Labatt's has awarded its Quebec Bud Light account to Publicis just after completing an agency review last summer according to the May 17 issue of Marketing. Good for Publicis. Lousy for the agencies that pitched and won and shameful for Labatt's.

Once viewed as one of Canada's most desirable accounts to work on Labatt's has truly adopted the view that agencies are commodities to be traded like all other commodities. Its culture was more civil when it was Canadian owned. Asking agencies for spec creative during a pitch, reimbursing them a paltry $5000 and then firing them in a year is shameful. Marketing Magazine says "Complaints are understandable, given the tens of thousands agencies invest in reviews. Ont he other hand, perhaps that's the price of entry if you want to access a beer account-the most Canadian of products that can define careers with "Bud Light Institute" moments, whatever they're worth".

To clarify the Bud Light Institute was created before the Brazilians bought Labatt's. No great campaign has been created since. The advertising/marketing communications business is changing at warp speed but not all changes are for the good as demonstrated how Labatt's continues to treat it's agencies.

Tony Altilia

Any time a new marketing platform comes out means that the "old school" is dead as it was; but now you use it in conjunction with the new. The view that we (as consumers) have all the power and that brands now need to listen to us is nothing new. Sure, we have a soapbox on which we can stand now that allows us to share our likes, dislikes and outright hatred of a brand, product or service, and to a worldwide audience looking for the next fix of brand assassination on YouTube. But at the same time, is this really new? Haven't we always had the power over brands? It doesn't matter how great advertising, marketing or PR messages are -if we don't like something, we vote with our wallets. This has been happening since the dawn of the first trade agreement. Just because Coca-Cola runs a great Christmas advertising campaign doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly buy Coca-Cola. I don't like the stuff, so their marketing and advertising is lost on me.

The view that social media has allowed us to force marketers to think differently isn't completely true either. Good marketers have always planned with their audience in mind - it's one of the key tenets to marketing in the first place. We don't just come up with an idea and hope it works - like a duck on water, there's a lot more going on that you can't see, while the pretty stuff on public view looks effortless.

Additionally, good marketers have always known when a message is right, if the timing is there, and reacted as a campaign has progressed, using analytics and feedback. Kind of like Twitter does now, or blog posts - the main difference is now you have instantaneous feedback to work from, as opposed to waiting on figures coming in from print or TV/radio media.

There's no doubt that social media is one of the biggest changes in the marketing (and business in general) landscape when it comes to tracking, measurement and engagement prior to, and after, the launch of a product or service. But to say that it means marketing is no longer needed is missing the boat slightly. Like any sound business, the good marketing tactics will work and the lesser ones won't. But isn't that how it's always been?

Danny Brown

My wife was delighted with the service and results that she received from the contact centre, but as a contact centre guy myself, I was haunted by the unnecessary call that was driven into the contact centre. At the core of the issue for me was the inability for two customer-touching channels to harmonize their servicing strategy. The internet, a channel used to improve customer experiences and reduce costly calls to the contact centre, had in fact driven an additional call into the contact centre.

This experience is not unique to loyalty programs or an online contact centre strategy. We see this type of unintended end result frequently caused by organizations with multiple customer touch points. When you consider all the potential ways in which you touch a customer (inbound calls, outbound calls, marketing solicitations, statements and invoices, applications, letters and so on), its easy to understand how difficult it becomes to maintain consistency within a customer touch point communication strategy.

I have seen organizations where customers question that company’s price competitiveness not because of the outside competitive market, but rather because different channels are offering different rates for the same product suite. I have seen organizations where statement inserts have not been communicated to the contact centre and thus resulted in frustrating customer experiences and lower than anticipated take-up rates. All of theses types of issues, and many more similar ones, drive both customer dissatisfaction and increased cost.

The overriding issue seems to be that the larger an organization grows, the more touch points and channels it has to communicate with customers. As the number of customer touch points grow, the control over the consistency and sharing of information internally seems to weaken.

What is missing is a customer contact guru: an individual or a team who does not own a specific customer contact channel, but rather is empowered to ensure that all information sent or accessible to a customer is appropriately disseminated within the corporate organization. A group that is tasked for identifying and eliminating conflicting information between channels. Effectively, a group that makes sure that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. Until such time that we recognize that all of our touch points with our customers need to be zealously guarded, we will continue to be our own worst enemies.

Richard Litvack, Vice President, Operations, Citi Cards Canada Inc.
& member of CMA’s Contact Centre Council

However, the Superbowl is the most watched televised event of the year with some 100 Million people expected to watch. According to a recently televised report, a 30 second spot on American TV during the Superbowl will go for between $2.5 and $2.8 Million. That's about $80,000 a second!

But the larger question being asked these days, especially by a lot of young people I know, is whether that money could be better spent. Especially with everything that's going on in the world right now.

Now after years of producing some of the most memorable Superbowl ads in history, PEPSI is asking the same question and has decided not to run an ad. Instead, they're going online with "The Pepsi Refresh Project". http://www.refresheverything.com/

According to their "refresh everything" site, they're looking for people, businesses, and non-profits with ideas that will have a positive impact. "Look around your community and think about how you want to change it." Submit your ideas and vote on your favourites. Those chosen will be awarded up to $250,000 in grants in categories ranging from Health, Arts & Culture, and Food & Shelter to the Planet, Neighbourhoods and Education.

And the so-called Pepsi Generation is eating it up. This is just one example of what's going on right now. We saw the impact the internet and social media had and is having post-Haiti. This is more of the same great trend. The NetGeneration is getting involved and looking for something more fulfilling than a gratuitous 30-second spot where the money spent to buy the media could eradicate so many issues affecting Haiti, Cambodia and the Congo to name a few -- and those affecting us right here at home. Pepsi is on to something and other brands ignore the trend at their peril.

At this point, you awkwardly decline, allow him to leave, and lock the door. Why did this happen? It’s simple; there is no need for an exterior relationship between the service (our weird, hypothetical plumber) and the consumer (you). When my water pipes are busted, I require the service. Beyond that, it’s not really part of my world – and I’m okay with that. So why do so many marketers try to force the same kind of irrelevant content down the public’s throat on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook? As these sites continue to grow in popularity and international reach, uninformed marketers are latching onto their coattails and, consequently, making a fool of themselves.

When done right, many brands have been quite successful utilizing this young medium. Clothing company H&M posts photos of their new seasonal collections and other interesting materials that their close to1.5 million fans on Facebook legitimately care about. As marketers, we are obligated to understand and properly take advantage of the trends that affect our consumers. There is no doubt that social media provides an opportunity for branding. However, that opportunity isn’t open to every business out there. You must have something unique to offer the consumer - beyond a price listing or link to your website. If there is no demand for additional material, don’t provide it. You’ll just be polluting an emerging media that consumers are still interested in.

So before you hop on the social media bandwagon, please take a minute to consider if anyone wants you going along for the ride. After all, it’s already pretty crowded out there.

Brook Johnston @marketingman.ca

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/google-does-not-use-keywords-meta-tag.html

Since starting my own creative consultancy two years ago, I've written many websites for clients who think that key words actually matter. So you can imagine my surprise when I learned that Google doesn't use the "keywords" meta tag in their web search ranking. Obviously this isn't as earth-shattering as learning that cigarettes are bad for you or that Balloon Boy was a hoax, but it does raise an eyebrow given that Google hasn't exactly advertised this news. Thoughts?

I am referring to the Province of Alberta rebranding project -- the one (I am not sure whether it is for tourism or just for the sake of doing it) which has as its tag line: "Alberta. Freedom to Create. Spirit to Achieve". Normally, as those who know me would expect, I would let a slogan as completely mysterious and meaningless and nonsensical as this pass with barely a snide comment. But this isn't normally.

Seems the marketers in Alberta (or whoever is responsible for this) took the "Freedom to Create" part literally, and "created" a beach and coastline for the province in order to make a point in an ad. Yes, I kid you not. They used a scene from a beach in Northumberland as the image in an advertisement. More than just the beach, they also used the image of two English girls romping on the beach.

Not surprisingly, they were caught out in the blogosphere, and this is where the fun really starts. It turns out that the image, over which the Alberta logo and the tag line appear written large, is not meant to depict Alberta -- it is meant to be a visual depiction of Albertans' concern for the future of the world (this according to Olga Guthrie of Alberta's public affairs bureau). It is likely that the intent of the campaign may be to counter the idea that Alberta's oil sands extraction process is an economic depiction of Albertans' lack of concern for the future of the world. If that is the case, then wouldn't the fact that they could not find a pristine example of concern-for-the-world in their own backyard, rather prove the critics right?

Apparently not. The Prime Minister's head of media relations (sorry, but what the hell is the Prime Minister involved in this for?), helpfully points out that, "There's no attempt to mislead here. The picture used just fitted the mood and tone of what we (we? we?) were trying to do." Obviously, whatever Alberta is trying to do, is something they can't do, if they can't find a picture to fit the mood and tone of whatever it is, in Alberta. Whatever happened to authenticity?

The little English girls, too, were not meant to deceive -- they are meant to be British girls because (implicitly) only English girls are suitable "symbols of the future." (Olga again).

If you don't believe me, here is a link to a PDF of the article in The Guardian Weekly.

Need I say more? Have we achieved absolutely nothing in the marketing world? Has everything we've been trying to do and say really been so tediously boring that it is totally ignored? I am desolate, disappointed and going to Mexico!