Rethinking social media

It's the biggest topic on the planet.

Just when all of us thought everything had been invented -- thanks to the grip that Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube have on our imaginations and the hours we spend online -- well, out of the blue, comes Twitter.

More billionaires in the making, you say. All power to them. We agree.

Flickr is out there, too. Don't forget Flickr. Flickr is extraordinarily beautiful and engaging.

As we consider this new media environment, we cannot escape the fact that the social media sector is under attack.

Once pure, it's now a greed target.

It's being increasingly defined-redefined-and-perhaps-even-unnecessarily-complicated by consultants, advisors, media companies, online firms, public relations consultants, publicists, talent agencies, and virtually everyone else under the sun, all of whom are telling you it was invented for marketing.

Fine.

But it wasn't really invented for marketing. It was invented for people.

Actually, it happened, just like everything else that has happened online, because it could happen. It could be done. It was cool. So let's do it, innovators said.

And the rest of us said, that's brilliant. And we did it.

But if we take a pause in the proceedings, we may find time to make two observations:

(1) Social media has been around a long time, relatively speaking. Copying the known world on your emails is a kind of social media; primitive, but real, and you've been doing it for a long time. Participating on an online discussion forum with the rest of your Avatar-disguised Best Friends is solid social media, and it's been happening for years. Instant Messaging on AOL kicked off social media for an entire generation, fouled up the family computer desktop, and introduced a billion kids to what the computer was actually there to do.

There's no mystery about any of that. It's how we live now.

And now that social media has been classified, named, adopted, and increasingly co-opted by marketing organizations, spokespeople and their advisors, a powerful question remains:

(2) Do you really want marketing intruding on all those places where you -- launch your opinions -- post anonymously -- talk with your friends -- catch up -- look at their pictures -- post140 -- and so on?

Absolutely not.

Critics say the rush to capitalize on social media has all the hallmarks of whatever once had to do with, well, creating dot-com businesses for any kind of wild idea under the sun, credit default swaps, and political fund raising campaigns. We don't agree. That's harsh.

We do believe, however, that 'social media' ain't magic, ain't mysterious, and frankly, it ain't new. It's something all of us have been doing, in one way or another for years, and we will keep on doing it, again, for years.

All of us love it, and we love what we do.

In fact, after everyone thought writing was dead and television and the telephone had destroyed the written word, suddenly all of us became writers (once again), and we discovered that some of us are extraordinarily good writers and some of us are extraordinarily funny. (Cynics among us say the rest just use profanity.)

Nevertheless, for a marketer, figuring out social media remains a challenge.

We say, there's no challenge in remembering that marketing, fundamentally, is about (i) connecting with people, (ii) building a relationship with them, and (iii) expanding that relationship over time.

In today's world, more than any other time in the planet's history, our online world makes communicating and relationship building (i) easy, (ii) affordable, and (iii) relatively and potentially productive.

Even if people don't personally buy what you are saying, or what you are selling, at least they can become advocates who love you and share your good news with their friends.

We don't like the term, 'social media'. We prefer the term, 'social marketing', and we don't even like that much.

So use Twitter, if you have a reason (or a celebrity on board). Use Flickr, which is truly one of the most under-utilized resources for marketers. And by all means, use Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Plaxo, and all the rest of it.

But also, please, consider your own power, your own resources, and your own creativity.

Think about creating something fabulous for your friends, customers, prospects and influencers that is immeasurably more satisfying than any of the ideas above. Then use it to enlarge your world and expand your influence.

After all, it's the inventors and innovators who flourish in this world. They always have. They will continue to do so.

So be an inventor. Be an innovator. Invent your future.

Obama by the numbers, and a solid performance by McCain

Again, our numbers show Sen. Barrack Obama the technical winner over Sen. John McCain in the third and final presidential debate conducted by Bob Schieffer of CBS News at Hofstra University in New York.

Sen. Obama scored a total of 74 points over Sen. McCain, 62 points.

We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.

In essence, you score well if you have a clear idea, you express it clearly and coherently, and you believe it. Your answer is everything. If you do well, we are single-mindedly focused your message. We understand it. We aren't watching you trying to fabricate or manufacture a response.

We scored each candidate's principal answer (on a scale of 1-5, five being best), and we scored each follow-up answer (on a scale of 1-3, three being best).

Here's what we saw and assessed:

Why is your economic recovery plan better?
Obama 10
McCain 9

What new spending will you postpone or delay?
Obama 10
McCain 6

You pledged to take the high road, but why is your campaign nasty?
Obama 11
McCain 10

Why are we better off with your vice presidential candidate?
McCain 8
Obama 7

By how much will you reduce our dependence on foreign oil in your first term?
McCain 7
Obama 7

How do you balance controlling health care costs vs. expanding coverage?
Obama 8
McCain 4

Will you nominate a Supreme Court justice who disagrees with you?
Obama 8
McCain 7

We spend more per capita on education, but why do we trail most countries in the world on outcomes?
Obama 8
McCain 6

Closing statement
Obama 5
McCain 5


This was a debate about domestic affairs. Therefore, no discussion on foreign affairs, typically a strength for Sen. McCain.

In an additional analysis, based on what drives or motivates people (or presidential candidates) to do what they do, and express themselves the way they do, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain were evenly matched on 10 out of a total of 16 criteria.

Where they differed:

Obama more curious, more interested in the search for truth.

Obama more interested in people, and how they live and connect.

Obama more interested in families.

Obama more reflective of peace and tranquility.

McCain more competitive.

McCain more energetic, and energized (although restrained).


Still, in this debate, no coherent vision for America expressed by either candidate.

We know how they compete against each other. We know how they square off on the issues. We have a sense of what they supported and voted for in the Congress. We know where they stand on health care, the economy, social issues, energy, education.

But how would you, as a voter, definitively -- and positively -- describe their vision for the America they want to build, based on what they said tonight?

Obama wins (by a mile)

Actually, by a significant mile.

In the subjective way we evaluate answers, Sen. Barrack Obama won the second presidential debate over Sen. John McCain:

Sen. Obama scored a total of 75 points, over Sen. McCain's 52 points, in the debate moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC News, at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee.

We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.

In essence, you score well if you have a clear idea, you express it clearly and coherently, and you believe it. Your answer is everything. If you do well, we are single-mindedly focused your message. We understand it. We aren't watching you trying to fabricate or manufacture a response.

We scored each candidate's principal answer (on a scale of 1-5, five being best), and we scored each follow-up answer (on a scale of 1-3, three being best).

Here's what we saw and assessed:

Fastest way to help people in the economic crisis?
Obama 5
McCain 4

What helps ordinary people most?
Obama 7
McCain 1

Can we trust either of you?
Obama 7
McCain 5

What must we sacrifice today for the future?
Obama 7
McCain 5

What about entitlements, social security and medicare?
Obama 5
McCain 1

What do we do about the environment and green jobs?
Obama 5
McCain 1

Is health care a commodity?
Obama 8
McCain 4

America as a peacemaker in the world?
Obama 8
McCain 5

Should we respect Pakistan's sovereignty?
Obama 8
McCain 5

Your Afghanistan plan?
Obama 3
McCain 3

Do we pressure Russia on humanitarian issues?
McCain 8
Obama 3

What happens if Iran attacks Israel?
McCain 5
Obama 4

What don't you know, and how will you learn it?
Obama 5
McCain 5

Sen. Obama's victory came from clear ideas, coherently expressed, naturally, and with conviction.

Sen. McCain's answers were somewhat unclear, and somewhat rambling. His conviction and passion, mostly solid and even, was diminished by sharing multiple talking points in a single answer, not coherently linked.

On foreign issues, however, Sen. McCain found his voice. He scored well, providing clear, coherent ideas, expressed with clarity and conviction.

Sen. Obama lacked those qualities in two of his foreign affairs answers.

Again, the tenor and tone of the debate was about fixing things that are wrong, dealing with tactical issues, and battling each other.

The real question remains. Who has the best vision for America?

Ultimately, that will be the test.

Successfully packaging a $700 billion idea

There hasn't been a bigger idea than a $700 billion bailout.

That's an eye-opener, whichever way you look at it.

Yet, what actually happened to that $700 billion bailout concept this week, is a lesson for all of us who manage ideas, shape stories and messaging, and build futures.

As you know, the $700 billion concept failed.

It failed because members of Congress were uncertain about the program, and members of Congress were uncertain because their constituents were enraged.

Rage is a very difficult force to manage.

It doesn't matter that rage was misdirected. It doesn't matter that rage was pointing in the wrong direction. Rage is rage.

At the core of the $700 billion bailout, however, was -- and still is -- a very good business idea.

In essence, Treasury officials argued:

All those 'failed' mortgages aren't worthless.

They are certainly worth something today, and at some point in the not-so-distant future, they will be worth more -- in fact, much more than they are worth today.

So let's buy those mortgages, said Treasury.

Let's manage them intelligently and protect the assets.

And then, at some point in the future, when they have substantially regained their value, let's sell them.

In the process, we will recapture the investment we made in buying mortgages in the first place -- and then some -- and we will be in a great position to return the proceeds to the American people.

It's likely those proceeds will be worth more than $700 billion. A lot more.

Doesn't that make sense?

Effectively, that's what the so-called $700 billion bailout plan -- or rescue plan -- was all about.

It wasn't about giving money to Wall Street.

It wasn't about mega-bonuses to chief executives.

It was a serious, well-considered investment by Treasury in assets that will increase in value (probably sooner, rather than later) and can be sold at a profit -- or at zero loss -- for the benefit of the American people.

Which is a pretty sound idea, by any measure.

Best of all, it's not a difficult concept to understand or embrace.

But, amazingly, did you ever hear anything like this clearly articulated this past week -- by Treasury officials, House or Senate members, or anyone, for that matter?

No, you didn't.

You might have heard isolated voices, especially in the aftermath.

But the story above wasn't Treasury's pitch.

It should have been.

Our view is that it isn't hard to rationalize complex ideas, make them simple, and communicate them clearly so people can understand them and embrace them.

Or it shouldn't be.

But apparently, this week, that was a tall order.

We hope that reality, plain talk, and understanding will prevail in the days ahead.

Obama won (but)

That was a mild debate.

Using techniques we use to evaluate and score messaging and commitment, Sen. Barrack Obama scored 92 over Sen. John McCain's 67 in tonight's debate in Oxford, Mississippi.

That looks like a resounding victory -- but.

We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.

Our assessment is simple.

Tonight, Barrack Obama won.

But who did better than expected? Well, John McCain.

On the financial crisis, Sen. Obama scored 37 over Sen. McCain's 29 score, which involved answers to questions about the proposed $700 billion bailout, Presidential leadership, and given inevitable budget constraints, what has to be sacrificed in the future.

In foreign affairs, both candidates performed exceptionally well. Sen. Obama was slightly ahead in Iraq. They equalled each other on Afghanistan. Regarding Iran, equal again. A draw.

But when it came to Russia, Sen. Obama scored 6 to Sen. McCain's 4. Based on his comments, Obama has a better insight into Russia. His responses were more detailed, and scored better.

Moderator Jim Lehrer's curious question about a 911-style attack today also had Sen. Obama ahead, 5 to 3. (But why did he ask a question like that?)

If you look at the data, who did best? The answer says Obama, certainly, in detail, but nobody, really.

McCain did better than expected, which may be construed as a victory. But he didn't win outright. Neither did Obama.

In the end, the debate was about two Senators, seemingly comfortable with each other competing for another Senate term. This told us a lot about each candidate, and how they grind the details of Congress.

But this is a Presidential campaign about the future.

The debate told us little about how they see the future, how they would shape our lives, and how they would make the future happen.

Maybe that comes next.

Sen. Obama's option for the next debate: Don't hold back. Shape your vision for the future. Paint a vivid picture of the future that all of us can see, realize, and achieve. Show us how Government is on our side, hoping that we will actually achieve our future, and how you will help us make that happen.

Sen. McCain's option for the next debate: Don't hold back. Shape your vision for the future. Paint a vivid picture of the future that all of us can see, realize, and achieve. Show us how Government is on our side, hoping that we will actually achieve our future, and how you will help us make that happen.

We look forward to the next debate.

P.S. We have no political affiliations, connections, or contacts.

Probably the best campaign on television today

We don't know if U.S. oilman T. Boone Pickens has a major stake in American natural gas.

Frankly, we don't care.

Mr. Pickens's simple, plain talk introduction of a stunningly simple, brilliant plan for energy evolution in this country is, in a word, breathtaking.

No politican has articulated a concept so simply, so clearly.

No public interest group has expressed such a rational, common sense approach to taking responsibility for our energy future.

No critic, at least so far as we can see, has seriously challenged Mr. Pickens's approach, which is not only informative, but educational. This is the kind of idea we tell our friends about.

Mr. Pickens, and the people who worked with him to create these messages, deserve major kudos.

A complicated energy scenario is rationalized and made clear.

A major opportunity is clearly articulated.

A rational transition is explained in detail.

A viable choice is presented for all of us.

Communication does not get any better than this.

This is a program to be admired for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is to be considered and evaluated by energy decision makers.

And there's a simple test for the Pickens Plan.

Does anyone have a better idea?

P.S. We have no connection with the PickensPlan, their people, or their agencies.

Driving (and expanding) Coach

Coach chief executive Lew Frankfort is, by any measure, a savvy, canny brand manager. He may be unique.

He has been involved with Coach for almost 30 years, sharing responsibility for sister Sara Lee brands during his long career, and enjoying a track record that's not only rare in corporate America but remarkable even among his luxury and fashion brand peers.

When Sara Lee released the Coach business in 2000, he took the brand public and has presided over seven years of extraordinary growth -- and use of the word extraordinary is not an overstatement.

This enviable, profitable growth has come from expansive licensing programs which dramatically expanded Coach beyond handbags (which today account for 64 percent of sales) into fashion accessories, scarves, watches, and even fragrance. These were followed with aggressive store expansion, mostly in malls, and equally aggressive global expansion, notably in Japan, where the brand is a highly successful 'import', ranking number two in total handbag and accessories sales.

In addition, Coach now has 30 stores in China with plans for 50 more. If you include Hong Kong and Macau, Coach is addressing a total handbag and accessories market of around $1.2 billion that will grow as dramatically as China's middle class expand their buying power.

Quoted this week in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Frankfort says that Japan-like growth in China would double the Coach business in four or five years.

Very few marketers -- in any category -- are contemplating growth like that.

Of course, business writers and fashion writers look at Coach through different lenses. Curiously, both share the same questions about Coach design and merchandising strategies.

In a nutshell, they wonder how Coach can expand a classic brand to attract young female shoppers, even middle-class teenage shoppers, in new stores in Staten Island and Queens -- and yet still retain elite, traditional and somewhat conservative patrons on Madison Avenue.

It's a question that challenges (and tempts) most fashion and luxury brand marketers:

Does the success you achieve with one audience threaten your franchise with others?

Can your brand withstand seemingly contradictory design and targeting strategies?

As you increase accessibility for the masses, will your upper-class mystique and reputation actually take a nose dive?

Mr. Frankfort and his design team, lead by President and Executive Creative Director Reed Krakoff, clearly have made their decisions.

It's full speed ahead -- with both.

Like the legendary Ralph Lauren, Messrs. Frankfort and Krakoff are (1) creatively driven, (2) customer and audience driven, and (3) market driven. They share a similar feeling-in-the-fingertips about what they will create -- for whom -- and where, exactly, it will be sold.

Ralph Lauren has always known -- and Coach has proved to the world -- that they can develop stunning, innovative and highly desirable items for diverse and different consumers (segmented by age, style, taste, class -- choose your descriptor), all of whom they understand intimately. Both brands have also demonstrated an ability to intelligently and insightfully manage distribution, along product lines, virtually on a store by store, mall by mall, and chain by chain basis.

As Mr. Frankfort says, Madison Avenue shoppers don't know what's on the shelves in the store in Queens -- and the reverse is probably also true. Yet, for each audience, he is sure that the Coach products on the shelves in their Coach store will be perfectly positioned for them.

If you think there's a fault line in that logic, certainly there is some risk. As Mr. Frankfort admits, consumers today shop 'high' (on Madison) and 'low' (at Target). And some malls -- in Atlanta, for example -- bring together very diverse shoppers under one roof. Undoubtedly, some overlap of styles and customers is inevitable. As a result, there is some risk to brand perception.

If you are a classic Coach buyer -- stylish, but restrained in your taste -- and your nearest Coach store suddenly is filled with extravagant logo-dominant merchandise with chains, padlocks and buckles, well, that can be jarring. Suddenly, Coach isn't your store. And that's a risk to be managed. However, if the selection is not right for you, maybe it's perfect for your granddaughter.

Yet the challenge for Coach is never to lose you.

That's the distinction that English luxury marketer Burberry achieved in their highly successful brand expansion in the late 1990s. Virtually overnight, Burberry become very youthful, very extravagant, and very new -- yet still retained their traditional, upper-crust customers. Burberry today is the classic case of luxury brand expansion.

Fortunately, if you are a classic Coach shopper (stylish and restrained in your taste), you should know that very stylish, very restrained Coach designs are still available, still beautifully made, and there are more of them in Coach today than there have ever been.

Perhaps Coach needs to make you aware of that.

The fact is, if you are wondering about the Frankfort-Krakoff strategy and what impact it may have on brand perception, you haven't looked at Coach lately.

The Coach handbag selection alone is dazzling -- there isn't a style, or the shadow of a style, or a design or tonal note that Coach hasn't explored and found a way to attach two perfect handles and offer it in the sizes, colors and textures you prefer -- either logo'd to death, logo-free, patchwork or plain, classic and traditional, or -- for the younger shopper who is your granddaughter -- totally off the charts with color, metal, and pizzaz.

To be specific, Coach now offers 14 handbag lines, all beautifully conceived, a total of over 231 individual handbags.

Again, maybe Coach needs to make you aware of that.

Ultimately, successful brand management is a balancing act. Intuition is as important as insight. And as observers have noted, Coach is on the line.

But Coach has leaders like Lew Frankfort and Reed Krakoff.

They are creatively inspired, they understand and respect the DNA of their brand, and they know their customers.

Marketers like this always seem to find a way to make things happen.

Kudos to Coach.