had a standing gig at Caesar's Palace in Atlantic City, as she's a harpist. (Weddings, corporate events, hospice work, bookstores, specialty events. Book her early and often; you can reach her through me. End of product placement.) When patrons asked her where she was from and she replied trutthfully, there was a feeling of disappointment and a quicker end to the conversation. So she started adopting an Irish accent instead, created a small back story to match her persona, and watched her tips triple.

This is, of course, silly on its face. But the same thing occurs in business, honestly. Now that I live and work in the Bay Area, the people I run into during my day to day are inevitably more interested when I mention where I'm from (Philadelphia, originally), as opposed to where I work (a start up that most people haven't heard of yet, on the peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco).

There's no sign that this trend is slowing, even in the age of remote work and easy plane bookings. Travel broadens the mind -- and not just the mind of the traveler.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Football In the Time of California

He's Right

I admit that "Love in the time of . . ." is a great title, up to a point. You're reading along, you're happy, it's about love. I like the way the word time comes in - a nice, nice feeling. Then the morbid Cholera appears. I was happy till then. Why not "Love in the Time of the Blue, Blue, Bluebirds"? "Love in the Time of Oozing Sores and Pustules" is probably an earlier title the author used as he was writing in a rat-infested tree house on an old Smith Corona. This writer, whoever he is, could have used a couple of weeks in Pacific Daylight Time.” - Steve Martin, "Pure Drivel"

Martin's essay is always in the back of my mind when I get the chance to appreciate living in the Bay Area, and as it was the first week of NFL football, it rang in my brain once more today. I don't have cable anymore, as I'm living in temporary housing without a television while onboarding at a new startup, but going cold turkey on my football laundry (Eagles) isn't going to happen. So I headed up and out this morning, found a place with a good enough breakfast menu and enough televisions with a satellite dish, and got to watch my team at the utterly wonderful hour of 10am, rather than 1pm.

My laundry won, which always helps, but getting the football game out of the way before late afternoon makes the entire exercise seem like so much less of a vice, honestly. I caught the later game at the gym on a treadmill, took care of my errands, and still had daylight hours to spare. Back East, this would have required an unsightly wake up early in the morning while trying not to wake the sleeping family, not to mention the preparation of getting to bed early on Saturday. Full and total pass on all of that.

I suspect the NFL is getting wise to this on their own level, what with the increasing number of games in the UK on European time, but (a) those games are almost always terrible, seeing how they involve an inordinate amount of Jacksonville Jaguars, and (b) the games will likely always be terrible, because they are in front of crowds of mostly neutral fans, with players who resent the really big dumb plane flight in the middle of their year of big dumb plane flights.

Having the game wrap up early works whether your laundry wins or loses in California. A win, you are out in the sunshine afterward, getting stuff done, feeling virtuous. A loss, you are out in the sunshine afterward, remembering that the people who are really angry and bitter about this are three thousand miles away and won't be inflicting thier negativity upon you. The last time I was in California, my laundry had the best era of its history and went to its last Super Bowl. Maybe they just need me to be away from them. It's a sacfrifice I'm willing to make.

Final point that brings this all back to stuff a marketing person might want to think about: dayparting matters, and also shouldn't be a single set point. Something to keep in mind for the email professionals, as well as media planners who are resolute enough to price their banner buys on a clock basis. (Hint: you really should price your banner buys on a clock basis. If only because they work very differently, and to very different people, depending on the hour of the day.)

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Scale For Some

Unvisited Book

“But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” - George Eliot

My first gig in marketing was with a physical manufacturer of products, and by the end of my time there, something terrible happened: the marketing worked too well. We were up by a lot more than our people could handle, no one could take vacation time, and the challenge from a management perspective came from trying to find qualified personnel who would work second and third shift hours to try to keep up wih the demand. Rumors started of how we would cut the marketing budget for the upcoming year to try to throttle down the growth, and my belief in the long-term viability of the business, coupled with concerns about how I was valued by higher levels of management, made me very anxious. You don't do your best work when you're anxious. So when another company made me an offer, I gave notice and relocated.

That was nearly twenty years ago, and I don't regret the move in the least. I've learned a ton in the time since, and it's all led to the current gig, where I get to work with and shape the marketing of tools that pretty much fix every problem I've ever ran into as a marketing and advertising pro. Notably, also, this: none of the companies that I've worked at since gave as many people jobs as that first employer, mostly because I've never taken a gig since that didn't scale.

There's a significant article in the NY Times this week that has made me start to wonder if that stance didn't come with some costs, though. The article compares the impact of Apple to its home city (Cupertino, CA) to Kodak with its (Rochester, NY). The entire article is worth a read, but the gist of it is that by creating a contractor class to take care of aspects of the business that aren't seen as core competency (janitorial is the focus, but the movement also extends to security guards, food production, and so on), Apple has created more shareholder value at the cost of blue collar jobs. So while Rochester has traces of Kodak's benevolence striped through the community, Apple is a global company, with those dollars either on campus, or spread to the bank accounts of shareholders all over the world.

There's nothing particularly evil or unique about this, and had Kodak's management thought of it first (or, for that matter, how film was going to go away due to changing technology), perhaps they would have made different choices. But the end result is the same, and that's a marketplace where many workers, especially if they didn't start from a position of priviledge, have to pinball from company to company to reach economic goals, rather than work their way up.

That toothpaste is long gone from the tube, of course. Emulating Apple, one of the most successful companies in the world, is what will happen for decades to come. Innovation at the top levels drove their profit margins, rather than squeezing custodians. But I can't help but feel that this reading of the market isn't entirely accurate.

There's damage done when only the current highest achievers can get ahead. There's social stratification that happens when people can't work their way up, ambitions thwarted, motivations dulled. From the unpaid internships with amazing social networking opportunities that only young adults of priviledge can take, to the gig on top of gig economies that the working poor gravitate to, we create skepticism about capitalism itself... and when that occurs, the engine that creates people who can buy these wonderful goods and services dries up, becomes ripe for piracy, and accelerates income inequality to the point where a civil society is no longer a given.

The company that I left twenty years ago is still in business. It can't have been an easy ride for them, but they are privately held, and ownership always took pride in giving people jobs, rather than maximizing their own revenue. If every company were like them, we'd probably have more people working, a more stable economy, maybe even less extremism in our political climate. But we also might not have the tech and innovation that no one wants to live without.

I live in the Bay Area now, perhaps the least accomodating philosophical market for unvisited tombs. It's a great place to be, filled to bursting with ambitious and disruptive people, and to live here generally means you chose it, because so many people aren't native to the area.

If every area in America tried to be like this, we'd have astonishing problems. Probably even worse than what we have now.

But if you are faced with, as I was twenty years ago, no better option?

You make the change.

And deal with the ensuing challengs to the best of your ability.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

The Jet Blue Way

Jet Blue HQ

This past weekend, I flew cross-country on a red-eye, spent the better part of a day getting a venue to its proper state, and was genuinely touched by my community. In some respects, it was an ordinary experience, because I've done all of these things before. In other ways, it made me feel validated that the project that I've taken on is on the side of the angels... because it feels like more of the same.

Let's get into it chronologically. I've never flown JetBlue before because it just hasn't been an option from a logistics or expense standpoint. This time around, the overnight flight from Oakland was in the market on the budget, the pre-dawn arrival at JFK was OK from a pickup standpoint since my ride out was too early for morning rush hour traffic, and my late August flight dates didn't put me into holiday surge pricing.

There's nothing *particularly* magical about JetBlue, and I'm not sure it's a better experience than Virgin (now Alaska)... but it's close. The wifi works and it's free, the leg room is just better than others, the flight attendants don't seem beaten down by the gig, and the whole experience just seems a little better. Not so much in ways that are going to make me pay more all the time, and I still wish that they had more mid-Atlantic ports of call because JFK is just not a great place for me. But they are preferred now, and I wasn't sure that there was enough of a difference in airlines to bother with before. (Frontier and Spirit, on the other hand, seem like they are actively trying to punish you for saving money.)

I flew back to New Jersey this weekend to run a poker game for my regulars, then conduct a fantasy football draft. The poker game has been going on since I left for the Bay Area in May, with the regulars keeping the flame alive... but the guys just don't have my same attention to detail and fiddly personality, so the venue just wasn't as clean as it should be, the snacks just weren't up to the same level, the vinyl records weren't spinning, and so on, and so on. There's no specific single thing that I do that makes people more into the game, but the cumulative impact of all of the little extras just gives the players more of a premium feel and helps them get more enthusiasm for the game. They reciprocated with an unprecedented expression of generosity, and I honestly teared up a little when I told my wife about it the next morning. It's not just nice to be appreciated for what you do. It's life-affirming.

Finally, Saturday was the fantasy football auction, which was more involved than past years given the depth of the draft, and another moment where my community picked me up when my own performance was lacking. I got the number of bench slots wrong on the prep materials, a basic oversight that I've never made before, and a mistake that could have had a real impact on the outcome for the players involved... but everyone just rolled with the mistake and picked me up. I have a history with both of these groups, and I know that I've given them value over the years. We retain our players in both the poker and fantasy leagues. Jet Blue retains their customers. The word of mouth from people who play in my leagues, or my poker game, draw new players because people like to tell the story of good service. (Not as much as they do bad service, but there's nothing you can do about that.) The same goes for Jet Blue.

There's always the temptation, especially when you can put dollars to decisions through data, to cut corners. Jet Blue probably loses a few fares every flight for the leg room decision and puts themselves at risk of not seeming as serious about making a profit as their competitors. I put myself at a little more financial risk, especially if my players don't tip at the poker game, or make my role difficult as a fantasy league commissioner. I also could have turned the time that I spent working on the venue into cash, or just not flown back for the events in the first place. There's also the love and tolerance shown by my family, who don't see me very often during this period and then shared my time and attention with my friends this weekend.

As a consultant and a marketing and advertising pro, I've known for a long time that you make your own luck.

To me, the best way to do that is to make your clients love your service.

Besides, you feel better about yourself that way.

And it seems to be working for Jet Blue, now in its 20th year of operation...

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Five Lessons From A Fantasy League Commissioner

Actually, It Is

Twice in the next week, I'll participate in fantasy football drafts; once in the office, the other in a basement that's 3,000 miles away from where I currently live. When these drafts happen, I will act as Commissioner, because this is a thing that I do, and herd the cats who are in the leagues to all come together and do a transparently dumb thing as a single group. I've performed this role for (gulp) over thirty years, in a wide range of leagues, ranging from dear friends and relatives to near total strangers.

Here's what I've learned, over the many years and situations, that have helped to inform the person that I am when working as a marketing and advertising pro. You might find it helpful. (But not as helpful as when to draft Tennessee Titans RB Derrick Henry, perhaps the best handcuff in the league this year. That's clearly a state secret.)

1) Your worst client will always take up the majority of your time.

Whether it's someone who can't get their protections on time, struggles with the tech, needs an inordinate amount of follow-up requests to pay the dues, takes way more time to make their picks than everyone else, or just finds some other way to throw a wrench in the works... well, this has made for *wonderful* training on dealing with particular clients. Keeping your composure when all you really want to do is spit fire at someone for making things difficult is an incredibly valuable life skill, but it's also kind of like getting to the gym every day for maintenance work. You might need to figure out ways to self-motivate.

2) People are going to make fun of you for the very reasons why you have the gig.

In the league that I run out of the basement, there will be giant labels, several kinds of Sharpies, clipboards and pens and assigned seating, and an inordinate amount of getting things Just So. Owners are appreciative, but they also will make jokes about this, re-arrange things just to see if they can get my goat, and so on.

The point is that if you are a good commish, you have to sweat the details, and sweating the details is just an irresistible softball in the search for humor. I (honestly) don't really mind, because this is just how I'm wired. Making fun of me for this stuff is kind of like making fun of my height or hair color; have at it. I didn't choose it, so I'll probably join in.

3) Bad ideas are like weeds, or zombies; they always return.

If you have an owner or two that wants to change a rule, and it gets voted down or rejected, rest assured that it will return at some point, with as much force and vigor as previous. There is a strong intersection of math, engineering and problem solving in the mindset of fantasy sports, and people like to think they are right about things, otherwise they wouldn't say it.

So the owner in your league that hates kickers, and wants to ban them... will always hate kickers, and will always want to ban them. They might even be right. And they'll ask until they get their way, or the sun burns out. Best to just shrug and move on.

4) Balancing the interests of the league against the interests of your team is tough.

Running my basement league, for me, is a mix of conducting an auction while also trying to make picks for my own club, which leads to mistakes for both sides. It's also my built-in excuse for not having a particularly good team, but what's more likely is that I just don't do as well in football as other leagues. Finally, if you are in a league with especially competitive people, rule changes or innovations that you propose will be regarded with suspicion, because they'll seem like they are in the interest of your team first, and the league second. The only way to overcome this is by building up goodwill and precedent as an honorable dealer. There are no shortcuts to that status.

5) This is all part of your personal brand.

I've had job interviews where the conversation went to personal habits, and I've always felt that this was a competitive advantage for me, because my hobbies... well, speak to my professional attributes. It's one thing to say that I sweat the details; it's quite another to rattle off the particulars of my various leagues. People like to hire folks with good references, because retaining clients is a critical skill in business. I have clients in these leagues that have spent the majority of their lives with me. Innovating in small spaces, learning from outside sources, caring about the happiness of your partners, self-awareness and self-deprecation for when you are nerding out with abandon...

Well, I'm putting data and precedent to these claims, rather than just saying them.

Good luck with your drafts!

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

The Generalization Trap

Twain Me

The prevailing story this week in adtech was the continuing discussion about the memo that got James Damore, an engineer at Google, fired for the views expressed in the piece.

There's been a lot of back and forth about this in my feed. Some feel that terminating an employee for their views is tantamount to censorship, and just aren't down with that. Others believe that Google also missed an opportunity to retrain the asset, and defuse the controversy. More people have contributed what it's like to be female in tech, and the sheer fatigue encountered from having to continually overcome stereotypes. There was also a strong piece from NPR that showed how enrollment in colleges for tech courses changed dramaticaly, on the diversity level, with just a few minor tweaks to how the course was marketed. (Note: no content changes, just titles.) Finally, there was talk about the strategies involved, the ensuing lawsuits, the media coverage, and so on.

What I've found to be the silver lining in the experience is that tech, unlike too many other parts of our world, is actually learning from the experience, and adding more information. That is, after all, what tech types do; challenge assumptions, gather more data, go where the math takes you. Rather than simply point at a problem and declare the other side to be unrealistic and/or malevolent, we default to the science.

Which makes me wonder why so many people who are willing to defend some of the points in the memo are, well, missing the forest for the trees. And here's that forest: when you generalize about a group, and you aren't a stand up comedian trying for easy laughs... you are pretty much setting yourself up for catastrophic failure.

I get why people *want* to make these generalizations, of course. It's shorthand for thinking, and thinking all the time is absolutely exhausting. Our minds want to rest from time to time, and maybe even more than that, and a generalization can put you at ease, and make the world seem simpler. Run into trouble on the roads? Generalize about the demographic of the person who offended you, rather than how you might be bringing your own problems to the table. Annoyed about your economic status compared to some other profession? Generalize about their moral or ethical culpability. Don't like your working environment because it pushes you out of your comfort zone? Generalize about hiring practices, class structures, and so on.

It's lazy thinking, if it's even thinking at all. And it's a mistake. Always, and especially in a professional or business environment.

Which makes my closing statement on the matter curious, because it's going to sound like I'm stepping in the same hole.

What people really hate, even more than generalizations?

Being told they are wrong.

5 Tips For Tumbleweed Season

Not Seen: Co-Workers

If you've worked in adtech for any length of time, you know what an August calendar means: vacation time. Either for you, the people you are working with, or the people that need to sign off on anything of major consequence.

As someone who has worked almost exclusively at start ups for the past couple of decades -- and at some start ups that have gone away with varying degrees of warning -- I've also had the experience of not having much in the way of time accrued at a new gig to take off when everyone else does. Here's what I've learned about Tumbleweed Season, under the hope that it proves helpful to you.

1) Collaboration is going to be really unpredictable. I've frequently come in to the office during slow times and expected quiet sessions where independent study and long-term thinking was going to rule the day, only to find a stray exec or senior sales personnel with very urgent needs. Don't assume that your day will be uneventful.

2) Commuting can be a joy. The comedian Bill Burr has a highly misanthropic but accurate routine in which he talks about how much nicer the world would be, if there were only a lot less people in it. Just in the last week in the Bay Area, my usual time in the car for the morning drive has dropped 15-20%, with no major crushes or delays. It can't and won't last, of course, but I'm going to enjoy it while I can. (Sadly for my friends who still work in NYC, this season isn't providing the same benefit.)

3) Travel makes for interesting dayparts. The nature of work in the connected age means that your contact who is spending time in Europe, Asia or the Pacific is still likely to monitor their communication channels, but maybe with less frequency or urgency. If you are prone to checking your device at all hours, you really need to break that habit before it destroys your health... but in the meantime, consider time-shifting your email sends to hit the in-box at a more sane hour.

4) Deadlines may be just as urgent, but for different reasons. Vacation schedules can make for an effective bit of leverage, in that many clients will want to clear the decks of projects before leaving. That can give you the impetus you need to push things forward, but only if you keep things simple. Deep complications aren't your friend in Tumbleweed Time.

5) T'is the season. At many of my gigs, Q4 has been an all-hands experience, with any number of seasonal creative needs crushing the team from mid-October to mid-December. Working ahead for your top clients in the summer months, especially for perennial tasks that can't look too much like last year's, but not too much different either, is best done when you've got some time and space to think -- and can keep you from truly insane weeks later.

Besides, looking at icicles and snowflakes in your marketing and advertising projects is a very good way to take your mind off summer heat...

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Disrupting Disruption

How Adobe Is Makng Me Feel

You hear a lot of idioms when you work in adech. Fail fast. Long tail thinking. And perhaps the most powerful, disrupt everything.

This call to innovate has led to the engine that is driving the U.S. economy. A small number of tech companies are the biggest reason why the stock market as a whole has performed so well in the past six months, and there's no end of folks who want to be just like them. And for the most part, this is a great and good thing, especially if you are a fan of getting the U.S. off fossil fuel use.

I've made a living from innovation for decades, and at my current gig, continue in this vein. So what I'm about to discuss isn't an easy thing to denigrate. But here goes.

There are no panaceas in life, and nothing that comes without consequences. Sustainable energy infrastructure has an impact on the environment, albeit one that's remarkably lower than fossil fuel use. I may delight in my phone taking pictures or serving as a flashlight or guitar tuner, but there are untold numbers of people who, thanks to these apps, no longer have employment. Consequences.

Which leads me to news from Adobe, demoed on stage and covered recently in business publications, of Voco. Basically, Photoshop for audio, which gives the operator of the software the ability to create thoroughly realistic scripts that were never said by the speaker. All you need is 20 to 40 minutes of data to work from, and you can make anyone say anything, in a fake that's nearly undetectable to anyone who isn't looking at the actual code.

No, seriously.

And while the stated use case for the software is clear and useful for a limited number of professionals -- sound engineers on media that get to skip laborious recovery sessions -- the far greater negative impact on humanity seems clear, yes?

If fake news is the scourge by which elections and social media has been more or less permanently corrupted, how much worse does it get when you add these tools to the mix?

If governance is becoming an ever-growing toxic mix of tribalism, what happens when you give by any means warriors these weapons?

And if we've gotten into this mess due to a corrupting narrative of how you can't trust the media or your government...

Well, what amount of damage kicks in when sight and hearing are also suspect?

There are some tools that, at the risk of infuriating extreme libertarians, are widely regarded as not suitable to be in the hands of private actors, due to the risk of misuse. Tanks. Lethal gases. Nuclear weapons. And so on.

If Adobe about to make the coding equivalent... well, let me put it this way.

We're going to have bigger problems then, say, consumers no longer thinking that a celebrity is really endorsing your goods or services...

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Can, Could, Won't: Managing Risk

Additional risk: eye pokery

At one of the earlier stops in my career, I was fortunate enough to work with a top-notch legal compliance officer. Not only was this person quick and skilled, they were also exceptionally patient and understanding. That was all very necessary, since it was their poor task to proof all of my copy for not just the usual editing maladies, but also for anything that could put our employer in legal jeopardy.

What probably made the work (slightly) more tolerable for them was that I had some background in law in the first place. A political science degree, some secertarial work for law professors and lawyers at various temp jobs, and other roles prior to that gig made me think that I knew some stuff. And, well, I did; just enough to be dangerous. Because my skill set was nothing compared to what this employer wanted to instill, and even less than what many of our clients wanted to enforce. That's why the compliance role was there in the first place.

After a few years of high throughput copywriting and creative direction, I just didn't go down paths that led to issues. Can was just automatically changed to could, claims were softened with puffery or avoided, dates were omitted because the nature of our delivery channel (email) led to way too big of a chance of a bait and switch accusal. Sweepstakes were swapped out for less problematic premiums, and sensitive discussions were taken out of email, putting us light years ahead of, sadly, people who get major political party nominations to be the leader of the Free World. I've pretty much worked in a legally compliant way ever since, and have even served as the de facto legal expert for several employers afterward that just didn't have the budget or interest to have true counsel.

It wasn't as if anything I wanted to try before I got all of that training was irresponsible. None of my clients ever ran into legal issues due to creative before or since, and while some of my stops have run into fireworks for poor practices, none of that was related to practices in my part of the business. But once you get trained to go in a certain direction, that's where you go creatively. Especially since the other directions don't seem to gain you much more than added risk.

Which leads me to the risk that's on the other side of the ledger. While there are plenty of consumer categories that play in arenas where true and correct fear lives in the heart's of your clients, the real shame of it all is that those are the categories that are most ready for innovation. (That's the reason why so many job listings in restrictive fields come with a heavy requirement for relevant experience; it's a safeguard for things that can never, ever happen.) Class action suits are just the end for many a buisness, if not for the obvious legal damages, but also from the turnover they inspire. Doing anything new or novel in these categories takes unusual courage from your client, and presentation skill from the agency.

The trouble with being too aware of risk is that it breeds a degree of sameness and safety to all of your finished work, and in that sameness, you can't innovate, learn from outliers, push the envelope... or feel truly alive in the gig.

Because at the end of the day, there's legal risk in getting out of bed. It's just a little more pronounced and obvious than the risk you get from weak creative.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

3D Dragon Haircut Research

Sorry, Not 3D Enough

I'm going to confess to a prejudice here. When it comes to getting a haircut, I like the barber to have a few years on me. (Yes, I know, doesn't seem to go with the picture or the column's focus, which is marketing and advertising. We'll get there. Trust me.)

I'm sure that there are plenty of people who cut hair for a living who are masterful at the work at an early age. My needs aren't particularly esoteric, either. But once you've gotten used to the fine points of the job (a quality straight razor, a sense of how short I like it without needing to interrogate or break out measuring tape)... well, going with someone new to the field just seems like too much risk for not enough reward.

Besides, you also miss out on a chance to do market research. Which is kind of a big deal, given my profession, and how, if you really want to sell something in the U.S., you better be able to convince the people with money. That'd be (shh!) older people. Moving on.

This last week, I caught a skeptical column in my media feed that downplayed the coming impact of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality. The columnist pointed out how 3D in television, cable, and even movie theaters has been limited, with cable providers in the UK giving it away for free, rather than going for an upcharge. So with that as a precedent, why get excited about something new that's likely to run into the same resistant consumer inertia?

It's a reasonable point, honestly. Betting on failure is rarely sexy, but breakthroughs are relatively rare, which is why they are so memorable. Gartner calls this stage in the Hype Cycle the "Trough of Disillusionment", and for every tech that powers through to the "Slope of Enlightenment" and eventual "Plateau of Productivity", there are an untold number that fall by the wayside. I also work for a cutting-edge tech company, so I'm biased by nature.

Which led me to the barber's chair this last weekend, and small talk as Ray (good name for a barber, right? One syllable, can't mispronounce it) got to work on my desire to retain less sweat during the summer. He asked me what I do. I gave him my company's quick pitch, and my role in it. Given that I now work in the Bay Area and everyone dreams of knowing about the next great tech IPO, he asked about that aspect of the business. I pivoted, because honestly, it's just not that interesting to me; if the company does great over the next few years, I'm sure a rising tide will raise all boats, but that kind of long-term dreaming can just get really distracting.

Instead, I pivoted back to what could be done with the tech, and what problems it solves. Which didn't interest him as much, because honestly, why should it? He's a barber. But then I drew it out further, and talked about the last mile aspects. How his phone could give him an AR path to the products he wants the next time he's in a warehouse store, rather than have to track down staff. How he could get offers and coupons without having to hunt for them. How the products and services that he wants to buy could be made cheaper, simply because the marketing and advertising expense would go down with increased efficiency. (Also, more darkly, the probable headcount at that location, because tech is frequently shorthand for Employment Winter Is Coming.) How some companies might choose to pass those savings on to the consumer, all while keeping their margins in check, in an attempt to grow their market share.

He got it then. He also got how, once anything like that was on his phone, how quick he'd be to use it all the time, and how soon it would just become table stakes for anyone that sells stuff.

Because that's the difference between 3D, VR and AR. There's no clear problem that 3D tech serves. Take a look at my screen shot image at the start of this column, and you'll see a character from "Game of Thrones" getting so up close and personal to an angry dragon that her hair is blown back.

No one who ever watched that show turned it off because the effects weren't 3D enough.

But plenty of people didn't buy something in a store because they couldn't find it, forgot their coupon, or thought it was too much money in the first place...

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.