Topics for the 10/25/09 Show

Here are the proposed topics for this week's episode of The BeanCast, and as usual we'd love to hear your thoughts and questions.

You have two ways to get in touch: 1) Send an "@" reply or DM on Twitter to @thebeancast, or 2) send an email to beancast@gmail.com

Please keep your comments succinct. Wordy comments need to be interpreted and I may not capture the essence of what you are asking. That's why I encourage the Tweet option to help keep the question or thought targeted.

This week's panel will be Edward Boches (Mullen/Creativity Unbound), Joseph Jaffe (Crayon), Ben Kunz (Mediassociates/Thought Gadgets) and James P. Othmer (Author, Adland and The Futurist).

TOPICS

The Direct Dilemma: I spent last week at DMA 09 and a very interesting under-current is happening. There is a realization of both the value of targeting and measurement in today's advertising, with a humble admission that the name "Direct" is getting in the way. Has the word "direct" become such a liability that it's hindering the effectiveness of it's principles? Why does direct have such a bad reputation that people go out of their way to use other names? Why is this phenomenon global? Does the blame rest solely on practitioner excesses or is part of the problem plain snobbery? Even if snobbery is involved, isn't that still a case to lose the name? Again and again I hear creative is the problem -- but is schlocky work really the main issue? Isn't tying campaigns to results something that PR and brand folks are afraid of? Where has the DMA gone wrong? Was advocacy for mail the right play or did it pigeon-hole the entire industry? What about Stan Rapp's position that direct needs to go digital in order to survive -- is this a good play or too little, too late? Does digital even want anything to do with direct marketing? Even though Google sponsors DMA, would they consider themselves "direct marketers?" I've known the new DMA Board of Directors Chairman, Gene Raitt for some time and he's talked about this issue of "direct" as a liability for a couple years. But is there a place for the DMA if they became the International Marketing Association? Is the USP of knowledge enough or do they need complete reinvention? Speaking of reinvention, OgilvyOne is completely on this bandwagon, even stealing my Little Yesses idea of balancing relationship and branding with the need for results. Is this a better approach? Is it enough? My own thoughts on this will be coming out in Ad Age, so look for the piece in the upcoming issue.

Creativity in Social Media: Edward started an interesting discussion online this week about what creativity looks like in the social spaces. It's a piece that Ben participated in as well. What insights seems to have risen to the top? Is social media a place where creativity happens or just a venue for creativity to flourish? Should we even be discussing the potential for creativity here as much as focusing on enhancing it as a forum where our creativity and brands can be discussed? Should we treat like a "media" rather than a tactic? As a side story to this, there was some interesting chatter about services like Trendrr, which measure social sentiment. Ben wrote this week how even customers that are neutral to your content, can still swing the resulting buzz negative. Could you explain a little more of that, Ben? What does the Pew research this week tell us, when they say 19% of US internet users actively Tweet? Is social sentiment a science that can flourish and give us good data in the future or is it too tied to the fickle fads of the Internet?

It Really Isn't the Placement: A Dynamic Logic study has found placement and context of an ad online may be less important than the message along with with lots of other tidbits. Is this a win for creativity and branding online? The results on one hand champion faces, design and messaging, but on the other trash reveals, and more subtle creative approaches. What are you all getting from these results?

More Screens Don't Mean More Ads: Ben brings us an analysis of Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker's presentation this week and I find this idea fascinating: 10x more devices doesn't necessarily mean that there's more room for ads in our lives. Why? Ian Baer and Cheil USA was on a panel I lead and made an excellent case for how screens with us makes incorporating the internet, and thus advertising, into our daily routines, more of a possibility. Would you agree or disagree? Where should digital focus our efforts, considering this fragmentation makes us harder to stand out?

Hulu Should Go Away: Optimedia's Andy Young had a controversial opinion this week. He proposes that the data is just not there to support any of Hulu's premises. Despite huge by-in, Hulu has not lifted network ratings for any of it's 3 participants and CBS, the hold out, is still #1. He says, there is no case to be made that they need to do it or someone else will, because no one else has their library of content. And he goes on. Does he have a point? Is Hulu a good model to pursue?