Prying the torch from the dead hands of old marketing

Today, there is freedom in marketing. No longer is the loudspeaker of the media controlled by a select few. As a result, so much more can be gained than ever before, all with fewer resources and less risk. The playing field has been officially leveled—and not a minute too soon.

Old Marketing is dead

Why? Our culture and means of information exchange have changed so much, so quickly from traditional conventions that have been used for so long. Today’s business must completely reshape and retool its approach to effectively market itself. The Old Marketing company—ingrained in these old systems for so long—simply cannot keep up with a culture that has transformed itselfBefore these drastic changes, our lifestyles and culture were based on a handful of media. Television, print, and radio were the anchors of mass information exchange and business promotion. If you owned a business or were charged with growing a company through marketing, then you were shackled to dealing with media and promotional entities such as television commercials, newspapers and the Yellow Pages. These industries are dying because they are being replaced by new systems. Remember the days of paying $2,500 a month for a lousy local, black and yellow ad in the Yellow Pages? Or tens of thousands of dollars for a local television ad, locked-in with a long-term contract and little measurables? That age is gone. The Old Marketing company—ingrained in these old systems for so long—simply cannot keep up with a culture that has transformed itself with the advent of the Internet and modern systems of communication. As a result, old, slow and expensive marketing companies are dying right along with those old systems. The ones that haven’t died yet are in a panic. They are scrambling to restructure business models, personnel, objectives and the sales pitches in order to reassure their clients that they now can pull off the new marketing ways.

The dirty little secret

In fact, this “scrambling to catch up” is a hushed truth among all marketing agencies. Marketing itself is not going to admit its own flaws in its business—that would be certain death. Agencies instead claim that they’ve been there all along. Nothing could be further from the truth. Need proof? This is easily evidenced by the marketing industry’s own publications and associations. Articles are rampant on how marketing agencies need to change to stay alive. On any given day there are a multitude of seminars for marketing firms to attend with subjects like, “leveraging web technology,” “selling SEO to your clients,” and “understanding social media,” as if these issues were still on the horizon waiting to be realized.

Marketing sold its soul long ago

The Internet may have been the axe, but it actually didn’t take the dynamic of the rule-changing Internet to bring the marketing industry to its knees. They sold out long ago. Marketing agencies have been on the gravy train for a very long time. This is what happens when media and information systems are few, with few in control. A few deals made here and there with the few controlling mass-media, local media, even the Yellow Pages—all with enough middle men in place to get their cut—eventually makes an industry so fat that it won’t forgo those systems, even when the walls are torn down. Bottom line: the money’s just too easy when you’ve got that kind of control. Marketing agencies employed tactics to pull clients in and lock them in. They knew the middle-men in all of the processes of print, television and radio. They knew who to kickback to. They even employ “media buyers”—a term that, as the years tick by, becomes more and more indicative of an era long gone. Can you believe a person—or even an entire department—employed in the position of “media buyer”? What were originally “creative agencies” became agencies only good at selling themselves to their clientsEven then, marketing's problems were deeper. What were originally “creative agencies” who served to shape, grow and represent the spirit of their clients brand, evolved into companies who simply became greedy—good at only selling themselves to their clients, but no longer about the work of their clients. Don’t believe me? Let’s talk about Leo Burnett. Leo Burnett Inc. is one of the most renowned agencies in the world. They earned their reputation serving one key philosophy: that nothing could replace the marketing firm’s charge of “being the spirit of the client’s brand.” Coupled with a firm understanding of what it took for each client to get and keep their customers, Leo Burnett was also known for the quality of their creative work and eventually earned the responsibility of brands like Kellogg's and McDonalds. Founder Leo Burnett recognized that the industry was in danger of selling its soul out long ago. One of his famous speeches, “When to Take My Name Off the Door”, delivered on December 1, 1967, was based on that very fear: He knew where the industry was going. And sure enough, it’s there—probably worse than he thought it could be.

What's the right way?

Traditional marketing companies identify that their own competition is no longer their peers in the same market, but the budding, New Marketing company that is web-based from the ground up. Why? They’re faster, smarter and more experienced in today’s systems. They also don’t have the burdens of expenses and bloat that Old Marketing firms have. They can turn on a dime. They move quickly. The New Marketing company that is web-based from the ground up is faster, smarter and more experienced in today’s systems.Today, successful marketing begins with the knowledge and experience to create exposure, build awareness, harness interest, and position business and all supporting systems within today’s web universe. Your marketing firm needs to understand why things work they way they do, and how people and prospects come to know and trust a brand in today’s world. Also, today’s New Marketing company is one that hasn’t forsaken the principles that are timeless, but is one that takes advantage of all that’s afforded in today’s business world to shave off unnecessary expenses.

• OUT: are deals with a select few in a position of control. IN: is the reality of true, choice-based media, entertainment and communications via the Internet and the technologies that are used by choice because they offer more and make better sense.
• OUT: are expensive payments to old, big, slow agencies—all carpet bombing to grow your business. IN: are fresh and nimble development firms who know how to surgically target the necessary areas to build a brand, position it and construct a network around today’s communication systems to promote and grow business.
• OUT: are paying for enormous overhead expenses in big buildings, expensive furniture, and lavish offices. IN: are virtual and hybrid marketing firms that work fast and don’t pass on the bloat of unnecessary expenses to their clients.
• OUT: are working through layers of costly production managers, account executives, supervisors and managers before you get to the real people that do the work. IN: is the successful marketing company that establishes access to key architects and creative producers who are integral in the ideas, concepts and the details essential for success.

So, as traditional marketing firms continue to pass on the overhead of their expensive offices, furniture, lifestyles and worst of all, the cost associated in how to figure out this "Internet thing," the New Marketing company has an inherent understanding of what works and what doesn’t in today’s culture. They are still marketers, founded in the purpose-driven goals of growing a business—however, the New Marketing firm, knows how today’s business is grown and built.

---

DeadSpace: 7 Reasons Why MySpace is as Good as Dead

The first behemoth of social networking, MySpace—now owned by Fox Interactive Media—is on its way to its grave, with no one to blame but itself. MySpace’s popularity hit its apex in March 2008. In the following month, it was overtaken by its first real competitor, Facebook. But the writing was on the wall long before that. Web developers and architects all over knew that MySpace was doing it wrong. Surely at least a few of its own developers knew this and pushed for change. Still, MySpace was the slowest to adapt. For a site of that magnitude—including all of its systems, engineering and hacks to make it function—change does not come easy or cheap. The site was not built to do or handle what it attempts to do today, and its poor framework and conventions of interaction are a reflection of that. This is where the ever-important step of planning and laying a site’s foundation is so important. MySpace architects did not effectively build the system to be much more than a novelty. And while MySpace is not your average website, it serves as a lesson in utility for anyone charged with planning, building and running a website on any scale. If a better alternative in Facebook had never come along, MySpace would not be in this position nor would it have pushed to try to make any changes, even in the eleventh hour. People still want to connect to other people, share things they care about and display certain aspects of their life. Whether you agree with those aspects of our culture or not, they do exist, and MySpace fulfilled those motivations for a time. All you need is one competitor, however, one other option entering the marketplace, and the incumbent developers will be challenged to fight to the death. MySpace’s architects and developers simply could not live up to that challenge. In 2008, MySpace did begin to introduce features, tweak aspects of its foundation and attempt to crack down on the juggernauts of spam bots plaguing the site—but by then people didn’t care. Facebook came along, presented a better option, and people moved with little doubt that they would ever return to MySpace. Thus, in the same way it virally grew, MySpace will die by the same domino effect that catapulted its popularity. Let’s examine seven key elements of MySpace that rushed MySpace to its grave. (It should be noted that the following screenshots were purely at random and were very, very easy to find.)

1: Out-of-control design framework

Of the people you know, how many could lay plans for their own house, paint a beautiful portrait worthy of hanging in your living room or perform cosmetic surgery? Chances are, few. There are just certain things that some people have no business doing, either lawfully or for the sake of the rest of us. Designing websites is one of those things. Designers are in a unique class of professionals, and good web design is an exact art and science. MySpace disagrees, however, and allows their users to hack everything in the page until nothing is usable, legible or tolerable. Pages are riddled with high-res backgrounds, text isn’t protected, and colors, styles and sizes are fully unlocked—just to name a few. All of this creates a design playground which breeds annoying layouts that distract from the page's content. In contrast, Facebook has chosen to restrict at least the foundational framework of the site. While customization is an important aspect, it shouldn’t be allowed at the risk of the functional system—the very heart of a social networking site’s brand and reputation.

2: Auto-play music

People love music. It’s one of the few ubiquitous facets of life. In fact, Apple’s famed comeback as a technological and cultural superpower was all a carefully conceived plan to tap into our common love for music—and they rode that all the way to billion-dollar profits. In contrast, MySpace taps into music to annoy the living hell out of most of us. In fact, it should be noted that all non-prompted audio anywhere, on any page, is a widely unacceptable and an unwanted "feature."” This goes for ads, auto-play videos, and most important, unexpected, blaring music overlaid on what you might be listening to already.

3: Identities

The days of Internet handles are coming to a close. Yes, there was a time when one would be known as “Biker5445,” as systems continued to use usernames as main identifiers. Of course, Internet e-mail systems will still use some form of handles for some time. Most of today’s websites, however, no longer need to do this—particularly social networking sites. This is even more important due to recent news and events concerning privacy and security. The use of a handle is only good for concealing identity, and that doesn’t mix well in a site intended to connect people. What good can come from that policy in a social networking site? MySpace did eventually get clued into this basic, fundamental issue and started asking its users for their real name as an option: Again, too little too late.

4: Little focus on content with a horrible user interface

There’s actually too much of this subject matter to fit within this article’s short space. One could write volumes about the sheer usability and UI issues that plague MySpace. One thing is for sure, this aspect is a website killer, no matter if you are local deli or a major social networking site. In the case of MySpace, most interactions and conversations occur within a never-ending, scrolling guestbook. These “comments” also have very little restrictions and are filled with a cacophony of text, pictures, videos and animated gifs—all without any context in the conversation. Ultimately, the interface leaves everyone reading essentially one-half of an e-mail conversation between two people and no one else. That’s just the beginning. Features that are, at best, a one-time read about a person’s interests, life story, and favorite music, movies, books, television shows, heroes and foods are typically placed near the top of the page in one long column. Whether you have an interest in any of this stuff or not, you’re treated to it every time. The list goes on, but we just can’t stomach any more.

5: MySpace has cultivated a raunchy, immature base

MySpace’s culture—formed by the foundation created by its architects—has without a doubt developed an immaturity and a raunchiness that is unique to MySpace. It’s widely known that MySpace has sold-out to become a platform built around dating, which doesn’t help its state in terms of the quality of content. You can easily find all the "vital" statistics that you want from a date on most pages—everything from sexual orientation, build types, even income takes headline status. The archetypical “MySpace photo” is often mocked and mimicked today by a photo with the person in a sexually suggestive pose, with bright light and the camera aiming down from above. It’s not just about sexually suggestive material, but about the framework of how MySpace works. The site can’t be responsible for user’s content, or perhaps lack of content, but what MySpace’s architects have built promotes an underlying immaturity that is not present in Facebook—at least not yet. Coupled with all the other out-of-control elements, a light click-through of MySpace easily resembles a walk down a tattered, defaced red light district. And why is Facebook not facing this degree of the problem? Its architects have planned better. Perhaps it’s embracing the common sense of restricting anonymity. Perhaps it’s because Facebook doesn’t allow layouts and its interface to go nuts. Either way, it’s well-known that Facebook has attracted a more mature presence and left MySpace with the rest. If you have never experienced this cultural difference, click around random pages in MySpace—if you dare. Chances are, you don't need to and you're just nodding along with the rest of us.

6: Inordinate number of ads

News Corp is definitely profit-centric. Whatever soul MySpace ever had, it was sold to the highest bidder ages ago. The number of large, animated, irritating, irrelevant and sometimes offensive ads compared to what matters—content and utility—is terribly imbalanced. While Facebook has yet to turn a profit at the date of this article, it will eventually need to solve this problem and will most certainly shift its balance as well. Until the day comes when Facebook burns through its cash faster than investors can pour it in, this difference makes it an easy switch from MySpace to Facebook.

7: Spam

If there’s one thing that’s notorious on MySpace, it’s spam. The site’s spam comes in many forms, but the most prevalent are the spam bots for sex and dating sites. They pose as skanky figures, companies, scam artists, music groups and interest groups, which scour friend lists in public profiles and send out friend requests to drive traffic to their MySpace page or other shady website. MySpace came to its senses in recent times, figuring that this was annoying people beyond limits and started to ruthlessly crackdown. Again, too late. The brand of MySpace, “A Place for Friends,” became “MySpace—A Place For Sleazy Marketers.”

The Future

While MySpace's reputation is dead, Facebook isn’t perfect either. In fact, more and more people are becoming annoyed with its limitations and methods as well. It is still plagued with its own problems, some of them similar to MySpace in terms of its core usage. Simply put, there are things that “social networking” sites should be doing and they are not, along with things that they are doing and shouldn’t be. Facebook is—for the moment—simply a better option. But it’s got a thin line to walk as well, not the least of which is to actually turn a profit. With MySpace as good as buried, look to Facebook to begin making changes to address the pressures of creating more revenue. The balance between utility and profits will be tilted. The question is how much will it tilt and how much will be sacrificed when the next social networking site comes along and ups the ante?

More...

MySpace Helps News Corp Lose $363 Million [Mashable]

---