Ed. note: though the ad is basically the same, this is not an image of the ad referenced in this post.

A couple weeks back, some girl friends and I were walking down Front St. past the hundreds of moms and their husbands en route to the Michael Bublé concert. At the corner of Bay and Front, there were two TekSavvy billboards featuring a severe-looking man with braids, dressed in what appears to be a Star Trek wetsuit of some kind.

“Who is that guy?” I asked my two girl friends.

“Maybe he’s the president of the company.”

“Maybe he’s just the unfriendly face of an employee?”

Consensus: no idea. But, according to the Big Orange Slide blog team, the face of TekSavvy is Georges Laraque, a French Canadian hockey player (and the wetsuit, actually a branded jersey).

Now that my original question was answered, I had a few more.

Is TekSavvy’s target market entirely made up of male hockey fans? Is this spokesman doing his job? Does advertising need to get more complex than this for it to get its basic messages out?

I’d love to see you savvy marketers dissect this one. Because honestly, I’m at a loss.

No. This post isn’t a self-righteous rant about animal rights, or a collection of the best movie quotes ever written. It’s about how changing the outside of something doesn’t necessarily change what it really is. It’s about how people are all too often fooled by the illusion of change. It’s also about french fries!

Why? Because McDonald’s has been busy completely overhauling their exterior image and it’s definitely worth a chat.

To anyone who’s caught a glimpse of the golden arches lately, it’s pretty clear they’re targeting young urban hipsters with their flashy new exteriors and trendy interior design.

McDonald’s has always targeted youth, but in the past they didn’t have to be so obvious about it. Throw in a new happy meal toy and send Ronald around for the occasional visit and everyone’s happy. Now, despite the flashy new look and heavy advertising, little else has changed. It all looks like they’re trying to do too much with too little.

And McDonald’s isn’t alone. There was an article in Marketing Mag this week discussing the new look that A&W just unveiled. The difference being that A&W actually innovated their offering to match, adding several healthier menu options, built-in self-serve ordering kiosks, and a few green initiatives.

Does an external redesign have a better chance of being successful when the product is updated as well? Or, is rebranding on a superficial level only a token move to keep people interested?

On the other hand, I’d argue that total overhaul also carries its share of risks: would *you* want to be the guy to tell people that McD’s french fries don’t have that meta-potato taste anymore?

It’s often said that advertising is a business of relationships. You know what I’m talking about. It’s not always what you know, but who you know that really matters. This is especially true about getting on pitches. Tell me it doesn’t help when you know the brand manager running the pitch. Right?

Same is true about when you’re trying to get a job in advertising. I know I personally shook the trees with everyone I knew who had even the remote possibility of knowing somebody who knew someone who worked in advertising. I guess it worked for me.

It also worked for Alex Bogusky.

I was reading the latest issue of Fast Company yesterday. And was amazed to find out that Alex got his big break at Crispen Porter because his dad was friends with Chuck Porter. (Maybe I’m late to the game on that tidbit.) But it did make me wonder. What would Alex’s career have been like without that contact? Would he be the advertising god he is? Would he be a household name? Don’t get me wrong; he would have been a superstar regardless. I just wonder to what degree.

Controversial questions to be sure. But it just reinforces even further that “it’s who you know” in advertising that can make or break your career.

The word “play” suffers from ambiguity.

When you’re talking about listening to a CD or watching a movie, it’s a passive action. You push the “play” button, step back and the media plays.

But when you’re talking about a game or an instrument, it becomes an active interaction. Instead of simply watching or listening to something play, you engage with it. Instead of observing it play, you play with it.

Far too often, “interactive” media falls into the former category: it’s a banner on a website that launches a video; or a Facebook application that allows you to passively view pre-generated media.

I can’t help but feel that these are standards that have survived the days of print/radio/television because of their familiarity. And they are starting to show their age. Click-through rates have almost halved since 2004. Static banners average around 0.19%, and even the most compelling of animated banners still don’t pull more than .6% click-throughs.

So instead of looking to traditional media as an influence, I think the advertising industry should be looking to more “interactive” media, such as toys or video games, for influence on how to engage the user in “play.”

There are many benefits to allowing users to interact with media, rather than simply observing it.

A good banner can only really be enjoyed once or twice. A good video can be watched a handful of times; maybe each time the viewer will notice something new. But a good toy or game can be enjoyed indefinitely. Games from decades ago still maintain healthy communities, and toys from millennia ago are still being produced and enjoyed all around the world.

People also love to play with other people. While a viewer who has been moved by a static piece of media may share it with their friends, a game user will not only share an interesting game with a friend, they will teach them to play it and continue to play it with them. By creating these branded social experiences, you create branded recognition on a level unattainable through passive media.

Some will argue that many people enjoy passively consuming their media. They’d rather lean back and observe than lean forward and interact. While this is true, a well-designed game or toy can cater to a wide variety of players and even garner attention from people who have no interest in playing the game. You don’t have to be a baseball player or even a fan of baseball to appreciate the brand association in sports facilities such as the Rogers Centre.

We need to continue to look for ways for users to “interact” with our interactive media. While making a game or toy isn’t always the answer, I believe the industry would do well to borrow some influence from a medium that has proven its ability to retain users’ attention over long periods of time.

Plus . . . who doesn’t love a good game?

What separates advertising’s rock stars from its chair warmers? And what does it take to get to the next level? Over the past few weeks, we’ve been asking marketers who’ve made their mark their thoughts on getting ahead.

Today, Grip Partner, President Harvey Carroll weighs in:

1) True or false: results trump all reasonable shortcomings?
False. Results are incredibly important and no one likes to win more than me. That being said, it is important to win the right way, with integrity and through consistent solid performance. You can take short-cuts to deliver results in the short-term but eventually, it will catch up with you.

2) What’s the secret to presenting well?
Remember that, if you are well prepared, no one in the audience knows your material as well as you do. Be confident in what you are presenting. Show passion and enthusiasm and you will be able to bring the audience along with you on the journey. It also helps to have a well constructed story to share with a beginning, middle and end, versus just a series of slides.

3) How important are “sales” tactics in how we present work to clients?
The best way to “sell” work to clients is to listen. Of course, you need to believe in the work you are presenting and display your enthusiasm for the ideas. However, if you really listened well in the briefing and what you are presenting answers what the client asked for in a creative and powerful way, the work should really do the heavy-lifting on the selling. A well-presented, off-strategy campaign should not make it through approval, even if sold with the trickiest of tactics.

4) What’s a common mistake agency folks make when dealing with clients?
Thinking that the agency and the client are on “different sides” and that one has to win in the creative presentation. Client and agency relationships can get strained but in the end you need to trust one another and truly believe that you both want the same thing: great work. If the agency goes into a meeting looking to “sell the client” something, versus presenting something that is a win for both sides, that is a mistake.

5) How important is schmoozing?
On my expense report, I like to call it networking or relationship building, and it does play a role in the business for sure. This is a relationship business and it is important to build trust, respect and confidence in your capabilities with your clients or prospective clients. Make sure though that when you are networking (or schmoozing) that you are listening as much as or more than you are selling. You can learn a lot about a client’s business outside of the boardroom if you really pay attention.

6) How much effort should someone put toward intangible cultural contributions to an agency?
One thing I have been amazed by during my time at Grip is how important the unique culture of the agency is and how much effort it takes to keep it as positive as it is. There are a number of people at Grip who take it upon themselves to really build and support the culture in a number of ways (the blog, project mentor – our learning and development program, engagement surveys etc.). All these people do this because they are passionate about it and they do it above and beyond their day-to-day jobs. These efforts have a huge impact on the agency. Everyone is busy but if you find time to make contributions like this to the culture of your agency, they will pay dividends for years to come.

7) If advertising is a young person’s game, any tips for managing a successful career into your golden years?
I would be interested to understand what you consider “your golden years.” I turn 40 this year and would like to think I am not quite there yet. I don’t think the issue is how old you are, it is how relevant and connected you are. If you allow yourself to fall behind on the current thinking, lose touch with the consumer, or to lose your passion for the business, then perhaps your time has passed. This is true in a number of businesses, not just advertising. I don’t for a second believe this has to happen. You don’t suddenly hit a certain age and become irrelevant in this business. Right???

8) What book should everyone read that’ll help them understand our industry’s big picture?
To be honest, I prefer to read more general business books than “advertising” books. I am fascinated by the art of business and by how successful companies are built and fascinated by the people who have been able to build them. I think everyone in business should read Good to Great by Jim Collins and Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan.

9) How can we be better mentors?
A big part about being an effective mentor is simply finding the time to start the process of helping someone and then to follow through with your commitment to invest your time in their success. I find mentoring, be it in an “official” capacity or on an ad hoc basis, very rewarding for both the mentor and mentee. Finding time to give back and help out, especially people looking to start out in the industry, is something I believe we should all feel compelled to do. Did someone help you get started in this business? Probably.

10) Any tips for “managing up”?
While I always believe the best approach is to let your work and results speak for themselves, there are times when you need to manage up. I don’t think this is a bad thing if it is done in a genuine way. Be clear on your expectations of your boss and make sure you are clear on their expectations of you. Candid conversations go a long way. Set objective goals together, work towards them, and always do what you say you will. It is the easiest thing in the world to do, deliver on what you commit to, but often, it just does not happen. Then you end up managing up in a negative way.

11) True or false: the more integrated you are, the better positioned you are for success?
True. While “integrated” is perhaps the most overused term in advertising, after viral (as in, “I want to make something viral for the web”), I do believe that agencies that are “integrated” are best suited to deliver on client’s needs. For me integration is the notion that you start with the big idea and then push it out and extend it into the most appropriate media. You push the idea in the direction that makes the most sense for the consumer, and therefore the client, not the direction that makes the most sense for the agency. Grip does this by having one P&L across the entire agency. If you are measuring or compensating people for keeping the client’s spend in their vertical (traditional versus digital, for example) then you are not ever really going to be “integrated.”

For more thoughts on this topic, check out Part 1 of this series, or our four-part How to get a job in advertising series.

The iPhone 4 has a major problem. And therefore Apple has a major problem. As many people are already aware, the iPhone 4’s revolutionary dual-antenna fails if you hold the phone in your left hand. The obvious problem being that most right-handed people hold their phone in their left.

Apple’s response to this engineering mishap has been comical at best. First they said consumers were holding it wrong. Next they said there actually is no reception problem, and they were just fabricating signal strength on the phone. (Though I’m not entirely sure why that is less of an issue.) Now it has gotten past the point of funny to downright aggravating.

Recently, consumer reports gave the iPhone 4 a “not recommended” rating after testing the reception issue.  The not-funny part isn’t necessarily Apple’s lack of response. The not-funny part is Apple actively censoring its customers from discussing the validity of the report.

Because of the antenna issue, a looming recall, and consumer censorship, Apple stocks are starting to dip. Apple, if they do not right this course, will soon learn what other companies that don’t own up to their mistakes learn: Consumers want accountability.

Now we could pick at the low-hanging brand accountability fruit – whether its BP passing blame on the worst man-made ecological disaster in American history, or Toyota with its flip-floppy response to its various recall woes – in not being open or honest about the extent of a problem.

Perhaps they all need to take a lesson from Google. Here’s a company that knows how to screw up gracefully. First Google’s invasion of privacy by spying on the mass public during its street view expansion. And let’s not forget the very invasive initial launch of Buzz.

In both instances Google immediately took responsibility, gave no excuses, and worked to correct the issues they caused. The result is a virtually unscathed reputation, and no loss of company value. As I have written before, “One would be surprised how forgiving consumers can and will be . . .”

But then the question becomes: Is it better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission?

Is it better to pull the plug before a great campaign gets old, or risk running it into the ground by squeezing it for every last chuckle?

The brilliant Old Spice “Man your man could smell like” campaign, for example, is going strong. Where’s the tunnel at the end of the light?

Consumers with limited time, plus the rapid emergence and popularity of mobile apps equals a new class of service-oriented “brand butlers,” according to consumer insights firm trendwatching.com.

The folks at trendwatching.com define brand butlers as brand-building efforts that assist consumers in making the most of their lives, as opposed to the traditional branding model of selling them a lifestyle or identity.

A splitting of hairs? Maybe. But it’s a good and timely read when you consider the proliferation of iPhone apps.

Here are some quick examples (from the article) of how major companies have implemented this idea of becoming a brand butler:

• MasterCard’s ATM Hunter iPhone app allows users to find their nearest ATMs.
• Domino’s Pizza Tracker allows customers to follow the progress of their pizza order from preparation through to delivery via a web interface.
• Beck’s Gig Finder app helps users find local music gigs.
• IKEA’s Covoiturage allows the furniture giant’s French customers to arrange car-sharing to and from their stores.

So, what do we think of these brand butlers? Simply cool tactics or an emerging new approach to branding as trendwatching.com suggests?