Time to choose sides, people of advertising. Do you believe in the power and glory of Internet advertising? Are you telling your clients to invest in the greatest invention since Velcro because you can track their market segments everywhere they go online and put your clients’ products on every page their customers visit? Or, (and?) in the privacy of your thoughts, does it creep you out that your simple search about lawnmowers results in lawnmower ads popping up on every page you visit for a month? Ad people, at least the ones I like, are respectful of people’s privacy. Yet, the engine driving our business—online advertising—is rapidly rendering privacy a quaint artifact of the 20^th Century. It’s a reverse ‘cobbler’s children’ effect, and the debate is about to be settled by the 800-pound gorilla that is Microsoft. According to this article, Microsoft’s upcoming release of Internet Explorer 10 will ship with a default browser setting of Do Not Track (DNT), and guess who’s telling Microsoft how to run their business—the ad biz. Publicis and WPP, who handle a ton of Microsoft advertising, are scrambling to convince their giant client that DNT is a giant mistake; how can Microsoft let users of the most popular browser in the world rest easy knowing their every online move WON’T be tracked unless they choose it to be so? Of course, it all comes down to the next World War—the one between Microsoft and Google (wait your turn, Apple). Some think Microsoft’s move is designed to hurt Google; WPP and Publicis argue it will actually strengthen Redmond’s fiercest rival. I don’t understand the nuances of the technology to know who’s right. But personally—and for the first time since Bill Gates began shaving—I find it hard to fault Microsoft’s position. It may not  benefit advertising’s rush to technological ubiquity. But it’s tough (for me) to argue against letting human beings decide if they want to participate in it.

I became Insta-(step)Dad after the real heavy lifting was done, so I never had to prove I could feed the baby while simultaneously mowing the lawn,  romancing my wife, walking the dog and fixing an overheated Camaro with Evian water. Just because I never got to demonstrate my skills, I never doubted them—so I’ve been a little pissed off for a few years now at the popular trend of making men (and especially dads) look like hapless, clueless morons. I knew I couldn’t be alone, and I was right. Thankfully, according to this excellent Adweek feature, the backlash against the “Doofus Dad” has sprouted, flourished and is about to choke the life out of this incredibly offensive stereotype. After reading my last sentence, I’m pretty certain the whole trend was a natural pendulum swing after the similar and justified uproar over the “Swedish Bikini Team” spot and its ilk from the late 80’s (honestly, from the previous 5,000 or so years). Women were pissed, but they couldn’t immediately start objectifying men the same way, because that would be shallow and stupid. So a decade or so later, we end up with this Roomba ad. And now, with the opening of Magic Mike, we’ve finally reached the other end of the arc and are about to reverse direction. Wheeee! Of course, this being America, the question now is, how far will we go the other way? SuperDad is just slightly less silly than Superman—but if Facebook is any indication, there are tons of dads who would qualify (or maybe SuperDad is the only dad who has the time and the techno-savvy to post on Facebook). But, as anyone who’s had a mother will testify, SuperMoms are everywhere, so anything less than SuperDad creates instant inequality. Then again, who says it has to be one or the other? Why can’t the sexes just get along in commercials? It’s these kinds of societal dilemmas that keep advertising from becoming an automated app on your iPhone. Advertising is art; art that reflects the truth of the human condition. Whatever truth you want.

I was at a small party in Baton Rouge awhile back. During the evening, I saw every guest’s personal mobile device (overwhelmingly iPhones) many, many times—texting with people who weren’t there, showing lots and lots of pictures of the same people to the same people, comparing and buying apps—you know, partying. Then, a woman whipped out this...device...that looked somehow familiar, but I wasn’t sure. I asked to see it, and it was, believe it or not, a PHONE. It was shiny and it flipped open and it had buttons and made phone calls. Oh, it had a camera, but that was it—a ‘camera phone.’  Fascinating. I mention it only because Danielle found this survey infographic that explains the bewilderment I was feeling at seeing such a quaint piece of technology. It seems that smartphone use has already surpassed the use of  ‘old fashioned cell phones.’ And it’s not just cell phones taking it on the chin from these pocket wizards we all carry around as if they contained our pacemaker batteries (there’s probably an app for that). The data suggests 2 billion people will be permanently glued to their smartphones within 3 years—more than will be using desktop computers. In case you think it’s all YouTube videos and text messaging, almost one-third of consumers prefer to shop on mobile devices (that includes tablets, but still...). And mobile advertising is predicted to top $5 billion by 2015. It doesn’t matter if Facebook turns out to be a fad—whatever replaces it will start on the smartphone. I was so taken by the woman’s retro-tech stand that I began to ask her about how she gets by in a world ruled by fat fingers on tiny touch screens, but she quickly explained how she had just that afternoon dropped her iPhone in her pool, causing serious withdrawal symptoms, and that she “freakin’ HATES this piece of crap.” I thought she was being more than a little overdramatic. So, I went back to the party, you know, comparing satellite radio receiver options on my iPhone, until my friend showed me this app that maps the stars and planets based on your GPS location. And who can survive without a pocket planetarium?

Watch this TV spot for VW. Aside from the great music (thank you Ray Davies) and that the steering wheel and car are both on the British VI side of the road, what stands out is the classic, raw, real home-movie footage that clearly was painstakingly shot on a designers’ dream set. That’s because sincerity—even if it’s not real—sells today. This GettyImages article sums it up nicely—“the charisma of ‘everyday.’” No matter much we love our ultra cool, i-Fueled, on-or-off, hot or not, zeros and ones, never-disconnected digital existence, there’s a part of us that longs for our analog, vinyl, scratchily filmed past. And it’s not just recreating the really old, it’s also creating the really real, really cheaply; something that was created by “real people,” not “advertising people” (who, as we know, are not real). Fresh Networks created a “Wish You Were At Topshop” social media promotion for women’s clothier Topshot. Shoppers were given a free styling and make-up session, then photographed using an iPad and Instagram filter of the shopper’s choice to create a ‘Wish You Were At Topshop’ digital postcard, which was uploaded to Facebook and Topshop’s gallery. Result? Coverage in 640 blogs (well, 641 now), an extra 5.3 million Facebook views, with total reach of more than 7.5 million. And Topshop is now the #1 fashion retailer on Instagram. Plus, Topshop didn’t have to pay pesky photographer’s or designer’s fees to create content. What’s not clear is how long this trend will last. Not the trend toward user-generated content—user-generated fuels social media anyway, and as long as it’s cheaper than paying a pro, advertisers will continue to be all over that. But as the world succumbs to total digititis, will we long for more and more analog salve? Or will we eventually just stop caring about images we know are being manipulated to remind us of a time we’ll never see again?

Cindy and I spent four days in San Francisco last week for our anniversary. It was awesome. Even went to a Giant’s game, got great seats. Ate and walked and ate and walked our way across one of the coolest and most expensive cities in America. Looked at our credit card bills today, aghast. Just a few minutes later, Danielle sent me this story about Live Below the Line. Now, I’m really, really, really aghast, and a bit ashamed, actually. One point four BILLION people—four times the population of the U.S.—live on less than $1.50 US a day, which is the ‘standard’ defining extreme poverty... and  about 1 percent of what we spent a day in San Francisco, not counting transportation, lodging and baseball tickets. “Well, $1.50 goes a lot further in some countries,” you might say. No, $1.50 is what someone in extreme poverty in the U.S. would have to live on. It’s a lot less elsewhere So, what on earth does this have to do with advertising? Two things. First, raising awareness is more than half the battle of Live Below the Line, and they’re engaging support solely through social media—extreme poverty is global, the solutions must be global, and nothing’s more global than social media. Their site is a great example of simple and impactful, with videos and blogs from people who have accepted the challenge to Live Below the Line by eating on $1.50 per day for just one week. Plus, they support formation of communities and teams of fundraisers. The second, and more important connection I saw with advertising is this: Consider the impact your clients and your work have on the mindset of mindless consumerism. It’s not that advertising or our clients can ‘fix’ extreme poverty, or any ill—but sometimes, it’s really good to remind and be reminded that we are the ones living in extreme luckiness, and that we’re all traveling this coil together. I’m no Socialist, and trust me, I plan to return to San Francisco. But in advertising, we’re one of the essential keepers of the culture, so maybe in our headlong rush to get people to buy our clients’ products and services, we can remember to help our clients understand that doing good is just as important as doing well.

Apparently older folks and Millennials have more in common than previously thought. Actually, I’m not sure anyone ever thought Millennials and people over 50 had ANYTHING in common. But this infographic shows common ground in an area NO ONE would have thought. I seems the generation that can’t live without Tumblr and the generation that’s still trying to figure out what Tumblr is share an equally dark opinion of the impact of digital tools and the general direction life on this rock is taking. Which, I think, is good news for the great-grandkids. I also found the data interesting in that it supports a trend Danielle and I blogged about a couple of weeks ago—consumers are beginning to care greatly about the good (or the damage) a brand delivers to people and their planet. It’s not about saying the right thing, it’s about DOING the right thing. Smart brands are helping consumers become ‘prosumers.’ Yeah, prosumer is a made-up word, but so is ‘Internet,’ so  get used to it, because the prosumer is rapidly becoming the sweet spot  for brand marketing. And what’s really encouraging (and a bit surprising) is how the closely the values of the prosumer align with those of the overall population. While the infographic shows that prosumers are slightly more worried about sustainable energy, the environment, etc., they’re not out on a limb by themselves,  and the responses across all age segments are grouped pretty tightly. All of this is good news for the advertising business, because we are the ones who will help our brands navigate this territory. They will turn to us—not to put lipstick on a pig, but to help them BE the brands that do the things that attract prosumers. Take a good look at this data, and see our future.

In 1982, I was managing a typography shop (a brilliant career move with the Mac and its 16 resident typefaces just  two years away), Danielle surely hadn’t arrived yet, MTV played lots of music videos, the San Francisco 49ers won their first Super Bowl — and TV ads were TERRIBLE. Of course, we didn’t know that then. We do now, thanks to Ad Age, which is looking back at TV advertising from 30 years ago. (1982 wasn't ALL bad—you could buy a Donkey Kong game cartridge for your state-of-the-art Colecovision, Atari, or Intellivision “home video systems.”) Old ads are fun to watch, but for those of us in the business, they’re also quite educational. Our culture has changed so much that today, McDonalds (or any fast-food outlet) wouldn’t dare say fried chicken nuggets are good for you. Consumers are no longer standing for disingenuous marketing. And there’s no way in hell this Tab commercial could run today—until GoDaddy starts making Tab. Are they still even printing Yellow Pages? On the other hand, the Miller Lite assemblage of sports has-beens has been replaced by men wearing skirts; so either we haven’t come THAT far, or maybe we overshot a little. But beyond comparing concepts, the seven spots highlighted by Ad Age also show how technology and execution have changed. The jingles were heinous. Computer animation was incredibly time-consuming, expensive and honestly, not that great 30 years ago, and all high-end spots were shot on film. (Remember film?) Now we see a Cockney-spouting lizard walk across the Brooklyn Bridge dodging traffic and think, “Well, sure, that happens.” People watch AND shoot commercials on their smart phones. And the closest thing we had to Facebook in 1982 was Cheers. You could argue that none of this is new; that social mores and technology have always driven change in marketing. But look carefully. 1982 was the dark just before the dawn. The accelerated changes we've seen in the last 30 years left those of the previous 50 — or more — in the dust. I can’t wait to see what’s next.

“FAST FORWARD!” When my girls are home from college, this is the command I receive every time there’s a commercial break in the show we’re watching. My wife’s command is a little more diplomatic, “Do we have any buffer?” This is what I get for holding the DVR remote. They forget I work in advertising and may WANT to actually WATCH a commercial now and then. But with Real Housewives waiting, there’s no time for industry. This is the reality of our business—we’re making ads for people to skip. And according to this AdAge article, the Interactive Advertising Bureau is adding ‘skippable’ ads to the online mix. (The IAB helps set uniform standards for online ads.) Skipping or choosing online ads isn’t new. Hulu gives you the chance to pick your poison from three options, and YouTube has TrueView, which only pays if the user watches for 30 seconds. But with these new suggested protocols, it’s only a matter of when ad skipping will become a standard part of the experience. I think ad skipping online makes more sense than it does on broadcast television—the online experience is supposed to be user-controlled. This distinction will be moot very soon as online and broadcast converge into a single content provider. But I also think this approach is much like saying to the love of your life, “Let’s get married. We can always get a divorce if it doesn’t work out.” Instead of building a system around allowing users to opt out of our message, why not focus on building a system that gets the right message to the right person in the first place? If you’ve ever been creeped out by those online ads that seem to know exactly what you’ve been searching for recently, you know the technology is close. And with a projected 2012 online video ad market of $3.1 billion, advertisers are probably going to start demanding it very soon.

I love, love, love this. Danielle and I blogged awhile back about how companies who misstep are finding a sincere mea culpa combined with a true effort to improve wins hearts, minds and wallets. But that’s reactive. Now comes Jeff Rosemblum of Questus, who spent a year interviewing business and marketing leaders, scientists and educators on the future of advertising for a documentary. And what he discovered is essentially what  us hippies (and Roy Spence) have been saying since the 60s, fercrissake: Hey, companies! It’s not what you say, how you say it or how good you look saying it. It’s what you STAND FOR and what you DO. And if all you do is TAKE from people and the planet we live on, UP YOURS. That message has resonated with most reasonable people for a long, long time. Unfortunately, advertisers didn’t really have to care (tobacco company account, anyone? How about a Hummer?) and agencies were busy accentuating (or inventing) only the positive, so that message rarely saw daylight. But now, finally, we have the power to convert that message into power and action. Technology and social media allow consumers to form mobs of villagers wielding virtual pitchforks and torches as we storm FrankenCorp’s  castle demanding change—or worse for the company, ignore it en masse. As Rosenblum points out, 25% of consumers trust advertising while 90% trust peers. Which means advertising’s sweet spot will be creating the great brands of the future by focusing on behavior, not on shiny and new. In Rosenblum’s words, “make great products, provide incredible customer service, create frictionless commerce, protect the environment and invest in social responsibility.” You know...hippie stuff. The future is clear—doing good does your bottom line even better (unless you’re a bank, I guess). And our total connectivity means the days of faking it are gone. Today, people WILL know the truth, and the best ads in the world won’t help you if you don’t walk the walk. I don’t want to live in a world where Rosenblum’s prediction is proven wrong. And since I defy anyone to mount an argument against it, I’m going to say now for the record, it’s good to finally be on the winning side. Groovy.

I know exactly when I realized music had sold its soul, and it wasn’t the advent of MTV (although I’d argue that was the beginning of the end). It was 1991, when Chevrolet began featuring Bob Seger’s “Like a Rock” in truck ads. I wasn’t naive, but I also never remembered hearing a tune by a hard rocker like Bob being used to sell anything. (Nike used the Beatle’s “Revolution” in a 1987 ad, but that didn’t smack of sell-out because everyone was pissed they did it, Michael Jackson owned the rights and the three remaining Beatles sued.) Today, it seems like the primary hook required for a hit single is one that’s readily adaptable to commercial use. “Hey, let’s start a band, record a great song, sell it to a car company, then retire.” But along the way, Apple, Lowe's and other brands discovered the cachet of using the music of relatively unknown, indie bands (read: may have played SXSW, but might yet not fill the Austin Music Hall) to connect them to something less glitzy, more authentic, more ‘rootsy.’ Had you heard of Jet until their riffy hit, “Are You Gonna Be My Girl” rocked an iPod ad? Or what about the band fun’s “We Are Young,” featured in the Chevy Sonic Super Bowl ad (currently #1 on Billboard’s Top 100, BTW)? This doesn’t require the sale of anyone’s soul. Advertisers get great soundtracks for a hell of a lot less than they’d get for a track by Gaga or Katie Perry or even fun (now that they’re famous...). They also get the buzz of dissing big names for unknowns.  And good musicians who need a break get mad exposure. Little-known music, used well in good ads, strikes a chord in our “be the first to find something cool before it’s old news tomorrow” world. We know it’s not a famous band, but boy that’s a great tune, and they must be awesome to be in that commercial. Sure, sounds great, you say, if you work in New York or L.A. But in a town like Austin, where, oh where, are advertisers going to find good music?