Last week I gave a presentation to 350 people on emerging technology trends. Discussion topics included mobile devices, self-driving cars, the Internet of Things and what arguably could be the most disruptive technology of the 21st century – the 3D digital printer. I must have convinced the audience of this view as well, because most of the questions that I…
In 2012, Chrysler’s Halftime in America commercial got my vote for the best SuperBowl advertisement. Once again in 2013, Chrysler topped all the others with this year’s “God Made a Farmer” video. The commercial featured compelling visuals and a powerful voiceover, but without question the most powerful element was the message.
In just over four months from today, marketers around the world will have the opportunity to launch a new product on what is arguably the coolest launch date possible – October 10th, 2010 (10.10.10). This date only occurs once a century. Surprisingly, few other businesses have capitalized on this rare numbering phenomenon for marketing purposes. Perhaps the best strategy I have seen comes from Stone Brewing Company, which has been releasing a series of “Vertical Epic Ales” one year, one month and one day apart starting on 02.02.02.
I was walking through the Newark airport last night when I noticed a new Accenture ad that caught my attention. The ad simply states “If you innovate, they will come.” The image features a chameleon with a flower-shaped tongue luring a butterfly into its range. What a brilliant concept! Especially to build upon what has become of the business world’s most over-hyped cliches.
I recently finished reading Ken Auletta’s book Googled. Unlike many of the Google worshipers in the media, I have not paid close attention to Google’s every move over the past decade. Consequently, I was surprised at many of the relationships and serendipity that has enabled Google’s growth. In this post are 17 things I was not aware of prior to reading the book.
One of my fondest memories of the Dot Com era was the hype preceding Super Bowl 34 in 2000, which aired 10 years ago. I couldn’t tell you who won the game, or for that matter, even who played, but I will never forget the advertisements. Super Bowl 34 in January 2000 featured seventeen dot-com companies that each paid over two million dollars for a thirty-second spot. By contrast, in January 2001, just three dot-coms bought advertising spots during Super Bowl XXXV.
I was in the grocery store last night and while waiting in the checkout aisle I could not help but notice this month’s Washingtonian. What caught my attention about this particular edition of the Washingtonian was the cover image design. It features a map resembling the Washington Metro system, but instead of charting station names it instead lists out popular places, people and things to do in the nation’s capital. What struck me about the cover design were two things…
The media has been relentlessly bashing GM with negative front page headlines for almost two decades now. Newspaper writers across the country have criticized GM for failing to react to changing market conditions with innovative new products; failing to create enough value to attract financing from private capital sources; and failing to overcome its challenges with labor unions and infrastructure overcapacity. My response to this is “Hello? Newspaper editors– look in the mirror!” If there is any industry that is run more poorly that the US automotive sector has been in recent years it is the newspaper business!
In my last post, I made the case that the media industry, not the unions or debt holders, are the biggest obstacle to GM’s success in the US market. However, despite decades of front-page articles and headlines criticizing GM’s management team, the company has remained loyal to traditional advertising approaches to drive demand for its products. I find it particularly ironic that GM continues to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the very companies that are profiting from its demise. Consider that in 2009, GM has spent $112M on newspaper advertising this year alone, which amounts to 27% of its overall advertising budget.
The biggest problem that GM has suffered from since the 1980s is negative public perception – both at a corporate and a product level. Despite numerous management changes and strategy shifts, GM has failed to convince the American public that is an innovative company which can build high quality vehicles. From my perspective, one of the biggest reasons that GM has been unable to overcome its public perception dilemma is the on-going negative attention it receives in the media. For as long as I can remember (at least over the past 20 years), GM has served as a punching bag for the media.