Pork Council believes people prefer fairy tales?

Intellectual property disputes have always been one of my greatest passions, as well as frustrations. So many complexities taken into consideration to decide who has rights to what brand name or tagline. It can be exhilarating if you're into that sort of thing. Other times it can be downright frustrating. Then other times it can be hysterical.

ThinkGeek, an online marketer of technology accessories, comical shirts, and other hysterical parody products, posted an April Fools joke product for "Canned Unicorn Meat." Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know this is a joke, and curious parties who attempted to purchase the product got a message that they had just fallen for an April Fools gag. Everyone got a good laugh out of it, everyone except for the National Pork Board.

In the advertisement for mythical meat product, ThinkGeek used the phrase "The new white meat" and several sites referred to the product as "the other white meat." The National Pork Board had their lawyers send a cease & desist letter, pointing out that THE OTHER WHITE MEAT is a registered trademark of the National Pork Board and ThinkGeek's use of the term is an infringement and dilution of  their trademark rights.

Trademarks are a way to distinguish that the product in question comes from a unique source. That way, we know whether we're buying Hormel's authentic SPAM product, and not an off-label spiced ham meat byproduct. Trademarks are important to help consumers know they are buying the authentic product that they prefer. If another company attempted to call their spiced ham canned meat SPAM, Hormel could interject and bring legal action against the offending company.

I don't believe any consumers saw the canned unicorn meat and truly believed it was a viable replacement for pork. This was not a true threat to the National Pork Board, nor was it something damaging to the public's love of pig-derived meats. The real threat to the National Pork Board are the counselors to the board who thought it would be a good idea to pay thousands on the drafting of a legal document asking ThinkGeek to stop using the similar taglines to sell their competing meat (which never existed in the first place). Instead, they spent a lot of time and money to provide comic fodder for the masses so we could mock the National Pork Board and Faege & Benson, the attorneys who sent the C&D letter.

Before you react to what you believe is a trademark violation, take a moment to consider whether there is a real threat to your business. It's probably wise to consult with someone other than your trigger-happy lawyers before you dump dollars into starting a fight that doesn't really exist. I'd gladly save you the several thousands of dollars and embarrassment.

It's the Cola

Pepsi is a very successful company in its own right, however their pursuit of Coca-Cola can be compared to one thing.

Wile E. Coyote keeps ordering new tools, trying new tactics, and continually fails to catch the Roadrunner. The only winner in Wile's incessant attempts is the Acme Company who continues to profit off of him.

Do you really want to catch the roadrunner, or should you set your sights on something different? Why spend all that money to make Mr. Acme rich?

Back in the better days, Pepsi was the choice of a new generation. Their advertising had a fun and youthful feel that still applied to everyone (remember, no matter how old we are, we want to be thought of as young). Though Coca-Cola has always been number 1, Pepsi wasn't too far behind. It was this threatening market position, and the results of the Pepsi Challenge that led Coca-Cola to make the colossal mistake of introducing New Coke.

Coke reversed their mistake, and for the most part kept their message strong. Meanwhile, Pepsi continued to chase them by using every celebrity and package redesign possible. In 2002, sales of Pepsi were 35% behind Coca-Cola in sales. The slogan was "Think young. Drink young." Then they abandoned the new generation. 2003 brought "The joy of Pepsi." 2004, "It's the cola." Now they are attempting to "Refresh Everything."

Notice anything about the new slogans? They're all head-on attacks against Coke. Joy, refreshment, and all about being "The Real Thing" are brand essences of Coca-Cola. The Acme Company was selling Pepsi countless logo revisions while their advertising messages were making people think about Coke. Today, they sit 41% behind the real thing.

When it comes to your business, do you want to be Wile E. Coyote, and constantly chase the Roadrunner? Or would you rather set a goal that won't have you always the one to have the anvil drop on you?

Burger King to get into the bar business

Burger King will open a new extension to their fast-food empire in February 2010. The Whopper Bar in Miami will be a new type of restaurant where customers can get beer and burgers with a familiar logo backing up the new concept. Burger King will sell Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors beers along with a special menu of burgers and toppings.

While the obvious challenges will be how to handle the new concept with a new labor structure, considering most fast food restaurants are staffed by employees under 21, and this will require an older workforce, what do you think of the brand implications and their choice to partner with the domestic mass-market brewers?

The big-three brewers (which recently became the big-2 with the acquisition of Coors by Miller Brewing) have been facing a loss of growth recently and have all been financially challenged. Each of these companies has been part of industry-wide consolidations to secure their financial position, while microbrews and imported beers have been increasingly greater in demand. Should BK have tried to ride the wave of the up-market beers rather than partnering with the mass-market drinks? It would seem that bargain-hunters may be the target market for Bud, Miller, and Coors, yet will that crowd be enough to make this new concept successful?

Another interesting challenge is that the name "Whopper Bar" was introduced in Universal Studios theme park, as an upscale location that focuses on Whopper customization. This location will not change to serve beer, which would lead to a fragmentation of the Whopper Bar brand.

What do you think? Is BK making the right alliances, and are they sending mixed messages by having multiple formats under the same name?

How to get people talking

So you want to be the popular company that people tell their friends about? Do something to make your product easier to use.

Andy Sernowitz pointed out an example of a product feature few probably think about. A big frustration for any parent is changing batteries for kids' toys. Often the toys require a special size screwdriver, and the hunt around the house for the proper tool while the kids are begging to play with the toy can be overwhelming.

Leapfrog replaced that screw with one that could be opened with a penny. They did something great with such an insignificant product component. What can you do?

Does Facebook think about security at all?

I'm not a big evangelist of the whole "personal brand" concept, as I believe many people can keep their business and personal lives properly separate. But Facebook seems to be forcing our private lives into the public eye more each day.

Their newest problem, the Facebook 3.1 app for iPhone scans your address book for phone numbers and emails in your contact list, scans Facebook, and syncs the profile pics with your contact list. Even for those people you are not Facebook friends with.

For an example of how this can be troublesome, an iPhone blog reader shared a story of a coworker who he is not Facebook friends with, but suddenly when she calls he receives a bikini picture of her because it is her profile pic. (The writer of the post was kind enough to mock-up an example image rather than further embarrass the unknowing coworker).

While Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg believes privacy is a thing of the past, how many of you want your profile pics scanned and sent to everyone's iPhones?

Is Google a big evil empire to fear?

A few years ago, you didn't hear many people speak poorly about Google. Now it has its critics who argue they have too much power.

It wasn't too long ago that people were singing praises about a new operating platform that made the personal computer approachable. After several years and a high rate of adoption, people began fearing and criticizing Microsoft.

There's a lot of sentiment for people to shop local and support their small hometown businesses. The people of Arkansas did this in the 1960s, which gave their hometown store the foundation to eventually open over 8,000 stores around the globe, only for the general public to frequently call Walmart "the evil empire."

Are these businesses evil? They are just successful, and when you become the biggest and best at what you do it puts a target on your back. Everyone is always aiming at the top. If you ever get there with your business, be sure to keep in mind that everyone is after you. Use your power for good, and do everything you can to keep your fans engaged and in love with you. You will always have critics, but don't give them more reason to fear you.

Marketer of the month: a non-marketer

Thanks to Josh Peters, I saw a very inspiring post from another recent transplant to Salt Lake, DJ Waldow. It got right to the point of what matters most in marketing, the customers.

DJ's story is about a body-shop owner who may not believe he understands marketing, but he is a great marketer by his actions for his customers. While he may not have a world-renowned ad campaign or $10 million logo, he has loyal customers who keep him in business because he not only understands auto-body repair, but he understands what is important to people.

This post said everything so well. It always seems that marketing agencies want to push the latest trend, whether it be logos, TV advertising, brand management, or social media, they treat each buzzword like it is the strategy, when the reality is these are tools to aid your business. The best marketing campaign will not keep a bad product alive forever.

Growing pains

Growth probably needs to be a part of your business plan. There are a handful of businesses who are happily producing at capacity in a profitable way, but it is rare. Even the most content business will eventually begin declining returns.

So we must grow.

Like a plant, we can't grow indefinitely by just growing up. We need to expand the roots and have new avenues of growth. This takes more work than just watering and maintaining the status quo. But that's why it's called growing pains. It may not be easy, but it is necessary.

If you're a restaurant, this may mean adding a new dish to the menu occasionally. A service provider may need to explore new services to add to the repertoire. Movie theaters have been adding special events and screenings other than the new-release blockbusters. Marketing and public relations agencies have begun adapting to social media. The key is to keep the steps close to your roots, and make it a natural change that makes you stronger in the long-term.

Growth is something that requires you to think and behave differently than what has brought success in the past. It requires taking chances. Not every new seedling survives, but a plant that keeps trying will endure.

Trust: desired by you, required for you

When you have a problem with Amazon, they send you a replacement before they get your returned item. They trust you.

Zappos does the same, if the shoe doesn't fit, they replace it immediately.

Popular retailers are the ones who treat their customers with respect, and trust. They don't give them problems or hassle them when a return is being made.

Would you let an issue of trust destroy your reputation and lead you out of business? Instinctively, everyone would say no, but more often than not their behavior does otherwise.

When you have a disagreement with a customer, do you send them away upset? I have been watching the unfolding of a dispute between a local restaurant and a group of disgruntled customers who believed they were lied to, then subsequently treated poorly. At issue: a $60 cover-charge added to the bill for a pay-per-view event. What that $60 got the restaurant: a horrible rating on UrbanSpoon, Yelp, and throughout the internet; also 12 former customers who will now tell everyone they encounter to avoid the restaurant.

Is it the end of the road for this establishment? Probably not, but would they be better off today by forgiving the customers and making everything peaceful? Definitely. There are situations when customers are truly taking advantage, and you have to walk away, but your business needs to establish trust with your customers to become the business everyone loves. Especially today, where every upset customer can reach more people, faster than ever.

Domino's is rolling the dice

Domino's Pizza is taking a couple of big risks. First, the chain will change the recipe of its pizza from the crust up. Second, it will promote the change by gathering bloggers and others who have criticized the taste of their product, asking their opinion in a live tasting.

Can a major chain change the recipe of their product? According to Russell Weiner, marketing chief at Domino's, "We weren't winning against everyone at taste." One consultant cautioned, "It's like McDonald's changing the ingredients in the Big Mac. Risks are akin to Coca-Cola's change — undone after a fan revolt — in Coke's taste." While Coca-Cola failed to understand there is more to a brand than blind-taste-test preference, this assumption implies that Domino's customers are primarily concerned with the taste of the product.

Domino's ranks first in convenience and price. The delivery pizza industry has declined 6% over the past year, and Domino's feels the crunch. While some may believe that a recipe change is admitting that what the brand stood for was wrong, would you rather ride a sinking ship until you've drowned, or get that boat to dock and make repairs? The essence of Domino's brand is hot, convenient, and affordable. Why wouldn't they make an effort to add delicious to their brand?

The only risk I foresee is their challenge to get reaction from their critics. Asking for live feedback does have a chance of backfire. The bloggers could taste the new recipe, claim it's still not great. Honestly, what do they have to lose? The people who have a poor perception of the brand will have not changed, but if Domino's is confident with their recipe they could get those very people who advocate against their brand to give it a nod of endorsement. Sure, it's a bold chance they're taking, but one which could pay off for them.

It's not unprecedented for a chain to make recipe changes. Adding enhancements to your product helps gain new customers, and satisfy existing customers to keep them longer. Domino's enhanced their brand to include hot with the introduction of their heat-wave bags. No one will complain when their convenient, affordable pizza arrives hotter and more tasty.

Social is the key word in "social media"

You go to a party and there is someone you haven't met before. This guy spends hours talking about how great he is, putting others down when their opinion is different than his, and even outright lying to make himself look better. I think we would all agree this is antisocial behavior, and this is exactly how many individuals and organizations handle their social media strategy.

There are many involved in antisocial media, they may even offer a few shallow incentives to get more friends, fans, and followers. But they never listen to those people who have agreed to be part of the conversation with them.

A couple tips to stay out of antisocial media:

• - Offer your fans something without worrying what you are going to get in return. Whether it be advice, a discount, anything to be a resource. People know when they're being sold to, and would rather have someone being a resource than a salesperson.
• - Be a part of the conversation, don't just use social media to advertise to everyone, it is a medium that requires being a part of the party.
• - Know that you will be criticized, and train employees and other customers how to react to criticism. Never allow an employee to criticize those who comment on your blog or other pages. You cannot put out a fire with more fire. Reach out to the upset customer, and if there is no pleasing them, just let it go.
• - Be human, a business is made up of people. Your customers are people. Everyone should be on the same level, rather than a hierarchy that puts the business on top. We rely on customers for our living, so they are just as much a part of the party as those who are hosting.

Think about others, and truly be their friend.

Clarification of "viral"

Since the Utah Flash fiasco continues to get as much media attention as a Tiger Woods family crisis, I thought I'd take a little more time on the concept of viral and the natural spread of word of mouth.

In a blog post apology, Brandt Anderson states,

"off the court we are going to embrace the fact we are a minor league team, and therefore do crazy fun promotion in the hope to get people talking about the team... If you were offended by the stunt I sincerely apologize. Good or bad I hope it got you talking."

In a statement to ESPN, he further stated:

"We wanted to test the strength and effectiveness of viral media by putting him (the impersonator) out in Provo with bodyguards, and some hype," he said. "I always assumed it would be uncovered very quickly that it was a hoax. I'm tremendously sorry for the way it came off. It was never intended to play out the way that it did"

The assumption in this entire situation was that viral=good. They believed that getting people talking about the team would be good, even if it was talking about a hoax.

How about we ask Motrin how awesome having an ad go "viral" can be? The "Motrin Moms" debacle caused a lot of pain for the company, and certainly did not leave a good taste in anyone's mouth.

How about Mel Gibson's famous rant? The video of his drunken rant went viral, and how has that worked for his career?

There is bad publicity. You don't want it for your business. If the general consensus of your target market is that you have done something wrong, then you have done something wrong. This is not a shock-factor marketing tactic like heavy-metal artists use to excite their target audience. When Marilyn Manson pisses off the Christian Coalition he is not trying to sell albums to them, he is selling albums to those who want to rebel against the moral majority.

A good viral campaign is when people are sharing their positive experience with others. A funny ad shown on TV or online that appeals enough to make people want to share it. A new product launched which finds evangelists telling everyone how much they love it. Viral is not planning a hoax or asking people to talk about something. That is fraud.

Motrin did not mean to upset thousands of mommy-bloggers. They stumbled accidentally into a bad situation. The Flash created this bad situation for themselves. Perhaps they hadn't considered the backlash, but it could have been easily avoided, and should have.

So what now? Continue to reach out the olive-branch to the public, apologize profusely, and mean it. Do not tangle at all with anything that could fuel the fire. Brandt Anderson has been openly accepting comments on his blog, and has addressed some of the concerns. Some of the comments may need to be moderated, and it's not the ones you may be thinking. It sometimes is better to delete those "defender" posts, the people who are supporting Anderson and calling the negative commenters idiots. Whether they are or not (and I am certainly not making the accusation) the public will believe these are shill comments from those involved with the organization.

Never, never, never, never post fake comments or reviews to attack criticism and bad publicity! Commenters who are taking your side are often more damaging than saying nothing at all. Once people suspect a shill there is very little that any official word from the organization can fix.

Stay classy, listen to your customers, and learn from your mistakes. Bad publicity is a virus, not a happy viral campaign.

No such thing as bad publicity?

I have sat in many meetings, having laughs about ideas that seem hysterical when proposed. These times are great for building teams, generating ideas, and loosening up everyone's stress levels. However, the ideas that have everyone laughing often need to die in the meeting.

We want our customers to be entertained, but we don't want them to be offended.

Now I am not one to avoid all risks, and there are situations when reaching your target audience may result in upsetting people outside of your target. Not in a blatant way, but messages cannot be perfectly safe for everyone. What I am talking about is sending out a message to customers that will back-fire. The old adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity" is a lie. Bad publicity can destroy a business.

Today's example comes from the Utah Flash, a professional development league basketball team who has a very enthusiastic owner. Looking at some of the activity he has been up to shows someone who is willing to take some risks and think outside of the box. More sports teams need to be like this. It is not a great time to be a sports-owner, as many markets simply cannot afford the big dollars to sell out stadiums at premium prices. I am not poking fun at the situation, rather showing how good intentions and enthusiastic marketing can lead us to bad decisions.

It all started with Bryon Russell calling out Michael Jordan, challenging him to a one-on-one match to show who was the better player. Sports commentators have been mocking this suggestion for months, but Utah Flash owner Brandt Anderson decided to capitalize on this media spectacle. They put a challenge to the hall of fame basketball player, and told fans of the plan to have a Jordan vs. Russell half-time show at the season opener.

While there were no definitive promises that Mr. Jordan would be there, the game sold out. There was also a staged "sighting" of the legendary player in the Provo area, where a look-a-like was dining with Men-In-Black security entourage by his side. At half-time it became obvious that there was to be no real Michael Jordan appearance, and many fans walked out.

Mr. Anderson posted an apology on his blog that evening, stating that the "challenge didn't go like any of us hoped." By Tuesday morning, there were 55 comments to the post, most critical of the stunt, and many demanding refunds. In reading the comments, it is apparent that many negative comments were deleted. Likely profanity-laden, and I do not condone Mr. Anderson for deleting that type of content from his blog, I would likely do the same in his position. The point is, this upset people. It did exactly the opposite of what a marketing person is responsible for doing. Just because something was risky, does not make it brilliant.

Scorecard:

Great idea to propose the challenge. Get your name out there, participate in the world of sports entertainment. Had you approached Michael and he turned you down, you're not out anything for trying.

Great job of posting your blog apology. You didn't want thousands of angry fans. As you said, you wanted a season of fun. It was a bold move, that could have worked had there not been the outright deception.

Bad ideas: getting peoples' hopes up. You knew there would be no MJ, which is evident by the phony sighting. Think of this like any product, you can tell people about the attributes of your product, how it tastes, what it contains, what it can really do for customers. You cannot and should not imply something that is not going to happen. It is illegal. While there was not implicit promises that MJ would be there, and therefore you're not likely to be fined, sued, or otherwise punished, it is a bad road to walk along using deception.

Another bad idea: calling this "viral" marketing. Rather than the positive buzz-word that viral has become, people will be talking about this like it is a virus no one wants. You do not just want people talking about your product, you want to connect good-feelings with your product. No one ever got rich by selling the product no one wants.

My message to Brandt, please keep taking risks, be bold, and put the fun into sports. But get someone on your team who is a seasoned veteran at making people happy. My offer stands, I will take on the Utah Flash as a pro-bono client. No bait & switch, no strings, no hoax, and no imitators.

You've built a monster, please don't feed it

This is my open letter to Ted Gilvar - CMO of Monster.

Dear Ted, you've made it about 18 months in a big role and continue to have an even bigger challenge ahead of you. Unemployment is high, which means a couple of things. You have a lot of potential users who need your service. But, there are fewer opportunities for those people to find on your site. So what do you do when there are too many customers looking for too few products? You need to make it the best damn experience those people have ever had.

You've already built a monster, please don't feed it anymore.

As someone who has frequently utilized Monster and many other job search boards, we hate them. For the most part, job boards are just a necessary evil that we endure. Painfully gnashing our teeth and cringing as we type every letter of the URL. To be fair, Monster is infinitely better than CareerBuilder, and I do prefer it over HotJobs. But no one is getting excited to use your site.

We don't need any more advertising. We don't need clever promotions. We don't need banner ads, search ads, a social media presence, or interface updates. We don't need a logo redesign, website refresh, or anything like that. We need a brand we can trust.

Why does a marketing executive of over 10 years get search results for a "home health nurse," "finance & accounting manager," or "administrative assistant," all of which could be disastrous. But even worse, there are somewhere around 2,000 ways to say "door-to-door commission salesperson who will never earn $1" and you have them all wonderfully camouflaged as legitimate job listings that we have to sift through to find something that may even be remotely relevant to us.

I understand that you don't create the jobs, and there is a natural urge to not turn down money from advertisers. But a bit of quality control and categorization to help users find relevant jobs would make you the uncontested number one job site and make your brand the one and only household name anyone would ever think about using when they need a job. It is time to improve your product. It's called brand management. Make a product that people won't stop talking about. If every user was able to upload their resume, fill in a profile, and see nothing but relevant opportunities, hiring managers and candidates alike would love you forever.

You've got $250 million to spend. Certainly it would take a lot less than that to make it happen, and you'd never need to advertise again. It is time to improve the product in a big way. It's not as if we don't know what Monster is, we just don't want to use it.

Are consumers gaining power?

A report from the Chief Marketing Officer Council states that out of the 91% of consumers who opt-out or unsubscribe from email marketing, 46% are driven to brand defection because the messages simply are not relevant. Don't worry about those who unsubscribe? Perhaps you should be a bit concerned about those people who hit the unsubscribe button. They may be opting-in to your competition permanently.

A blog post from Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, provides additional interesting insight into the future if you read between the lines. Facebook originally created networks by region and school. While the community was small, this worked to achieve what people wanted. It connected those students who wanted a way to connect and communicate to others around them. Now that seemingly everyone is on Facebook, people do not necessarily want to share their information with their bosses, family, and advertisers. The connection of living in the same region is not necessarily relevant to all consumers.

What do these things have in common? Consumers exercising their voice to make real changes in new media. This is not a new concept, it is likely that consumers have been defecting due to irrelevant messages since the first time a cobbler hammered an advertisement on a lamp post. This puts some information in our hands that we need to use in communicating.

Traditional wisdom was to create a message and broadcast it to the largest number of people possible. It was known that not every person would react positively (make a purchase) to the communication, and only in the event of accidentally insulting people would that communication result in negative reactions. What this information shows is that a very large number of consumers may actually gain a preference for the competing brand if they feel your communications are irrelevant.

Putting it all together now. Facebook is an example that shows people want to communicate and belong to a community. They are willing to become "fans" of their favorite brands, join in discussion groups about products and services, but that does not mean they want to connect to everything. Consumers who actually opt-in to communications from a brand they use, then defect to a competitor because of irrelevant communications shows that what we say and do can have positive and negative effects. Even if the communication was simply an offer that was not relevant to that consumer.

What you say matters. A lot. It is not safe to assume that you can bombard people's inboxes, television sets, Facebook pages, Twitter streams, etc. with any message, as often as you want. People watching may not just unsubscribe or change the channel. You may be sending them right into the arms of your competition.

Every time you communicate with your customers, think carefully about what you want to say. Make an offer that people will appreciate. Be relevant.

It's all about making money

Car rides can be quite interesting with the children. Sing-a-longs, fighting about who is sitting too close, begging for Slurpees, and talking marketing. Today's revelation from my 6 year old daughter showed more insight than many professionals in the workplace.

"There is more commercial time on the radio because it is getting close to Christmas, and they need to sell more things to make money."

Yes, at 6 years old she was able to identify that commercial time is ramped up for the holiday season. Not an earth-shattering thought, but unique for someone that age to identify. But then it got really deep and interesting.

"I think the Shane Company sells fake diamonds, and that is how they are cheaper than other jewelry stores. Except for Walmart, but those are fake too."

You have been successful at getting attention, but has your advertising been too good to be true? I have bought from the Shane Company a couple of times, and was quite pleased with the overall experience. Low prices, friendly service, and honesty. I never felt pressured or looked down on for wanting to buy something less expensive. I wondered, if it is so pleasant to shop here, how do other jewelry stores exist in the face of this tremendous competition?

Quality jewelry at low prices is something we are trained to believe does not exist. The other jewelers I have experienced are masters of reinforcing that belief. High-pressure, poor service, and a feeling that you do not belong if you are trying to be frugal. The message sent by the industry is that you must spend several months of your income to make a decent gift.

I won't get involved in any debate over actual merits of jewelry, but my point is that a 6 year old can identify the purpose and effectivity of advertising. Your target customer is likely much more experienced than a child at making consumer decisions. Perhaps your advertising may be saying the wrong thing to potential customers, be it too pushy of frequency, or unbelievable claims that cause people to doubt your product.

Need help to communicate effectively? Drop a message for me, I'll even throw in a 6 year-olds advice for free.

Demographics, useless to marketers?

As we gain more insight into consumers we find that many of the age-related assumptions we made in the past are incorrect. Apparently there are people in their 60s who love candy, just like those who are only 6 years old. Just as there are bloggers and Facebook users who are in their teens, as well as those who are grandparents to teens.

There is value to knowing who your consumers are, but the typical "demographics" research typically falls short of drawing important correlation to who consumers are, and what motivates them to buy. Does being 32 lead someone to purchase Crest toothpaste versus Colgate? Moreover, some demographic categorizations do not even make sense. 18-49 is often used to describe a consumer group. Aside from "people who most likely have jobs" this age range has very little in common simply because they are within an age group. Of course you will find 18 year olds who buy the same products at the same store of 49 year olds. How does that help you better position your product?

There are times when an age group is an important factor to consider. The important thing to remember is to question those demographics rather than jumping to a conclusion and alienating your customers because someone showed you a statistic.

Hitting where it hurts, there's an app for that

Part of me wanted to applaud the new ad campaign by Verizon Wireless, "There's a map for that" but then I saw the end of the commercial. The part that has prompted a lawsuit by AT&T, in which they show a map of AT&T's 3G coverage. The graphical display of the two providers' 3G coverage area is shocking, and although Verizon states that it represents AT&T's 3G areas specifically, AT&T feels that customers believe there is no wireless coverage in the white area.

The lawsuit requests an emergency injunction to stop the ads and claims significant losses of market share and goodwill, prohibiting them from competing. It is true that customers can be easily confused with the technical differences between having 3G coverage, and having slower wireless coverage. What matters is what the public believes, and AT&T polled many customers who were indeed under the impression that there was no coverage.

The Verizon commercial was upbeat and positive, and sold benefits of their available smartphones and superior 3G coverage. It should have left it at that. While Verizon technically did nothing wrong, it is an accurate map, directly attacking their rival was not a necessary maneuver and could cause problems for them. It is usually wise to keep your hits above the belt, even when you have a knock-out punch ready to deliver. In business, your competitor can hit back with the legal system.

The bigger the company, the bigger the blunder

Toyota stumbled into a mess with a launch of their new 4-Runner website. (I imagine this site link will soon be broken, since they're going to need to rectify the situation). To set the mood of wildlife for their SUV brand, they looked to photographers on Flickr to provide photography for the microsite. They found several great photographs which were used, unfortunately they never asked the photographers for permission.

Michael Calanan (a talented photographer & friend) posted his concern on Twitter the evening of Tuesday, November 3. The conversation towards @Toyota must have got their attention, as they promptly tweeted Wednesday morning to the photographers involved.

This is why your company needs an experienced marketer on staff. Real marketing directors have an understanding of intellectual property laws. Photographs, fonts, illustrations, and other design elements found online are not free for you to use, especially for commercial purposes. Further, marketing personnel are meant to understand consumers. First and foremost, the responsibility of marketing is to know what motivates people, and how they will react. Not knowing that professional photographers would certainly notice the increased traffic on their Flickr pages, and be upset about someone using their work without contacting them is a fatal mistake. If they fail to understand this, do they understand what Toyota customers actually want from their vehicle? There may not be a correlation, but it begs to be asked.

If I was to guess, I would say it was not malicious intent of Toyota to steal these photographer's work, but was a lack of intellectual property understanding. That does not excuse what they have done. Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. Whether you are a multi-billion dollar company, or a small boutique, you need to respect the property rights of others. If you are unsure of what you can or cannot do, ask for help from a real expert.

Will you pay for an online newspaper subscription?

I am actually not going to enter the debate over whether newspapers should or should not charge for access to their online material. In the end, some will, while others will not.

Online subscriptions will provide revenue for some newspaper companies. The restriction of access will cause some newspapers financial grief.

What I will say is this, if the management of a newspaper company is too preoccupied with this decision of whether to charge or not, they will fail.

Why will people pay for information from one source versus another? Content and reputation. Otherwise known as their brand. If we know the brand of the news source represents the very best information, and what they provide enhances our lives, we will pay. But if your paper is just kicking out basic information that was covered by a dozen other sources, you lose.

Rather than debating "do we charge, or don't we," it is time to evaluate how your media source is different and what value can you provide the readers that they cannot get elsewhere. When you have a valuable, trusted brand, you can more easily find your income.