SparkBlog by The Hartman Group

Threadless does it again (spoiler alert)

The folks at Threadless T-Shirts and Busted Tees are testament to the fact that kids doing things themselves will almost always outperform anything done by adults with an armload of marketing degrees and action plans.

My personal favorite is the "You Have Died of Dysentery" design...I mean, what would you expect if you spent your food money on 1500 lbs of shirt?

And to think, both of these outfits accomplished all of their success without having to rely on hot young models--or at least not so much.

So it is only to be expected that they would come up with this doozy of a T-Shirt design.

Yes, you too can be the first on your block to spoil all great film, literature and television stories once and for all.

(via Boing Boing)

The branding triumph we call the real estate market

For those playing in the brand community, one of our basic goals is to achieve a product premium. That is, to convince a consumer to part with significantly more money for our product as compared to our competitors.

This premium could be achieved through measurable quality or performance cues—as in the case of, say, BMW—but it need not be. In many cases, premiums are achieved simply by creating the illusion or allure of desire. Not surprisingly, the latter is often a more common strategy for branders because it doesn’t require them to actually create a better product. Instead, they simply work hard to convince you of the products allure.

And in our recent musings on the US real estate market, it dawns on us that one could make a strong argument that the selling of real estate is perhaps the single biggest branding triumph of the past century. How ironic that the selling of dreams works remarkably similarly whether the product is real estate, wine or confidence?

Despite overwhelming evidence that equities have always outperformed real estate markets in nearly all places and times in the modern west, US consumers appear increasingly willing to pay sizeable marketplace premiums—for the “privilege” and status of home ownership.

As economist Robert Shiller notes, the real (i.e. inflation adjusted) home prices in the US have increased an average of .4% per year since 1890. A one half of one percent gain pales in comparison to the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 35 years, yet alone the performance of even the most mediocre of mutual funds, but still, we continue to throw money toward our dreams.

But what’s most interesting here is the source of the agency. In the case of great branding triumphs, we usually find a humble executive willing to step up and take the credit.

And in the case of real estate, it appears we have nobody to blame except our own foolish selves. As the growing literature of behavioral economics points out, our irrational behavior likely results from more foundational failures of judgment and calculation. To cite but one example, many of us are smitten by real estate’s allure with stories of properties purchased in 1948 for, say, $16,000 and later sold in 2004 for, say, $190,000.

Compared to equitymarkets, that investment’s something of a joke.

As Shiller notes:

“The appearance is that the investment in the house did extremely well. But the consumer price index rose eightfold between 1948 and 2004, so the real increase in value was only 48 percent, or less than 1 percent a year.”

We’ll take the S&P 500 any day.

Of course, the more sinister question lurking here is this: How far are we willing to go as individuals, family’s and a people to risk our economic future on something so seemingly trivial as a brand?

Chris Anderson's Zeitgeist

As some may be aware by now, Wired guy Chris Anderson presented at Pop!tech last week and made waves by not talking about the now well known long tail metaphor. Instead, he riffed on what happens when “things get to be free” or, in fancier parlance, economies of abundance.

As in, what happens when, say, computer chips become crazy powerful because they’re loaded with thousands of free transistors…Well then, you start designing playful GUI interfaces a. la. the Macintosh and liberate folks from having to use those old-fashioned command-line interfaces many of us still miss...

This leads to the observation that traditional media is really much more the outcome of economies of scarcity rather than economies of abundance. There’s limited space on the newsstand, limited channels on your television, limited space on your grocer’s shelf etc. As a result, we tend to get these lowest common denominator products which are designed to offend no one and, in the process, have no sense of genuine appeal.

By contrast, things like the blogosphere and YouTube are described as economies of abundance, where without the limits of conventional economies, folks are free to express theirselves in ways previously unimagined (which ironically channels the familiar naïve, myopic optimism which has long plagued free-market economies).

Next Anderson hits on several of the critical trends emerging as we move from economies of scarcity to economies of abundance—and it’s a very familiar territory…You know, the old rule of turning everything on its head for rhetorical gain. …If scarcity is about paternalism, abundance is about equality…scarcity was top down, abundance is bottom up…if scarcity was about command and control, abundance about losing control…We seem to remember Clinton using this same “inversion” trick to trash big Bush in the '92 election.

Then Anderson touted his new management style “I just try to listen and do whatever my intern tells me to do…” (if the rest of us over the age of 40 did that, we’d likely be having a heck of a lot more fun…which I suppose is the real point...)

The talk then closed with a wonderfully produced video (done by others, no doubt) on the nature of abundance and long tails and new media and what not…

I think the real take-away here is not so much whether Anderson is right or wrong, or whether you agree or disagree with the fervor and optimism surrounding Web 2.0, consumer generated content and so forth. Rather, Anderson seems to have a knack for capturing that certain spirit of the moment—the Zeitgeist if you will.

And that spirit is alive and kicking and screaming to be heard in the following video currently making the rounds:

Product Music

One of the oft-unrecognized benefits of the internet, especially the 2.0 version, is the vast amount of historical media artifacts available for immediate retrieval. Out of print books and records, obscure films, underground comics and zines—these were once physical objects, typically produced in small numbers, which required great patience and tenacity to track down. It was not unusual to encounter collectors who had been searching for some highly prized artifacts for several decades.

While original media artifacts are always highly prized for their authenticity, there were many of us in the 60s and 70s who simply wanted the ability to listen to the music, to see the images or to read the words with our own eyes. Ownership is great for bragging and all, but it’s a lot more fun to share the cool stuff with others. Fortunately, today’s internet—what with its infinite series of tubes and all—makes most of that instantly possible.

Which brings us to today’s great find, product music. We’re referring here to the classic  industrial musicals of the 50s and 60s. Borrowing on the cultural legacy of the work song—a worker-created tune designed to alleviate the boredom of a physical, repetitive task—companies relied on elaborate song and dance numbers to promote enthusiasm and camaraderie among the employees. The main difference, which eerily foreshadows many contemporary developments, is that the songs were written not by the workers but, rather, were outsourced to professionals based on management’s whims.

The result is a treasure trove of surreal, whimsical ditties sung with an earnestness and enthusiasm which is no longer possible in the irony-infused, detached cultural pose of the present. Consider “Up Came Oil” (Exxon), “He’s a Penney Man” (J.C. Penney’s), and the classic “My Bathroom is a Private Kind of Place” (American Standards). The always entertaining WFMU blog has the whole catalog available for download in mp3 format. In a similar vein, check out an entire LP of Chevrolet Showroom Music from 1972. Our personal favorite is the “Test Track for Factory, Impala and Caprice.”

Upon listening to this music, one can’t help but to recognize that there was a time and place in which marketers were content to simply entertain. Compared to today’s world of hyper-targeted communications and messaging, where every word is focused-grouped ad nausea, with supposed scientific precision, the casualness with which marketers appeared to approach their craft seems darned refreshing. Today’s auto ads, for example, may communicate volumes of information about product performance or (supposedly) trigger aspirational emotions, but they aren’t very fun to listen to or look at.

While we’re surely not suggesting anything resembling another wave of ironic, nostalgia-based marketing, is it heresy to even suggest that the message might not be as important as the medium? 

The devolution of grocery retailing

The seminal new wave band Devo just finished a brief US tour showcasing music written some 25 to 30 years ago, much of which sounds fresher today than it did in the quirky electronic era that was the early 1980's.

For those unaware, the Devo moniker was shorthand for a unique philosophy they championed known as "Devolution." While this is not the place to explore those intricacies, suffice it to say Devo was making an ironic, whimsical commentary on the alleged progress of the contemporary epoch.

And examples of Devolution abound.

Consider: There is a set of vintage grocery store photos which appears to make its way around the blog-sphere every six months or so. While its once again bouncing around the ether—generating lots of interest and nostalgia—it’s worth noting that nobody has yet reflected on the truly startling implication wrought by this photo set.

Namely, that when you start really taking a careful look at these photos, it becomes painfully obvious how little grocery stores have changed in the past 50 or 60 years. And the more one reflects on this surprising lack of evolution or innovation, the more it becomes painfully clear why mainstream grocery powerhouses are vanishing before our very eyes.

It’s something of an understatement to suggest a lot has changed in our world over the past 50 years. Let’s see…Women entered the workforce en masse. The once ubiquitous neighborhood milkman became extinct, before being reincarnated as an element of authentic nostalgia. Perhaps most importantly, there are 5 bazillion more cars on the road. Oh, and then there was the fall of the Eastern bloc...

And through it all, the humble grocer operates largely the same as they did some 50 years ago, quietly stocking shelves with packaged products that we increasingly have little interest in or need for.

Traditional grocery retailing, you see, represents the essence of devolution.

Rest well Alberston’s, my friend. Peace be with you Winn Dixie. Are you next A & P?

There's a great future in ceramics. Think about it. Will you think about it?

Could ceramics be the next big thing in kitchenware?

Remember about ten to fifteen years ago when we all became obsessed with stainless steel? Seemingly without warning, we all decided it was time to replace our perfectly acceptable kitchen accessories with stainless steel versions. Somehow the stainless versions gave us the illusion that our kitchens were more “professional.”

More recently we’ve watched as the kitchen accessory world has been upended by our dizzying obsession with all things silicone. If one had to point to the beginning of the silicone craze, we reckon it would be fair to blame the good folks at Le Creuset (remember those spatulas?) and Demarle, the powers behind those (wonderful) Silpat liners. Whatever, our world is now inundated with the miracles silicone.

Now more recent interest seems to be emerging around ceramics. Specifically, folks in the far east (namely Japan) have been relying on updated ceramic technology for some time to produce some of the world’s most durable cutting surfaces. Ceramic knives are said to be far sharper and maintain their edge far longer than any conventional stainless steel alternatives.

As the Kyocera website observes, the only thing harder than pressed ceramics are diamonds:

“These knives are made of an advanced, high-tech ceramic called zirconia. This material, which is second in hardness only to diamond, was originally developed for industrial applications where metal components failed. Zirconium oxide is extremely hard, wear resistant, and chemically inert. For the technically minded, zirconium oxide has a hardness of 8.2 mohs (vs. steel at 5-6 mohs and diamond at 10 mohs).”

While the Kyocera website boast a number of different products including a mandoline and a peeler, some products (i.e. graters and shavers) have proven more difficult to adapt to ceramics because of the obscene sharpness of the blades. Apparently, too many lost fingertips can soil the brand’s reputation.   

And if you're looking for endorsement, consider that ceramics are also thought to be the knife of choice among terrorists and other nefarious types. Apparently, many conventional metal dectectors aren't triggered by old-fashioned ceramics--which explains why the 911 hijackers were armed with ceramic craft knives.

People not like us....

The business press and analyst community has been buzzing lately about Wal-Mart’s recent decision to pull out of Germany. Apparently everyone gets excited whenever the cool guy appears to stumble, if even for a second.

While we believe it’s something of a waste of time and energy to speculate as to the facts and reasonings behind the decision, the situation itself has focused much-needed awareness on larger themes related to culture and globalization. More specifically, as firms seek to expand their business propositions to new, emerging, or existing markets in foreign lands, they had better not forget to take into account the local customs, beliefs and way of life—the stuff academics call culture.

And merely understanding and accounting for the local culture is not enough. For while your advance planning and insight into local customs may leave you better positioned for success with your specific product, service or retail proposition, you can rest assured that even if successful, the local culture will almost certainly leave its own mark on your offerings.

Culture is like that. It tends to seep quietly under the foundation of whatever is built atop it, where is lurks, peacefully, until disturbed by local dissent.   

And then? Let’s just say that when the battle comes down to local culture vs. foreign objects or ideas, the local culture always prevails—unless you’re prepared to deploy a vast military force (and we do mean vast) and spend many years trying to get your point across.

And while these ideas should be painfully obvious, we can’t help but to be surprised by the large number of American firms and marketers who believe (naively) that they can simply export their offerings to distant lands and expect to encounter business as usual.

Maxim #327: Once you leave our shores, nothing is quite as it seems..

As a rhetorical exercise, we often counsel our globally interested clients to flip their current business model on its head (so to speak) and proceed accordingly. 

And today’s news from China is a perfect example.

You know those bars and casual restaurants where the wait staff and bartenders are extra rude? Sort of like a throwback to the authentic 1950s diner where the staff had larger than life personalities and never hesitated to put you in your place. The "rude staff" gimmick has been a successful component of many fast casual and local chains, especially in New York and Texas.

But now it seems that things may work the opposite way in China, where the growing entrepreneurial spirit has given way to the new Rising Sun Anger Release Bar. There frustrated workers have the unique opportunity to heap tons-o-abuse—not to mention fists, plates, glassware and fixtures—at specially recruited and trained staff.  Apparently the bar is doing such brisk business that plans are in the works for immediate expansion.

The moral of course, is that is if you are proposing doing business in China, stop and remind yourself that this is truly a very different place where none of your own rules will likely apply. Things are not as they seem.

Really.

And while some may scoff at the playfulness of the example above, there is a larger symbolic point being made here.

Never forget that a place such as China—what with its non-western culture and all—comes from an entirely different civilization than our own. That’s right. We’re not talking cultures or nation states—we’re talking civilizations. That's a gosh-durned big difference.

So when pursuing global business ventures in places like China or Hong Kong, maybe a better question to ask yourself is "Are we comfortable doing business in another civilization?" "Would our proposition have scored well with the Mayans?" "How would the folks in marketing deal with Ancient Rome?"

A new Sony Bravia advertisement...

By now most are aware of Sony's wonderful Bravia advertisement featuring many hundreds of thousands of colorful bouncy balls. The ad was a viral success and got them better publicity off the air than on.

Well, round two is scheduled for release in the next week. In this case they got uber director Jonathan Glazer to direct the spot, which hacks an old building scheduled for demolition with explosive charges of colored paints...

While the video will be released next week on Sony's Bravia website, you can check out a sneak peak here.

All told, it's pretty darned elaborate, and not unpleasant to watch, but the effect is nowhere near as exhilarating as the bouncy ball commercial. Besides, you don't get any Jose Gonzalez music.

Marketing goes away?

Doc Searls, one of the authors of The Clutetrain Manifesto, penned yet another well-conceived marketing rant for a recent edition of Linux Journal. Titled “Markets without Marketing,” the article makes a number of timely insights on the current state of marketing. While ostensibly targeted toward the software and technology industries, we feel many of the larger points could apply equally well to all industries.

His basic thesis is that as we are rapidly approaching a world of “more perfect information” where our technology (via blogs, wikkis, and the like) allows us all a better view and understanding of the marketplace, conventional marketing will become all but extinct. 

Among Searls’ most important (and controversial) insights include

• Marketing is hopeless flawed because it is typically concerned with capturing and holding customers rather than finding and satisfying customer needs. 

• As markets are becoming free and information is more ever-present, marketing becomes superfluous. Instead, marketers should go away and allow producers, engineers and product development types to communicate directly with consumers. 

• PR is already extinct, advertising will follow suit in the near future.

• Marketers should retire from the internet and allow blogs, livejournals and wikis to communicate directly from product designer to consumer (and vice versa)

From our perspective, the real story here, as Searls implies, is that for many years lazy firms have relied on marketing as a “temporary fix” for a much larger problem. Namely, that consumers had no real need for the products or services they were selling.

So as information flows more freely and more easily, marketing will prove a much less effective, if not worthless, solution to that problem.

The questions today’s firms should be asking are

(a) Does my product or service actually meet a real consumer need?  And...

(b) if not, should we attempt to reposition or re-align our product or service or should we head back to the drawing board and design a product or service the consumer might actually need.

If the answer is not obvious, you just might be a marketer...

Stop the madness...

As researchers working for many years at the intersection of consumer behavior, health & wellness and the food industry, we have been acutely interested in the ongoing dialogues on obesity—our expanding waistlines, our (apparently) poor eating habits and what can be done about this problem.

Our general conclusion, which is reflected in several of our articles and policy pieces, is that much of the failure in our effort to promote healthful eating, at least from a policy perspective, stems from our stubborn, collective refusal to recognize that eating is a cultural, as opposed to individual, activity. Only by first acknowledging the radical changes in our cultural eating habits brought about by modernity (i.e. how did we decide it was somehow okay to snack? or to eat alone?) can we then begin to better address our individual waistlines.

But rather than asking ourselves what is so broken or fundamentally wrong with a culture that allows us to eat until we are (literally) the size of large beach balls, our scientists and policy makers turn to their charts and numbers in effort to determine the ideal components of healthy eating habits based on one’s gender, age, etc.

Never mind that the vast majority of human civilizations and cultures, along with most other animal species to walk this planet, have never had to consult a scientist or a book to understand how to eat “properly,” our policy makers are convinced that ever more elaborate investigations and education regimens will resolve this quandary.

Ergo we read with interest an article in today’s WSJ detailing new US dietary guidelines with regard to vegetable consumption. The new slogan, which replaces the (supposedly) familiar “5 A Day” mantra with a new message entitled “Fruits & Veggies – More Matters,” is based on new research which suggests vegetables play an important beneficial role in many components of one’s health. 

While we are surely not disputing the validity of the health claims themselves (with regard to vegetable consumption), we can’t help but to note the very sad irony here. Namely, most other cultures and civilizations have never experienced such problems with vegetable consumption simply because their culture regulated these features.

Ours, on the other hand, seems to feel the need to teach this knowledge through government communication and policy, rather than simply letting culture deal with the situation. By extension, all of the science and policy recommendations, however correct and well-intentioned, are only exacerbating the problem because they encourage us to rely on instruction-based eating practices.

As we’ve commented in many forums over the years, “Ours is perhaps the best educated and best read population when it comes to health and nutrition information, and we also happen to be one of the most obese on record.”

This mysterious correlation is reflected in the cartoon below.

Surely there must be a better way?