Thanks to a massive product integration deal in the latest Bond film, Skyfall, James will pass on his archetypal martini as he orders up an ice-cold Heineken. For many fans, this change in the story could be a major disconnect and be something they have trouble believing.

The issue here is lack of authenticity. Both the Heineken and Bond brands have forgotten about the most important element of story telling – the audience. When a brand’s narrative gets out of sync with consumers’ experiences/perceptions, a brand’s ability to persuade and connect is diminished. This is especially true of global brands. Because of the corporate baggage they carry, they must maintain and nurture authenticity more diligently than their niche counterparts. For global brands, consumers are more wary and critical of anything that smells off (think Gap’s ill-fated logo redesign). Simply put, authenticity rules!

It’s imperative that brands work hard to consider their target audiences when moving forward with shared interest partnerships or significant brand-altering initiatives. While a big-name affiliation or brand re-positioning effort can have benefits, if handled without consumer input and careful consideration, the risk of target alienation is high. Time will tell how filmgoers will react to Bond’s new drink of choice, but in any case, authenticity should always be paramount.

Youth culture openly uses social networks to share, track or profile personal social successes. In fact, the more you profile yourself, the higher you drive your digital social profile. In a way, it’s social ROI: trendseekers seek to improve their social status by alerting their networks to their presence at cool/desirable events. However, a trendseeker’s peer group needs to be aware of the event, or the opportunity to elevate their social status through check ins is lost. Events need to be tough to attend, but sufficiently high profile to provide real social currency. This “social climbing in real time” driven by the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. mean that trendseekers are increasingly feeling the effects of FOMO: the ‘Fear Of Missing Out’ on experiences that are considered interesting or exciting to one’s peer group.

The implication for brands is two-fold. First, marketers need to continue to generate FOMO buzz around branded experiences to optimize their success, for example, by creatively enabling young adults to get “in” on what’s new, hot and relevant. Meaning that a brand’s experiences should always be (don’t groan) “social by design.” It’s important to perpetuate buzz among status-hungry participants, in order to imbue an aspirational quality to a brand.

Second, a brand can foster FOMO by rewarding fans with unique experiences that are easily shared and discussed. Participants “re-market” these experiences by pushing out the cool content and evangelizing to their peers. It all ladders up to creating more demand within their peer group to try get “in” going forward.

RIM has been in the news a lot lately, and almost entirely for negative reasons. In an attempt to turn around their negative momentum they announced a new (sort-of) CEO. Promoting a current employee was clearly not the  dramatic change analysts were looking for, as the stock continued to get hammered. What I did find interesting was the new CEO’s comment that a top priority was to find a new CMO to help increase their desirability. A CEO’s overt declaration that marketing in itself is an essential piece of the puzzle is music to any marketer’s ears. After years of of being in the shadow of marketing behemoth Apple, I know that marketing alone can’t turn RIM around. I am, however, convinced that it can help create a vision and purpose around which a company can rally.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that for an advertiser/marketer, this is the challenge of a lifetime. Sure, it’s fun to work on hip, healthy, established brands like Apple or Nike. But I’d argue there’s no greater challenge right now in the marketing world than RIM. To give people a compelling reason to trade in their iPhone for a Blackberry, or their iPad for a Playbook, now there’s a challenge to test your mettle. It’s worth remembering that Apple was on its last legs in recent memory. And for that matter, it was mere years ago that Blackberry’s hold on the phone market seemed unbreakable.

Blackberry already has a truckload of assets, not the least of which is that Blackberry is still the smartphone of choice for most young teens and tweens. Advertisers are all intimately aware of the “get ‘em young, keep ‘em for life” parable. But for some reason, Blackberry’s foothold begins to slip. Most iPhone and Android users over the age of 30 once owned a Blackberry – so the challenge in this case is winning them back, instead of initiating trial.

While some see RIM as a sinking ship, I see it as a diamond in the rough. They fall under a category that has always been earmarked by fickle consumer behaviour and fluctuating trends. Today’s loyal Android user may well be tomorrow’s Apple convert and vice-versa. I’m of the mind that RIM’s reclaimed supremacy is out there waiting to be realized. Of course, the window of opportunity is closing; RIM will need to act quickly and decisively.

As a proud Canadian, I look forward to the day that RIM gets its mojo back.  And if RIM’s future CMO is reading this, I can be reached at: randystein@griplimited.com

On Tuesday night I accidentally (on purpose) spent too much money at a shoe store. In my defense, the store was John Fluevog and anyone who has ever worn Fluevog shoes knows that the comfort is well worth the price tag. Plus, the staff who greet me are always very knowledgeable and attentive, and the shopping experiences are pleasant ones.

During this particular shopping trip I received a special surprise at the cash register. No, it wasn’t a free pair of shoes, which would have been incredible. It was a special gift with purchase, “a thank you for being a valued customer,” according to the customer service rep. This gift with purchase was no ordinary kitsch, though. It was The Fluevog “Adult” Colouring Book.

Now don’t get any fancy ideas, the customer service rep explained that “Adult” was included so that those of a certain age felt like they had renewed permission to participate in colouring book activities (“if the book says it’s so, then it must be true!”) Therefore, there is no “Adult” content in this colouring book; instead the book has twenty Fluevog shoe designs, one on each page, with an intro from John inviting you to add your own “creative wonderment” to each piece. I think this gift with purchase is genius, and I’ll tell you why.

1. The connection to the brand.

Fluevog designs are expertly handcrafted, very high quality and, above all, delightfully playful and wonderfully unique. With this colouring book, Fluevog connects consumers with the playful creativity that he brings to his designs. Consumers can explore their own creativity with Fluevog shoes. As John writes in his intro, “Life is short, playing is genius.” This is Fluevog’s approach to his shoes and his business and he is extending that passion for creativity to his consumers.

2. The $5.50 price tag on the front cover.

Although it’s not positioned for individual purchase (the book sits out of sight behind the counter), the colouring book bears a $5.50 price tag on the cover. Displaying the price gives the gift obvious monetary value to the consumer. Placing a dollar value on this item motivates consumers to keep the item versus toss is away as a trinket.

3. The deep engagement with the brand.

Some consumers will develop a deeper, more personal connection with the brand by engaging with the colouring book. Because of its monetary value, consumers are more likely to keep it around and may even break out the Crayola as well. Having twenty different shoes to colour means consumers may spend a lot of quality time with John Fluevog shoes, and on a very personal level since they are putting their own creative mark on the designs.

4. The promotional component as afterthought.

What I especially love about this book is the small promotional call out at the back of the book. John Fluevog invites you to submit your own shoe design and it could become actual shoes. Instead of pushing this kind promotion at the front of the book, Fluevog placed it at the back; after consumers have expressed their creative wonderment on the twenty pages of the colouring book they will be more likely to be inspired with a shoe design of their own.

5. The piece is just so unique.

Never before have I seen this type of item given as a gift with purchase to adults. It’s refreshing to see a brand put real thought behind how to connect their giveaways to their brand and be memorable on top of that.

Will the colouring book make me purchase more shoes? Probably not; the craftsmanship and comfort is really what keeps me going back to Fluevog. Still, the book has achieved something with this consumer: a blog post, word of mouth, and from that comes potential new customers.

Product placement is so ubiquitous that it hardly needs an explanation — the embedding of brands into media that are usually ad-free. It’s hardly a new phenomenon, happening as early as 1873, in Jules Verne’s Around The World in 80 Days, but it has experienced a real evolution. Robert Zemeckis’ Back to the Future notoriously showed Pepsi as the drink of the future, while Sam Mendes’ upcoming Bond 23 will break records, raking in 1/3 of it’s $135,000,000 budget from product placement.

It can range from the painfully contrived, such as this recent Hawaii 5-0 clip, to the iconic, like the Reese’s Pieces in Spielberg’s E.T. (Fun fact: M&M’s famously declined to be included in the film, citing reservations about the plot.

But just like anything, technology is changing things. What inspired me to re-visit this oft-cited facet of advertising was the relatively new process of inserting new ads into re-runs. The “Big 3″ networks in the United States have begun to sell ad space in their re-aired TV programs. You can see an ad for Kevin James’ auteuristic art-house film Zookeeper in this episode of How I Met Your Mother, originally aired in 2007. I’m generally pretty ambivalent about product placement, especially because I think an increasingly media-literate audience is able to recognize it, but I find something particularly sinister about this method specifically. It’s like advertisers aren’t able to leave the past well enough alone, they’re trying to time-travel advertise. That coupled with the glaring continuity error of advertising a new movie in an episode I know to be a re-run feels like an affront to my intelligence. That being said, I won’t really be bothered until Chiquita forks over the dough to re-brand the Banana Stand in old Arrested Development episodes.

So what do you think? Is product placement a necessary, even beneficial part of the marketing mix, or is it concentrated evil?

Editor’s note: It’s also Sylvie’s birthday today. Enjoy her article, and round out your brilliant comments with some birthday greetings!

By now you may have heard the talk about how engagement levels on brand pages on Facebook are steadily declining. Ad Age reported in Q3 last year that engagement on the Facebook walls of leading brands is down 22%; a scary thought for marketers who are finally comfortable with the platform and are investing more dollars into Facebook apps and community management than ever before.

Many theories exist to try to explain this decline. Some say it’s due to inherent behavioural shifts; others blame it on the idea that Facebook users are jumping ship onto the shiny new Google+ platform. The reality is that Facebook activity overall in Canada is not declining. In fact, Canadian brand pages get 70M+ new fans each month, according to a source from Facebook Canada. So what’s the problem here?

The problem is that many community managers (the person or people responsible for the daily maintenance of the Facebook brand page) are not truly communicating with their fans; many community managers only respond to fans when spoken to and they don’t take advantage of what fans are really saying to them and to each other. This kind of flaky relationship with a brand on Facebook is what leads to declining engagement rates and, eventually, what will cause a brand’s fan count to go down. To reverse this trend, community managers can put an end to superficial dialogue and mine their fans for relevant content.

I’ve seen many brand pages move towards a more effective communication style on Facebook by ending the wall-as-broadcast-channel method and instead using more relevant and relatable wall posts. For example, moving from “[ExampleKitchenBrand] can solve all of your kitchen problems” to “what is your favourite meal to make for Sunday dinner?” Asking fans about what they like and what matters to them in a context that connects to the brand is one way to build a better relationship with fans and should naturally lead to higher engagement.

Another way to maintain or increase engagement levels is to put an end to superficial dialogue. I often see community managers responding directly to fans’ wall posts on brand pages only when it involves answering product-related questions or as a general “thank you” for leaving a comment on the page. This kind of speak-when-spoken-to conversation is superficial and can hardly be considered as proactive communication. The community manager for ExampleKitchenBrand, for instance, can build stronger relationships and a stronger community by making recipe recommendations to individual fans who they know like gourmet nachos or by connecting a group of fans who they know are all interested in cheese graters. These are just a couple of examples of how really knowing your community and putting an end to superficial dialogue can give your Facebook page a boost.

Being that connected to the community also allows community managers to put what their fans are saying to better use. Community managers have a key role as the person with the closest relationship with their best, most loyal customers. Community managers are uniquely positioned to listen to what fans are saying, identify trends, and act on that information. For example, the community manager for [ExampleKitchenBrand] may notice that there is a lot of chatter about pancakes on the wall, identify a trend with flavour infusions and berries, and filter that trend back to the content creation team who can start developing new pancake recipes. This kind of activity allows the group to develop content and messaging that truly meets the needs and interests of their fans and, in turn, increases engagement levels on the brand page.

When it comes down to it, community managers need to treat their fans like they would treat their friends and do more than simply hear and respond. They must become active listeners, interpret and evaluate what their fans are saying, and give their fans what they want and need. Following some of these basic systems of communication means community managers will never be without inspiration for content and, best of all, the brand page will keep fans engaged.

The spot features Brian and Stewie from Family Guy, engaging in an alternate (but nearly verbatim) version of their “Cool Whip” schtick. The spot ends with a super of Wheat Thins’ tagline “Do What You Do,” closing the loop on why the characters are given free rein to do just that. Curiously though, there is no mention of product benefit or attribute. The ad is a pure spoof, playing off a tagline with nebulous meaning. It may be a soft sell, but it has unquestionable entertainment value. The question is, does it make you want to buy crackers?

What do you think? Are ads that tap into cultural vernacular just as effective as hard sell? Is product benefit instrumental to good advertising?

Diehard fanboi or extreme couponer? When it comes to corporate logo tattoos, there are two distinct markets. There are those who do it out of love and loyalty for a brand, and those who do it for (you guessed it) cold hard cash.

If you fall into the later category, today is your lucky day. Ecko is currently running a promo called “Branded for Life.” Simply get their iconic rhino or shears tattooed on your body and you’ll enjoy 20% off for life when you flash your Ecko ink at the checkout.

Makes you wonder if the participants in this promo would be less willing to do it if they had to get the words “Shop Ecko” tattooed on their bodies instead? Do the majority of them even think of this as advertising?

A more extreme example is Karolyne Smith. Does the name ring a bell? Perhaps you’d recognize her if you saw her face. That’s because it has goldenpalace.com tattooed across her forehead. Prime real estate that went for the lofty price of $15,000.

And she’s not the only one. Brent Moffatt did it too.

Then again, these two actually sold the ad space on their heads to the highest bidder on eBay. No brand loyalty required. A pretty solid way to make a quick chunk of change if you ask me. That being said, you won’t be finding my forehead up for auction anytime soon, unless it comes with a lifetime supply of Vichy’s Dermablend.

It’s time to answer that eternal question – which came first, the marketing campaign or the charitable cause?

‘Tis not always clear, is it? Is it? Corporate do-goodery has long been part of a broader strategy for many brands, but it is increasingly becoming “the” strategy. (Many examples abound, which I shall not list here because I’m too lazy.) If one were to examine this (not so recent) phenomenon cynically, one would conclude that brands are supporting causes not for the cause itself but rather for how this “cause-supporting” positively reflects on their brand. But does that matter? Aren’t millions of dollars being made available to charities, eco-groups, etc., to assist in their help-the-planet nice-making? I dunno. But I will say this – clearly there are a lot of people in focus groups declaring they’d prefer to make their purchases from a company that has a charitable presence.

Which in turn begs the real question: when the hell did everyone become so bloody nice?

For a one-to-one dialogue to be useful, you must know who you’re talking to.

There is no shortage of brands looking to strike up one-to-one conversations with their consumers. With new technologies and an “always connected” consumer base it is only logical that brands want to evolve from a mass approach to a more targeted approach. In theory, a well-targeted, personal conversation with an end consumer has a greater chance of driving consideration, preference and ultimately loyalty than a mass approach. Tough to argue with the logic here. But the critical point, which many marketers seem to miss, is that of the communication being well-targeted.

I am sure we have all received misguided email communication from companies and brands. There is the ever-present “thanks for being a customer” email that comes from a company that you have not done business with for a number of years (banks, I am looking at you here). Even better, there is the “switch now and you can get this great deal” email from your existing service provider (over to you, cable companies and telcos) – particularly fun seeing as the deal can’t be honoured because you are an existing customer.

And then there’s the email that prompted this post.

The email in question came from a Ford dealership in California offering me a free car wash for my Expedition, as a way of saying Happy Birthday on my special day.  This would have been a powerful gesture but for a few minor details:

1.  I live in Toronto. California is a long way to go for a free car wash.

2. I do not currently, nor have I ever, owned a Ford Expedition.

3. My birthday is in August not November

This email was sent to me because “you either have bought or serviced your 2005 Expedition VIN# 1FMPU16585LB09XXX at XXXX Ford.  Emails are sent for important events such as service reminders, safety related recall announcements, and special offers in our Service, Parts and Sales Departments.”

As we get more sophisticated in our approach to marketing, we are going to need to get more diligent about checking our facts to ensure that the people we are reaching out to are indeed the people who we are intending to reach.  With this increased capability comes an increased responsibility.  If we are not careful, we run the risk of inverting the desired response with a current or potential consumer. If you buy a TV ad against the wrong target, your dollars are less effective at worst. On the other hand, if you directly target the wrong consumer with an email communication you run the risk of looking completely incompetent.