The increased value of creativity on advertising these days is something we should not over look, because due huge penetration of online media, TV cannot stay passive. We have to make the right decisions to catch more audience's attention and take every opportunity to make messages stand out. Great work! –St Augustine, FL

The Assassin's Creed live-action trailer is amazing. This ad... eh. It's great until the trashy techno kicks in with the jittery game footage. Doesn't quite follow through! Also, the Spore Facebook game is a lot like its predecessor - interesting concept, poor execution and ultimately boring. –BIRMINGHAM, AL

"....is akin to telling your employees they can't use the phone for personal calls or e-mail friends and family." Many companies still have this policy. –Seattle, WA

Traci, I could not agree more. Recognizing the need for contact and communication at work is akin to recognizing our humanness: http://bit.ly/1FHxak Thanks for writing. –Saint Paul, MN

The article has some falsehoods stated as fact, one being that social media time equals recess. Recess is linked to physical activity, that is what reduces stress, allows for clear thinking, blood and oxygen flow and the like...more screen-time does not in any way fit the bill. As for building human contact, that is also not 100% true. People act differently with on-line friends than they do with flesh and blood friends. These differences are the difference between healthy relationships and those that survive in a virtual world. This does not meet our need for personal relationships, leading to healthier mental outlooks. Too much of this article is made to sell social media to the workplace, rather than what is best for both the worker and the employer. Ms. Armstrong needs to go back to the drawing board...or better yet, take recess. –Washington, DC

To expound upon "Off the top of my head are that it screws (technical term) with productivity. Remember these are employees, not consumers. Bottom line is that when they employee is doing something other than their role then they become unproductive." Why should we give our users the tools to be unproductive? –Holyoke, MA

There's are a couple good reasons as to why social media websites are blocked. Off the top of my head are that it screws (technical term) with productivity. Remember these are employees, not consumers. Bottom line is that when they employee is doing something other than their role then they become unproductive. There are many security issues that come to the fore. We cannot stop what our employees say, whether good or bad, but we can hinder them doing it during working hours. These ones could possibly post information that's both private and damning, and possibly costly to both the company and anyone that does business with the company. These websites pose risks for malware/spyware/viruses. The organizations or individuals behind these are crafty and are continually coming up with ways to "inject their code" or come up with a new phishing scheme on the social media sites in order to infiltrate corporate networks. That doesn't necessarily have to deal with getting into the network but data mining too. As an IT person I know it only takes one click for something to become catastrophic. We do our best to mitigate issues regarding internet use. But we can only do so much and rely on our users being discerning. We can only train them so far, give them the tools to use. Though, in the end they are going to do what they want. So if that means going to a website that has malicious code on it, even unknowingly, then we must block it. Have you even taken into account users who might be "rogue" or siphoning data off? There is some FUD to this, however, it's not unfounded. I do have sources. If it's in your job description to peruse social media networks to gain a market, which the numbers are less than stellar from, then we'll give you the tools to do it. Otherwise continue plugging along, doing the job your suppose to be doing, not chatting with your coworker in the next cubicle, over the internet. –Holyoke, MA

Astounding that 70% of organizations still ban social networks - our data in the recent Business.com Social Media Study says that of the people who use social media for business purposes during work, 62% visit company/brand profiles on social networking sites, and 55% search for business information related to these sites. From the survey results: "Consultants and marketing communications professionals are the most active users of social media as a resource for business information, particularly in micro and small businesses (10-99 employees)." Companies that block social media sites risk being left behind and lose access to the best sources of business information. http://www.business.com/info/business-social-media-benchmark-study –Santa Monica, CA

Astounding that 70% of organizations still ban social networks - our data in the recent Business.com Social Media Study says that of the people who use social media for business purposes during work, 62% visit company/brand profiles on social networking sites, and 55% search for business information related to these sites. From the survey results: "Consultants and marketing communications professionals are the most active users of social media as a resource for business information, particularly in micro ( –Santa Monica, CA

I'm over it. –Phoenix, AZ

Thank you for this, Traci. These are all compelling arguments, but I think the main hurdle is a lack of trust in employees' good judgment in using social media. If organizations are smart, they'll make social media training for everyone part of their professional development initiatives. Eventually it will be no different from making sure employees know how to use the phone, the copier, email, etc. Social media are tools to be use. People need training to use them most effectively. –Glendale, CA

Very interesting and compelling, Traci. If client-facing professionals are going to succeed, they need to exceed "service" and give clients what they really want: passionate leadership in the form of business-building ideas. In order to do that, client-facing folks need to proactively learn as much as they can about their clients' businesses, industries, competitors, trade customers, influencers, shoppers, and consumers. How can they possibly do that nowadays without spending time in the social media space? http://www.TellYourClientsWhereToGo.com –Cincinnati

Great article Traci. Thanks. Stuart Parkin –NEW YORK, NY

kids timberland boots timberland classic boots Timberland Men's 6 Inch Timberland Men's Chukka Timberland Men's Custom Timberland Men's Roll-Top Timberland Women's 6 Inch Timberland Women's High-Top Timberland Women's Roll-Top kids timberland boots timberland classic boots Timberland Men's 6 Inch Timberland Men's Chukka Timberland Men's Custom –dsgfsdgdgs, SD

This is weak. None of what was shown was AR - Waving a magazine at a webcam to initiate content is not AR. It would be easier to just type in a URL. In fact, putting in slightly more effort you might even be able to type a URL that led you to some interesting content. –ivring, TX

Great project. This is a great example of how advertising should be pursued and executed. A combination of content, entertainment, product placement and multimedia. –Sao Paulo

I've always had a problem with Cash4Clunkers. To me it seems to go against simple supply and demand economics. How can we push all of these new cars into a market already saturated with used and repossessed vehicles (see www.repofinder.com)? Now new cars are worth even less, we have more Amerians in debt, and eventually more repossessions. –beverly hills, CA

I came to this story via the AdAge Digital newsletter but it could quite easily have been the RSS feed. I came to this site originally via a link in a blog. There was no search involved. To suggest that NC could not exist outside of Google is nonsense. Search is a discovery mechanism and any business is going to struggle if it has to rely on a search engine to bring in new customers. New customers arrive because when they want business news they think WSJ not Google. To get to that point requires good old fashioned decent product, brand exposure and recommendation. I think also that there's a community play here. NC wants community not just audience as that in itself is a draw-card. Making it a paywalled community only increases the value - if you are going to pay to play then you are more than likely going to play nicely. –Southbank

@krichman - I think you're on the right lines. Unless Murdoch is posturing (to some end I cannot fathom) I honestly wonder if he's losing it. To see Google as a thief of content is missing the opportunity. Rather, it's the virtual 'mall' through which content can be merchandized. perhaps in smaller chunks, but to a far larger audience. Making NewsCorp content inaccessible from Google is the 21st Century equivalent to withdrawing it from newsstands. (Perhaps on the basis that the newstands are 'stealing' the daily headlines by freely displaying them?) If NewsCorp was to therefore make the WSJ or the London Times was available only through mail subscription, would that sound sensible? As the article says, 'it's about the pay walls'. What Newscorp needs to do is correctly calibrate the content that is freely available (the shop window) with the content that people will pay for (the goods for sale inside). A micropayment strategy would ultimately create a consumer marketplace for the most valuable content and information. 24-hour subscriptions, on the other hand, are a poorer reflection of both media consumption and the intrinsic value of the content. So I'm sad to see that this is where NC are heading...although this saga has not played out yet. –New York, NY

Historically, pretty much whatever Mr. Murdoch touches generally turns to gold. It will be interesting to see if the idea would translate well to a property like Fox News. Personally, I've always thought that for such a strategy to work there must be a mix of free and paid content. Rather than lopping off a story after the first paragraph as WSJ.Com does, perhaps a simple rule set could be devised to allow full access to some stories, while others get the WSJ treatment. This model is really not that much different than getting conventional television programming for a base cost through a provider (sat or cable) and having to pay extra to watch additional premium content channels. The difference is simply that the base cost charges for internet go to the carrier, while the premium content fees go directly to the source supplier. Not to mention, one probably gets a great deal more demographic insight data on paying consumers. Finally, perhaps Mr. Murdoch might want to reduce the sums his company spends with venues that are not always conservative in their outlook. Business is business, but if you can do business with folks who generally share your view point, all the better. Given the conservative demographic to which many News Corp properties appeal and given that this demographic are already known to actually spend money for similar services, who could blame him? –Franktown, CO

I don't know what the hell old man Ruppert was getting at, but I have decided to launch a new anti-SEO practice. News Corp, are you listening? Mark Silber www.silberware.com –New York, NY

The WSJ and the UK Financial Times are poor examples to justify the successful erection of pay walls in newspapers because they have a very high % of corporate subscriptions. Companies can justify the relatively low cost of keeping employees up to date on key issues and unique content. Bloomberg works on the same basis. The vast majority of newspaper subscriptions are paid by individuals. Thus it's a different buying model. Yet WSJ is trotted out continually as if it had the same customer base as the local city paper. The WSJ and it's ilk are unique newspapers serving a unique market. –Galway

The internet commoditizes content, as it commoditizes everything else from television to books. Companies, like Amazon, that have bucked the trend have come up with innovative ways to satisfy the consumer so that they can take advantage of traffic offered through search, but not become dependent on it. The content offered in the WSJ is great and probably unique, but that does not mean any of us will remember to visit their site or think to search them specifically. As for search traffic - it is clearly less valuable for most content sites. But less value, as you point out, is not no value. –Beverly Hills, CA

Seems to me that the searches for "balloon boy" would vastly outnumber those for "Wells Fargo secondary offering." Anyone who has run his or her own webite or keyword campaign knows just how unqualified 99% of that Google traffic is. Quality. not quantity works for some businesses. Kevin Horne - NYC –New York, NY

@tommyzman - I think that you may find "app" is a term of art in IT/Technology - it has been used for years in the industry as a contraction for "application". @Kevin & trooke - People, please go easy on IT folk, we are really not a bad bunch, perhaps just a bit enigmatic. Being more technical and than marketing focused probably accounts for the difficulties I have with getting Marketers.Org much attention to get it off the ground. Even so, please be kind. ;-) @Keven - Your arguments are more compelling as regards demographic and strategy. It is going to be interesting to see the fallout of the Verizon/Google vs AT&T/Apple campaign unfold. I enjoyed the adjunct article to this one by Abbey Klaassen ( at http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=140602 ). This is going to be a pretty interesting contest between two seemingly well matched teams. Personally, I have an iPOD, but not an iPhone. I'm also not going for the Droid. While I don't like the limitations of iPhone connectivity, I also don't care much for the data collection and analytics capabilities of Verizon's partner Google (which could put some national intelligence agencies to shame). So, I'll probably just stick with a simple cell phone and wait for a device not offered from the technology equivalent of the "borg" and one not locked in service wise by yet another communications behemoth. Like any other average consumer, I kind of enjoy both choice and privacy in a world where both seem to be evaporating rather rapidly. –Franktown, CO

I'm a Mac fan. Have been for years. But I couldn't see myself being the least bit happy with an iPhone. I mean, AT&T? So I waited and waited. And when Verizon introduced the Droid, I bought one. So far, I'm completely satisfied with it. Is it as cool as an iPhone? Yeah. Here are some commercials (from YouTube) that'll tell you a bit more about the phone and the battle that's about to unfold between Google/Verizon and Apple/AT&T... "Homing Device" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn8jfXHNcfk&feature=PlayList&p=589E930A8EFEC008&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8 "Surfer" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk2sUpi0-ko&feature=PlayList&p=589E930A8EFEC008&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12 –SaratogaSprings, NY

Fascinating - reading through these responses. Merits of the Verizon ads aside, no other carrier would be going after Apple and the iPhone if they had pioneered a smartphone that looked, felt and operated they way the iPhone does. Apple innovates. Most other companies and competitors don't. They're mostly followers who watch from the sidelines and then try to enter the market by producing a "nearly as good as" product that's cheaper and functions badly. The iPhone is a first-rate product on an "ok" network. Other phones will be merely doorstops and paperweights running on better networks. Pick your poison. –New York, NY

trooke: you must have gotten your marketing degree from the same place you learned to spell. here's a sentence for you: akhfkiahf9bBCLOY. couldn't read it? oh, then maybe spelling is just as important as content. so because Apple/iPhone owns emotion, then that means all remaining smartphones from here on out will be bought based on emotion? what a dumb assertion. Verizon is going after about 60 million potential customers. yep, TV is a bad idea for that. but what do i know? i'm just an "IT guy in marketing clothes." ore sumthing liek thatt. –New York, NY

Boy#1 (Apple) chooses Girl A (At&T)...now Girl B (Verizon) is jealous. So, Girl B teases and parades around Boy #1 with other boys.... Result Boy #1 (Apple) now wants to rethink his decision cause Girl B Verizon is lookin' good. Point is... target this smarget that Blah, Blah.... I bet the campaign changes the minute Apple decides to open it's use to other carriers.... Because Apple has the one thing EVERYONE wants. LOYAL CUSTOMERS.... and these days that is worth twittering about!! (and I just play guitar for a living) –Nashville, TN

Kevin, not only do you display jerk-like tendencies, you miss the point and show your inherent lack of marketing acumen. First, with regard to a misspelled word. The purpose of language is to communicate, not please the anal retentives who see spelling as more important than content. The point regarding advocates for the iPhone brand was not to suggest that ATT is targeting them but to make the point that its success has been driven by its emotional components. And if you think that only the product segments of the smartphone business is all that remains for Apple to target, you are out of touch. The young and youthful about to get their first smartphone are a huge target; the users of competitive phones who find THOSE lacking remain a huge target. You sound like an IT guy in marketing clothing.... By the way, if ATT is using broadcast TV to segment the market, they should fire the marketing guy there... they are buying time on broad reach programming, not narrow niche programs. –Duluth, GA

Forgive me if I'm repeating what has already been said but the advantage of iPhone/Apple over the competition is the relationship that people have developed with the brand, even in 1984 when Mac was 'pushed' as better than the PC. And for years, Apple has done an adequate job of managing those relationships. As a result, the company has tremendous product loyalty that spreads across two maybe three generations. The competition's angle to simply exploit perceived weaknesses of Apple/iPhone on a product-by-product comparison, I agree, are aimed at those who haven't jumped on the smartphone bandwagon. A friend of mine experimented with the Droid for several days -- and even considered giving up her iPhone because she's so fed up w/ AT&T. She loved the 'social' applications that the Droid has over what the iPhone offers, but at the end of the day, she had to come back to the iPhone because of the practicale usefulness of the device. She still hates AT&T though. If there's any truth that Verizon will pick up the iPhone in 2010, she'll jump carriers at a heart beat. –AURORA, IL

Thank you Schwapj; Droid is not a PC! This is not a contest between computer Operating Systems. This not even a contest between smart phones (not yet anyway). It's a battle between Verizon and AT&T. A lot of consumers do not like AT&T (with good reason!) and Verizon's "a map for that" campaign just gives many dissatisfied AT&T users another reason to switch. If Droid is as user-friendly, reliable, and MAC compatible as the iPhone, then Verizon will gain ground - possibly a lot of ground. There is no reason to doubt the creative efforts of Google. Can't wait to try the Droid myself and yes, I own an iPhone. I love my iPhone but I certainly don't love AT&T and they are ones I have to pay every month! As long as we are comparing apples to apples: Apple is not about being hip and cool. Apple is not fad oriented. The Apple brand has always been about superior quality, ease of use for the end-user, excellent and stylish design, leading-edge technology, consistency, and excellent customer service. It's no wonder Apple products are preferred. –Franklin, MA

The Misfit commercial is a brilliant take on a xmas classic. I didn't view it as an attack on current iPhone owners, but a pre-emptive move to keep people from switching to ATT. I recently switched to ATT and got the iPhone, it is truly amazing. However, the spotty/limited coverage is a BIG problem and a huge weakness for ATT. I didn't know the high degree of spotty coverage until I switched. ATT should focus efforts on infrastructure upgrades - having Porsche on dirt roads isn't as fun! –Hermosa Beach, CA

I haven't read all of the comments but there is another reason that nobody has mentioned why this ad is effective and, at least in regard to Apple's normal defenses, unassailable. The Droid has absolutely no connection to and nothing to do with "PC"'s. It is a Google phone, and of all the companies in the world that can compete with Apple for cool and hip, Google is definitely one of them--they DEFINITELY get it. It will be well before 2011 when people, including current iPhone owners, start pairing the best mobile network and the best mobile OS in their minds. Also, any Verizon store that puts a demo video on the Driod is going to capture people who were going to use the iPhone as their main multimedia device. Apple's day may not be over, but they're going to have to step it up 3 or 4 notches just to stay even (which, to their credit, they always seem to do). –New York, NY

the truth lies somewhere in between kevin (do you work on the account?) and the other apple afficiandos (or fans for short) (plus spelling is a sign of discipline, not intelligence). sure there is a huge market that doesn't have a smartphone yet, plus cell phones are often bought based on provider rather than phone, while the i-phone really benefited at&t. it's a not bad spot, pretty good for mccann. and let's be honest, a lot of people don't really care about being hip or stylish or with it. we in the business have an unhealthy fascination with it, hence we got into this business. most people are lame and have other things to worry about than how the whole world still operates like high school. they think we're lame because we're immature, we think they're lame because they care so much about conventional maturity. the gumby old christmas special animation will do the trick. it works for verizon, they don't care if you have loyalty to a phone, they just care that they have a much better network and now there are phones that are functionally and aesthetically in the same league as an i-phone. now if droid proves to be a cultural phenom than that is exactly the best case scenario but not likely. plus htc has good executions out, while droid is spending a lot of money. not sure about the creative product, the strategy is interesting, not sure about the execution. basically like mcbowen's work on miracle whip. it would be a great brief, but as creative it's pretty horrible. droid feels the same way. –Minneapolis, MN

Another thought regarding Droid's iDon't ad: I'm curious how many average consumers are in the least bit concerned with the iPhone not allowing open development. True, Apple's App Store practices leave many *developers* with a bitter taste, but my bet is that most *consumers* in the market for a smart phone don't care what it took for the developers to get their apps approved. –New York, NY

These ads are undeniably compelling, and definitely will appeal to the folks who are contemplating smart-phones, and also to those with knee-jerk reactions against the iPhone simply because of its popularity. Something to remember is that Apple has never been interested in dominating market share, which is something people seem to forget all the time. Q3 numbers should serve as a reminder that profit is more interesting to them: with just 2.5% of smartphone market share, Apple made $1.6 billion in profit (compared to Nokia's $1.1 billion - and their 35% market share). –New York, NY

We're currently on AT&T and can't wait until our contract is up so we can switch to Verizon. 'Nuf said. –Green Bay, WI

To commenter ewfickle (nice name btw): You proved you know less about marketing than trooke. a) $100 million for a campaign means nothing about segmentation when the market opportunity is in the $ billions. Especially when it is a launch. b) how can someone WITHOUT an iPhone be an iPhone "aficionado"? check your dictionary for help. an obvious Apple fanboy... –New York, NY

Some interesting comments here and each bare some relevance to my own experience. I was an iPhone early adopter and currently I am still an iPhone user. From a multimedia device perspective it is the best I have ever known. However as inherent techie, I am often seduced by the next best thing, especially as I cant use my iPhone in my own apartment in NYC. Thats right, virtually no service. So despite my love for my device, the Droid has caught my eye. That fact may be what the Verizon campaign is all about. Yes it is about grabbing those users who have said they will not buy an iPhone because it is on AT&T, but also those non-core users who like the phone, but cant bear the horrible service. I know the Droid will not be as good from a comprehensive user experience perspective but at the end of the day, its still a phone and service is paramount. To me I am egalitarian in my technology, I own both a PC and MAC and I think both have their merits. That said, the best solution for me may be a Nano for my music and Droid for my phone. Unfortunate, but that is just reality. SO maybe if Verizon can chip away at some of the iPhone users leveraging a pain point which has become apparent, combined with bringing in users who Fear the AT&T network (I will not buy an iPhone because of AT&T), they can capture a user base that makes their giant ad spend worth it. –NY, NY

iPhone enthusiasts (I can't spell that other word) often come off like Republicans: they must defend their dogma at all costs, and they're never wrong. In fact, they're so sure they're right that the rest of the world is just noise. In fact, for the time being, anyone forced to use AT&T to use this toy can't really judge the iPhone's capabilities, since they can never hold a signal long enough to make a judgment (or any other kind of) call. Anyway, loyalists are only loyal until they finally try something else. It's like escaping from a cult. Once they get away and undergo serious deprogramming, they have a shot at experiencing real life again, as healthy members of society. –LOS ANGELES, CA

Dear Kevin- Your comment about segmentation and targeting is misguided. Did you miss the part of the article that mentioned a $100 million campaign for the droid? There is no targeting going on in the bulk of their buying - it is a "spam everyone" campaign. The Verizon attack campaign is likewise a blanket effort - they bought network prime and network news. Both campaign most certainly are targeting iPhone aficionados - those with and those without iPhones. What those marketers are missing is that people just don't care for the BS - the "map for that" is transparent. It has about as much credibility as a Palin ad - and most of all, AT&T and iPhone users know it. No one browses the web on their smartphone from Death Valley, or the swamps of Southern Louisiana. What matters to smartphone users is that they are smart, and they work well, in all the ways that we want them to. Open source is for techies. If we wanted a real keyboard we would be okay with a smaller screen. The mainstream wants a robust, stable device, which is why the droid will never have a market share like the iPhone. Oddly enough, your snarky spelling comment illuminates the terminal failure of these ads - so much like political attack ads. When you don't have substance or a superior product, and you know you can't convince people that you do, ATTACK! –Charlotte, NC

Agreed, Kevin. Iphone's product loyalty is right up there with Coke, and nobody is gonna mess with that. Verizon is targeting the go-zillions of people who have yet purchased a smart phone, with the goal of hammering away at Apple's market share. But the problem with all of this is that based on the explosion in technology, someone will come up with a phone way cooler than the Droid... probably sometime in the next ten minutes. BTW... I don't think that "app" is really a word... Tommy Z . publisher, planetZman The Last Great Bastion for REAL Men http://www.planetzman.com http://www.twitter.com/planetzman –Oak Ridge, NJ

Agree with Kevin. The current campaign is clearly targeted at the phone geek population - people who have already seen the flaws of the iPhone device, and are suspicious of Apple's closed ecosystem. Heck, the "bomb" campaign was a parody of a variety of sci-fi flicks...tons of inside references. And let's not forget where the name Droid originated... Question - will the campaign continue in the sci-fi geek vein? Or will it go mainstream at some point? I'm wondering if there's a master plan here to create a Droid brand with geek cred, and then disseminate that to the masses. –Teaneck, NJ

Let's face it. It's just good advertising and those of us that have been doing this for 20+ years admirer the "thinkers" of the campaigns and wish we too had been in those think-tanks. On the filp side, MAC does have the advertising advantage to classify all non-MACs as PCs; PCs on the other hand are not only trying to claim their share of the PC market, but must also deflect MAC. Our agency lives in both worlds of MAC/PC and we are at peace (most of the time), but regarding mobile service, we are now all on at&t, but strictly for the iPhone. If iPhone had launched on Verizon it would have OWNED the mobile market. So this shows that a superior product can live well on an inferior foundation. at&t should appreciate the life-line iPhone has given them; however, if rumors are true and iPhone will be available on Verizon in 2010, I fore see a huge segment of customers move back to Verizon and just like the misfit toys, the iPhones with be accepted and loved, even with their "flaws"... –Florence, AL

Dear trooke (commenter #1): Study up on segmentation and targeting (and spelling). Verizon isn't trying to attract "iPhone aficionados." –New York, NY

And, I suspect Apple could not be happier. Competitors are missing a very key point. iPhone affecionados revel in their emotional attachment to the iPhone. They talk about its "cool" factor, the level of enjoyment they derive and, yes, what having the iPhone says about them as a person. While the phone possesses marvelous product capabilities, those are not what bind them to the iPhone. For that reason, the recent efforts to relate product deficiencies will fail. For sure, some IT folks who live for product advantages will pay attention but the greater population will see these efforts as, once again, "they just don't get it!" –Duluth, GA

What a fascinating conversation! Particularly if you work at one of the small agencies, as I do. A few thoughts: • On one side we have the behemoths dissing the boutique joints as "production shops" - because many of the boutiques sell a specific execution: digital. Meanwhile, the big agencies also sell a specific execution: spots, print, and banner ads, to feed their huge overheads. And because that's mostly all they know how to do. • So it's very difficult for either group to escape their narrow DNA. Both big and small agencies have been built around making things, spots, sites, banners, or around a number crunching practice, SEO, media planning, direct response, etc. • At some boutiques, and a very, very few general agencies, the audience is instead front and center. And following this approach, focussing on the audience and their conversation, their community, and their hunger for engaging stories, is where we all need to aim the puck. • It's easiest to practice the new marketing -- starting with the audience -- if that's all you've ever done. That's true of Campfire. (He conveniently observed...) • OUR challenge is not our competition, big or small, but staying flexible and able to go anywhere a brand's audience wants to go... –NEW YORK, NY

"We are small". We have been working directly with clients since 2002 with satisfaction, but the key is requiring a digital experienced leader to manage job effectively. Resources limitation is the fact for small shop, running high risk projects like too creative using immature digital solution is risky, that's why large agencies have advantages to take large project due to resources issue. R&D is expensive in digital industry. Comparing to traditional agency, almost NO R&D at all, learn once, apply for long. Therefore if small shop can do: 1) R&D, 2) Having a "know every digital things" staff, 3) Corporate level of account servicing. Then will be able to replace large agencies. Which I only know 4 small to middle size firms can achieve these in Hong Kong. With that capabilities, that's why we can share the large pie from market. Felix Leung CEO of XON Communications Ltd http://www.thexon.com felix@thexon.com –Hong Kong

American unemployment is 10.2%. Real estate has been in the toilet for more than two years now. People are just expected to do MORE with LESS these days. And so it goes when the client gives their big advertising agency the bad news. "Guys... we have to cut our 2010 advertising and marketing budget by $7 million dollars." Houston: We have a really big friggin' problem. When that happens -- you have to eat into your Media Buy margins to make the same money you did in 2009, or you may be forced to laying off three creative directors. Neither one is very fun to entertain. Ad Agencies have to get customers to pen their wallets and spend money. If the big boys can't do that, the smaller ad agencies are going to get their turn at bat. And smaller ad agencies naturally have LESS over head, smaller staffs and lo -- we can charge less for the same services you'd get at Leo Burnett. Ka-ching. This is the only tune that matters. Ka-ching is all they want from your efforts. Nothing else matters. Unfortunately, we're not seeing a lot of the big agencies do a lot of extra ordinary things. repackage the status quo year after year. The TV commercials look the same. The magazine ads, ADVO and bill boards are ho-hum, me too boring, regurgitated tag lines that nobody remembers. No humor. No shock value. In my opinion, too many Leo Burnetts, J Walter Thompsons, BBDO and other big agencies are still whistling the same 1980's tunes of brand building, making top of mind awareness and not focusing on creative and innovative marketing ways to get their clients' customers to open their wallets. Greg Fox, Author of several books on Sales and Rainmaking said it best: It don't mean a thing unless it goes ka-ching. I'm shocked to see how much creative talent is being wasted on TV commercials that do ZERO for making the consumer understand or motivate customers to buying their client's products or services. Korean Air; Excellence in Flight. Church's Fried Chicken; I know good when I see it. Is the BEST we can come up with for tag lines these days? I was at Levenson and Hill in the early 90's and we had the Church's account. Thank God for brilliant creative people like Fred Randall and Jerry McPhail who came up some creative TV commercials. Boom Box was my favorite TV spot we did for Church's in 1991. We filmed the spot at a local Dallas and it was one of our best we ever created. It made the Church's cash registers go: Ka-ching. Ka-ching. Which brings me to my closing statement: If the big boys cannot do anything but repackage the status quo, they deserve to be fired so their clients can come to us smaller shops where we know the one magic ingredient of advertising; Our creative simply has to make money for our clients. Period. End of discussion. –SANTA FE, NM

It's interesting to read all of the comments within this article as I gauge a lot of you know each other. Looking in from an outside and micro-digital agency (11 people), we deal with some of these very issues. Whether it's a traditional (branding/creative) agency or pure marketing consultants, the need for "digital" expertise and strategy is evident even in our world. You've got creative shops that need wireframes for sites, web app development or consultants that need a Facebook app to support their great campaign idea; the food chain is long. I also wanted to add a note to something that dwglaze said about - "requires a deep understanding of how these platforms work, how people use them, and the technical prowess to develop for them" - the last part you're missing is "how you measure them." I can even remember a recent project where we were 4th down on the food chain working on a Unilever project. –SAN DIEGO, CA

As the owner of a small Agency that has been making a lot of money for BIG Agencies for years I'm glad to see that Clients are finally starting to see behind the curtain. Bet you didn't know the voting engine for American Idol was built in Morristown, NJ! Smaller, nimbler, better value, personal attention from principals, and a willingness to do "whatever it takes" to help a Client succeed is something the big guys just cant give. And as for strategy... we eat and breath this stuff all day. knowing what consumers will respond to is our job. Motivating a desired behavior is our specialty. And we can build the deliverable too! Carrying a BIG name on a little business card with a NYC address doesn't automatically mean you know everything. The right people make the difference. Mark Valva CEO/Founder DataPositive.com –Morristown, NJ

The line between Digital Agency & Digital Production company has been blurred. Big Digital Agencies like DIGITAS and Razorfish can play the global scale game purporting to offer "Full Service" - but that doesn't mean they can afford to staff every kind of Tech Devs to build "all things digital" - right now they're worried about how to scale banner production efficiently... while hiring shops like Firstborn, Barbarian, EVB and us to do more emerging stuff. The traditionally digital "production companies" are crossing the line and becoming agencies in their own right - some able to lead - others still trying to become Big Idea/Conceptually-driven rather than tactically project driven. This is their challenge. Whether they are large or small doesn't matter. What matters is the power of the idea - and how smartly its executed - not by whom. Goodby gets that. Which is why they conceive in-house and execute with the best dev partners for any given digital experience - but the idea is always central. The question isn't does the industry need "Big" digital agencies anymore - it's why should marketers have to hire 2 kinds of creative agencies anymore? Alan Schulman Chief Creative Officer U.DIG > The Digital Innovations Group –NEW YORK, NY

Thanks for the Lee Clow reference Kevin "let's see how big we can get before we stop being good". A real problem for ALL hot creative shops at SOME point. What resonated for me was a continued lack of reverence for these Smaller Shops. Bob Lord's quote as an example: "If you want a company to do banner ads and microsites, there are agencies that can do that and well. But if you want a comprehensive experience, to bring your brand to life in digital -- it could be retail -- you want a company like Razorfish." He then went on to state, "My competition is those bigger agencies that have full-service suites." With all due respect Mr. Lord, this is what keeps the Smaller Shops very busy. If you truly believe that brilliant shops like Barbarian Group, Huge, EVB, Big Spaceship, et al are not capable of creating "comprehensive experiences", you are simply wrong. These are the very same shops taking business away from the larger agencies, you included - it is the genesis of this very article... Wrigley's recent rethink... Small is no longer cute... beware of Small! –SAN FRANCISCO, CA

Good discussion. One thing that particularly jumped out at me in the article was the persistent reference to companies like EVB, Firstborn, etc. as "production companies". This seems to reflect the stereotypical, jealous need to claim ownership of the so-called "big-idea" (and the strategy behind it) that has always been a part of inter-agency relationships. In reality, developing a truly insightful, creative and strategic idea in digital channels requires a deep understanding of how these platforms work, how people use them, and the technical prowess to develop for them. When a larger agency turns to a boutique and says, "Here's our idea for a campaign. Can you come up with an extension that will resonate online," is that outsourcing some strategic thinking? of course it is. Very few people in "traditional" agencies have that expertise, and as the space continues to fragment, even the larger digital agencies cannot afford to be experts in everything. Another issue that is just touched on here, but I think quite important, is what the approach of going direct to smaller shops for "tactically strategic" solutions requires of the client. At minimum, it certainly requires marketing leadership that has a solid understanding of the broader digital ecosystem, and how that ecosystem can integrate with analog channels to create a seamless brand experience. As is the case in large agencies, many large marketers have tried to "get familiar" with the space without investing in any real expertise, and do so at their peril. I suspect we'll see more and more folks from the agency side moving into key roles in corporate marketing groups over the next few years. David Glaze Group Creative Director The Designory –Long Beach, CA

Large companies need a combination of large and small agencies. It really boils down to the people and talent, and ultimately the management culture. Often smaller shops can attract talent easier than larger ones given the culture, so it really boils down to the tone the creative and strategic leadership set. Lee Clow used to say "let's see how big we can get before we stop being good". Global companies need global reach and execution, and sometimes that means larger agencies. Often their scale can be a disadvantage to hiring consultants and smaller agencies quickly given the nature of corporate procurement processes, so they often like to have less vendors that do everything but unfortunately not all agencies can do everything well. In the end I think large clients will want their large agencies to act like a movie studio, subcontract the best talent and shops on demand and take care of the process. I don't think companies like IBM will ever stop needing large digital agencies, they will always need a combination of both. A large agency can still be as nimble and creative as a smaller shop, it really boils down to the culture and leadership. Luckily IBM found both in Euro. But that's just my opinion. Kevin Chiu Global Creative Director, ibm.com IBM –New York, NY

It's the data, stupid. What clients think they're buying is "hot creative." But digital thrives on well managed data. Yes, even in digital creative is important. Let's not go there. However, in digital the creative is no more important that the data. Once clients wake up to the fact that they need to manage all the data their sexy front ends are ginning up, they'll come back. Or they'll hire data managers and strategiests who aren't owned by agencies at all. And all agencies as we know them will implode. How silly is that?! Razorfish, Digitas, Tribal and their ilk handle data - collecting, mining, reading the tea leaves - in ways the upstarts cannot. –CHICAGO, IL

Does America Want or NEED Big Ad Agencies Anymore? Apparently not. We're a small digital ad agency. We specialize in Real Estate marketing/advertising only. We do media buys. We do ads on Facebook, radio, print, direct mail and we do killer websites and we offer SEO services that magically catapult our clients visibility to page one on Google. We're not part of the AAAA, Black Diamonds or even smaller groups like TAG (The Agency Group) which I'm not sure even exists anymore. Kirk? Are you still out there? Sandra Muggenberg? Hello? Being small has not stopped us working with some big names out there. We've done work for Ivana Trump. Ralph Roberts. And various big shots from Coldwell Banker, ERA, Century 21 and a few others. We have something that bigger ones don't have. I call it: C4. Because today's marketing dollar, spent on anything has to be; 1.) Compelling 2.) Creative 3.) Consistent 4.) Concise. You put those four ingredients together, add some innovation and speed and you get an explosive combination we call; C4. What we do for $250,000 a year is about what other agencies charge $750,000 and more for the same service, same media buy and well... I think our creative is a bit more killer and innovative. Doing more with less money is just a sign of the times. Our creative staff is smaller, but we're all still enjoying nice paychecks in the $180,000 - $250,000 a year range. -- Bart Wilson, Chief Creative Officer Voyager International, Santa Fe Office –SANTA FE, NM

As long as the big brands understand what it is they are getting and they will be able to handle the nimble, scope oriented and fast pace of a digital shop, they will be fine. However once the weight of the brand starts to weigh down on the small shop and the brands start demanding longer approval periods and more documentation, studies and proven results and all of the other aspects of the fat that produces all that crap at traditional agencies then we will see how well the direct model works. Its going to take a lot for the digital shops to educate the brands on how to stay lean and how to do things the RIGHT way. I am not sure that the brands are ready to give up that level of attention, that ass kissing that they have grown accustomed to. When resources are being drained and demands aren't being met that is when we will see the real fortitude of what digital agencies have really got under their belts. I say start now, hire educators and arbitrators, advocates and moderators, stock up on what will be needed in the short term to help the brands acclimate to the change. –new york, NY

Prona and atom26 make VERY GOOD points. All the bigs that are in trouble now at one time were small and hot which led to them acquiring big projects which led to growth which led to overhead which led to price increase to cover the overhead which led to the problems they have now. Which of course sets the stage for this too happen all over again. The executives at the holding cos and the big agencies talk like they are the only ones capable of developing strategy for clients. Pompous and somewhat insulting. In my opinion, what those execs DO HAVE are relationships and a certain level of trust with their clients, which is keeping them in the game. Not their ability to develop strategy. Our culture is fragmenting. We are all becoming niche inhabitants. In my opinion, big overarching strategies worked when our culture was more homogeneous, with large numbers of consumers able to be reached by one overall marketing message. As the trend towards a niche-oriented culture continues, I think numerous, smaller, and more unique messages will have to be crafted for each of the niches that a manufacturer deems important. This would seem to not fit so well with the holding company/big agency style of doing things. And of course, remember that what the mid-sized companies do to the bigs, the little-sized companies are doing to the mids, and the micros are doing to the mids. Every level of this food chain is "poachable". –Stoughton, WI

Key quote: "And we have been doing a lot of strategy and thinking and not getting paid for it." Firstborn, Barbarian, et al. will likely grow and become exactly what Wrigley apparently doesn't want. –bloomfield hill, MI

In our experience big agencies have always collaborated with boutique agencies like ours. A good example is when Fallon hired my company to help conceive and develop the user experience for BMW Films or the work we have done with Razorfish on Mattel.com. Large agencies have never simply designed a project and then handed it off saying, "Build this and get back to us." It has always been a major collaborative effort. However, as more and more marketing dollars move online, boutique agencies like ours are now making headway with major brands as trusted strategic partners. We have earned an equal seat at the marketing table. This is becoming more noticeable as marketing budgets are being stretched across channels. Boutique agencies with their flat corporate structure have lower overheads and a more collaborative culture. Thus, they can provide a more flexible approach to addressing customer needs. Larger agencies, with their top down methodology, struggle immensely to be agile for their clients while still trying to maintain their margins. The critical requirement in 2010 and beyond will be, "Can the agency provide valuable creative solutions, do the job, and then deliver a verifiable ROI?" More and more boutique digital agencies are being called upon to do just that. David Gratton CEO, Agency http://workatplay.com http://twitter.com/workatplay –VANCOUVER, BC

Clearly our industry is evolving and we are presented with a new landscape. Big, small, medium is not the main issue but who has the ability to deliver integral solutions that are spot on with clients needs or that provide sound strategy in reaching audiences in a new and evolving landscape. We at encident (encident.com) have had the pleasure of working with several traditional agencies that are aware of their cost and production limitations and partner with purely production shops like ours. This allows them to deliver their great ideas at reasonable costs with superb execution quality. Focusing on what one does best and providing great service is crucial. –montevideo

Straight up – the traditional role of "middlemen" is dying period – all it means to a company is "mark-up" and potential loss of control in messaging. The agencies that simply stick to their true calling, of being the idea and strategy creators for their clients, and are smart enough to jump in and play effectively with the latest innovations first, will win. This is coming from an early corporate creative with brand pioneers, Limited Brands, who figured out long ago to leverage their brand by taking the risks by leaping straight to the source of innovations and incubate in-house. Now armored with years in the real world within a small brand boutique for entrepreneurs, my opinion is not one that is out-of-touch for being locked in the walls of a big office, but from 9 years in the trenches of meeting real-live consumers' needs. As I watch the fireworks, do my homework, and make strategic creative alignments for 2010 – this article was that "light" in shining armor to entrepreneurs and innovators everywhere. It's time for the ad industry to truly get in touch with the new-age consumer's wants, needs and desires (currently creative enlightenment, choices, and control of their online experience from niche social networks to customized searches)by being the first in latest of new mediums - this keeps their clients' brands as the leaders in this "digitally creative renaissance." Hats off to the agencies who are diving in straight with the innovators and to help re-write a digital landscape where everyone wins. –Hobe Sound, FL

This is a very interesting article because my take on thing is that production doesn't have a great deal of value in the marketplace right now. What matters is strategy, creative and data. Digital in general is going through another phase of development at the moment where it ceases to be seen as a production task and is starting to be seen as strategically important to a brand's development. Everyone is trying to move into that space, and some are managing it better than others. IS what we are seeing here just a demonstration of small agencies being that bit more lithe and agile able to move into a supplier like state quicker than their larger counterparts? –London

It's an interesting debate, one that's been around for a long time, and that will continue... Given the references to Euro RSCG 4D I thought I'd join on the basis of clarifying our position and adding perspective. We're not "an old-line agency network that's (recently) built a better digital unit". Rather, we understood digital would change everything, embraced it early (mid 90's) and created mostly organically one of the first global digital networks. Most importantly for this debate realized that all communication will have "digital at the core" and so have digital capabilities in all agencies as well as a global digital network, Euro RSCG 4D. This means clients can access digital either as part of a seamlessly integrated offer (GSK and Dos Equis) or as a standalone, best in class offering (Volvo and now IBM). We understood early that digital would change our clients' world and so ours. Your "15th birthday" article a few weeks ago highlighted our NY agency acting on this and placing 4 of the first 12 banners in October 1994. We also believed that being global was and is important and so built one of the first digital networks. This early commitment and the success it bought had Adweek rate us as the largest digital network for 5 years running. Most importantly we, as with many of the digital pioneers, saw and experienced first hand how digital changed the consumer's world. This reinforced our early commitment to investing in digital. To today and this debate... I don't believe there is one model or one way. What I do believe is that we need to be client focused in how we provide services and where we do engage digitally, we must be best in class. I also believe given the breadth of offer, from smaller shops to digital networks standing alone or as part of a broader offering, that the years of advertising networks providing digital as middleman is over. The Euro RSCG model of having "digital at the core" as well as a strong standalone digital offering through Euro RSCG 4D works for our clients and so for us. I'm sure it will continue to evolve and welcome this. George Gallate Global Chairman, Euro RSCG 4D –New York, NY

Ultimately, what will happen is clients will dictate through their necessity as to whether they are small, big, tech, creative, geeky, or a bunch of miserable old timer agencies. All in all who cares about size anyway? You can either deliver or you don't. Or, you have what the clients want or you don't. Do you really think this discussion alone will have an effect on agency size? It certainly will not! So why bother? Yes, I'm the only miserable old timer from a small, young geeky agency that are working on two of the clients mentioned in paragraph two. Linas Valaitis Director Baltix Limited linas@baltix.net –London

The irony is that as 'production' agencies get bigger and are asked to provide a broader range of services for clients, they (and their cost structures) will start looking like the 'big' digital agencies. Let's not forget that many of today's 'big' digital agencies started out as creative hotshops, albeit when the industry was far less mature. Also, as digital continues moving up the food chain in into our clients' board rooms, the criteria for selecting an agency will not be cost but effectiveness against goals (i.e. ROI). –London, UK

Correction - "loose out down the road" should be "lose" –FRISCO, TX

For most brands, until the digital agency category is more mature and consolidated, the increased emphasis on digital will require using multiple digital agencies with specific areas of expertise for each digital component to get the best results. Holding companies have to spend smarter. The model of buying a hot shop no longer applies. Investments in smart, emerging groups, enabling them to maintain majority ownership and control, assures those shops remain competitive and keep pushing forward. It also protects the holding company from over investing in groups that might loose out down the road due to technological shifts. The best example of this model is with multi-cultural agencies, where it is sometimes necessary for the groups to maintain majority ownership to qualify as a minority-owned business for key accounts. There have been many instances where multi-cultural agencies have excelled from investments by holding companies that give them the needed cash to grow, but the control to do what they do best, and everybody has benefited. Big or small in the digital space, three major trends are changing the game at this very moment requiring marketers to play catch up. 1) Smart mobile devices will outnumber computers in 2010; 2) Social Networking has proven out to be the place where customers spend the most time on-line; 3) Digital is too big and value priced to be overlooked any longer. The net of all three trends is that the days of tactics driving digital are over. The numbers and the competition are getting too big. Every marketer must move forward with a sound digital strategy to meet the bigger goals and returns they are attaching to digital plans, as digital is becoming a more significant part of the mix. Customer insights married with business objectives must now be used to formulate overarching digital objectives and strategies. Once those are well defined with the ability to measure and adjust in real time, execution and success are much easier to develop and achieve. Rodney Mason, CMO www.moosylvania.com www.twitter.com/rodmoose –FRISCO, TX

Maybe try it on the Taliban next? –CARLTON

If we can now get our fellow American to stop using drugs, this and other social problems can also improve. (Native Colombian, naturalized American) –Poway, CA

Göndermiş olduğunuz mailleri dikkatle inceliyorum. Gercekten tebrikler. Saygılarımla Bedri Mortaş –Ankara

Some of the commenters bring up interesting points about accountability, credibility, and transparency. They're all important attributes in measuring a mission statement's effectiveness. It's always a good idea to spend more time up front thinking about the appropriate messaging and, more importantly, the "why" behind the words rather than having to defend them or, worse, rescind them later. I like the idea of forcing companies to adhere to their mission statement promises. If that's not always physically or legally possible, the next best thing may be keeping in mind those promises when writing mission statements. Here are some other things to think about when writing them: http://blog.marcomments.com/2009/11/09/mission-statement/#more-111 - Jolene Dobbin, Harding Marketing –San Jose, CA

Creating a Mission Statement has been a Strategic Management best Practice since at least 1990. What took them so long? SLACKERS! –Los Angeles, CA

Great to talk about Corporate Responsibility, "nourishing lives" and doing the right things by consumers, businesses, charities, etc.- but TRANSPARENCY is the factor that must always be aligned in this discussion too. Mission statements are great but must be authentic, deliverable and accountable. With Cone Inc.stating that last year they found 79% of consumers said they'd switch to a brand associated with a good cause, up from 66% in 1993, and 38% said they'd bought a product associated with a cause, compared with 20% in 1993...this is great news for the "deserving" but lets hope, the funding, support and needs of the various groups are met. In this environment with names like AIG, Lehman Bros, GM, Worldcom, etc.- today's market are ultra sensitive to "flowery promises" and "over promised catch cries". Talking the talk is good, but walking the walk is better. Lets see how P&G, Walmart, Unilever, General Mills deliver? That is the ultimate test. Geoff De Weaver –New York, NY

Between Nourishing, Improving, Caring and Touching, it's easy to see why large companies are accused of talking more and doing less. What's worse, however, is that they all start sounding the same with mission/marketing statements that become impotent and stale after a relatively short period of time. I'd be very interested to see which of these companies would put teeth to their mission statements by using Catalytic Mechanisms. Jim Collins (author: Good to Great) wrote an intriguing paper for the Harvard Business Review about the practice, which, when installed, actually forces companies to adhere to their mission statement promises. Because if you don't hold yourself accountable to your constituents, then your mission statement, regardless of how you use it, isn't credible at all. –Seattle, WA

There's a link between the fact that these marketing leaders have succeeded in bringing together: • Cause-related core brand missions (ideally strategically appropriate/relevant for each brand). • "Web 2.0" listening/sharing/engaging/inclusion tactics that treat consumers as empowered partners in brand-building. • The leveraging (although still at an experimental, let's-see-what-we'll-still-be-able-to-use-credibly-one-year-from-now stage) of the newest, emerging 'social media' tactics/technology. and what is about to transpire in the "de-credibilization" of social media. Just when things were going so well... All of us in the marketing industry are standing at a tipping point at which so much could be done to truly evolve from "push" to "pull", yet human nature is most likely to take us down the "paid-for" vs. "earned" social media route, sadly. More regarding "Something Devastating's About to Transform Social Media Credibility" at: http://tinyurl.com/yhqvsmf –Toronto, ON

Yes - The public's gullibility when it come to corporate BS should never be doubted. –wilton, CT

Causes typically deliver strong returns for shopper marketing initiatives, pulling together partners around the store and encouraging retailers to participate and reach out to their customers more frequently. Both results often deliver higher average basket rings and for the right cause, more customer traffic. Rodney Mason, CMO www.moosylvania.com www.twitter.com/rodmoose –FRISCO, TX

I like where all of this is going. Although (and I think the author understands this) simply leveraging social networks and social media tools/platforms doesn't necessarily qualify as "being social"... there need to be added elements to make it truly a social experience. Kate http://www.mediafriendsinc.com http://blog.mediafriendsinc.com –Boston, MA

Driving audience and engagement through social tools is absolutely top of mind for entertainment companies. Turner and CBS have added live chat functionality to top sporting events that enable users to syndicate their comments to Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Yahoo and add a social dimension to the online viewing experience. ABC enables Dancing with the Stars viewers to sign in and donate their status on all these platforms to support a favorite couple when voting abc.com. In these examples, including the ABC player mentioned in the article, Gigya is powering the social implementations - simplifying the process of connecting these sites to multiple social networks for the greatest impact. www.gigya.com –PALO ALTO, CA

really really cool to consider. thanks! http://www.redshiftagency.com/ –Richmond, VA

Matt, you make some really great points! The multiple screen experience for the 18-24 year olds has been going on for many years now. Having worked in the print medium and television for brands like Seventeen and MTV, we saw that taking place many years ago which is why mobile extensions became so important so early. You also make a great point about making it about an "organic" user experience -- being focused on improving that experience, and then monetizing it. I'm with you... Sheryl Victor Levy President Savvy Strategy www.SavvyStrategy.com –NEW YORK, NY

Using social activity/behavior while "in" the media experience is an important idea. At EyeTMedia we use the discovery/expression and sharing behaviors, as well as the "social activity" of chat and "conversations" among communities of connected and coincidental users to help define real-time sentiment, purchase intent and other brand and product preferences that are valuable to marketers. The idea of social viewing is not new, and millennials have been "connected" via multiple open chat room windows (while doing homework), via newsfeeds and broadcast SMS MMS for several years now. They have also, as the article suggested, been very active via chat, tweet, FB updates, etc (phone and pc) *during* media experiences, (living room, cinema, concerts, sports events) for some time now. This has been a common "feature" of the most insightful video player vendors and entertainment portals for at least 3 years. What is new, and perhaps more interesting to us (as analytics mavens) is the idea that this is (to the networks mentioned) somehow a "new" behavior. It has always been here, and has always been a "core" behavior of viewers as long as there has been a simple telephone and a radio in the same room. We encourage this type of "new" experimentation, and also caution marketers to remember that the *user experience* is all about thrilling and pleasing the consumer. It is not supposed to be about "what works best to monetize." Yes we want to optimize monetization. Wisdom says that will only happen when we optimize for a great experience first. Bringing Content, Control and Community to end users is the way to do this. Being buzzword compliant, as in "we are enabling Twitter" is not a strategy destined for success with consumers, and they will leapfrog the blunt object. Using chat and other interactions as a way to gather more data to build meaningful user preferences with respect to their user experience and ad preferences is a good thing in general, and a worthy use of the terms "contextual" and "behavioral." Let's remember to focus first on what will *naturally* or *organically* improve their experience, and then empower them with some choices, so they can let us know what they like and what falls flat for them. This makes us accountable as marketers. Which is a great thing. Simply tweet-and-chat-enabling a screen is *not* the kind of marketing that will win followers (as the poor people who could not see the bottom 20% of their screen are testament to). Keep up the great work. Matt Weeks CEO EyeTMedia mweeks @ eyetmedia dot com 650 520 8808 –Redwood City, CA

Social media is the new Nielson Ratings. David Berg/Business Development Director Merge Design & Interactive www.mergeworld.com www.twitter.com/mergeworld –Chicago, IL

Garage Cinema is next the generation of independent film with the wind down of DVDs. The 8thScreen will be back of the beyond and into the hologram. Fasten your seat belts. Rod Pitman Beliver 7thScreen.com –San Mateo, CA

All of the media conferences I've been to lately include live-streams of Twitter feeds with the conference hashtag right alongside the speakers. The commentary is often more engaging than the speakers! There's no question that this level of engagement and interaction is going to make its way to the small screen - the only question, per the Glee/Fringe experiment, is how. I'm sure the nets will figure it out, as it will keep network TV relevant to users who are used to more active media experiences. –New York, NY

Social TV will certainly be part of the web-to-tv convergence - personal Internet devices and Internet-connected TV screens. web-to-tv.com –Mountain View, CA

The horror... More screens, not enough talent - combined with not a lot of money for producing programming (not-enough-money has given us the reality-TV jungle)... TV all the time, everywhere...Newton Minnow's Vast Wasteland is becoming ubiquitous. Video-splatter everywhere. A beach in hopefully still-isolated Fiji for the rest of us... –San Francisco, CA

Some interesting research on the subject here. Head of Australian Innovation TV - Gary Hayes http://www.personalizemedia.com/social-tv-reloaded/ CEO of Agora Media Group Richard Kastelein http://agoramedia.co.uk/blog/social-media/social-tv-convergence/ http://agoramedia.co.uk/blog/social-media/social-tv-the-emergence-of-new-tv-2-0-ecosystem/ http://agoramedia.co.uk/blog/social-media/social-tv-the-emergence-of-new-tv-2-0-ecosystem/ http://agoramedia.co.uk/blog/social-media/social-tv-hotels/ –London, UK

It's good to see TV and cable networks trying to increase show fanbases via social networking. Not only can this increase ratings and give advertisers a better idea of which demos are watching the shows, but it increases engagement. This will in the future allow for great product integration using social networking platforms. Rose P. Wesenberg www.luminositymarketing.com –New York, NY

I do like the notion of "whatever screen works" which in its essence it is. The mobile device is increasing in importance, so is Mobile TV and in extend Mobile Social TV. Offering complementary applications which sustain the cross-screen experience is where marketers will be looking at in the coming few years. Gianluigi Cuccureddu, CMO www.agoramedia.co.uk www.agoramedia.co.uk/blog –London, UK, NY

TV everywhere is well on its way. Web TV widgets that integrate the web with flats screens are already on the market, Cloud TV, Klickable, Hulu and smart phones are all merging TV content with the web. That means social integration is not a nice have for TV programming and marketers who support TV content, it's becoming a must have. To be effective marketers need a digital video strategy vs. "trying things to see how they work out." We cover these topics and provide case studies from around the world in our XL Trends marketing reports available from on our site under insights. Rodney Mason, CMO www.moosylvania.com www.twitter.com/rodmoose –FRISCO, TX

Last night I attended a talk from three fascinating speakers at a CANVAS 8 event in London. (Canvas 8 are a group of thought leaders, a sort of UK TED.) It really made you think just how far advertising thinking is away from the new world. How it's traditional thinking is juts not relevant to modern consumerism. Although people all talk digital, it's not just about the web but about how people think, communicate and about changing social psychology, values and behaviour. The web is often portrayed as the be all and end all of a changing world when in fact it's just a tool that's riding off a bigger sea change. –London

Sadly, I fear Mr. Droga and Mr. Henry have a point. I was delighted to learn that the CAT "Creativity and Technology" conference was coming to London, but also rather surprised -- couldn't they find anywhere better to go? Maybe I've just been hanging out with the wrong crowd. But, terrifyingly, I've noticed that it's become fashionable amongst digital agency types in London to be "post digital": to make out that you don't really *care* about the internet or devices. That you're only really interested in your allotment/ mates/ pub/ dog/ garden. Of course digital work MUST connect to real life and real emotions. But if it becomes cool to be bored with digital, then London is doomed to be a provincial backwater. Let's hope the CAT conference does some good. I look forward to it... Martin Percy Interactive Film Director MartinPercy.com –LONDON

I agree that British creativity is not what it was. Sure we excelled in areas such as TV, print and many others, but times have changed and the industry has been slow to change with it. Ad agencies have traditionally been the creative leaders but ironically been the slowest to embrace digital or new ways of thinking. Maybe because many of the big agencies have become institutions run for financial gain rather than pushing the creative boundaries. Few seem to have noticed that the consumer now consumers advertising very differently. That the rules are being rewritten. Droga's right (I was a CD under him at Saatchi's) that there's been little noticable change in the last 7 years. But it's not just agencies that are the problem but British clients. They are very conservative and the recession has resulted in many resorting to safe old ways. The 'C' word scares a lot of clients away here. Digital agencies have produced some great stuff, but now are seeing their business drift away to direct marketing agencies who are certainly not pushing creativity in their web solutions but offering a safe numbers based solution. But there is a new breed of creative agencies that are growing slowly out of the ashes of the recession both here and abroad, like Creative Orchestra, Anomaly, Adam & Eve, that, like Droga 5, are cultivating new talent and trying to do thing differently. Chris Arnold Creative Orchestra founder www.creativeorchestra.com London –London

The U.K's advertising is about creative IDEAS. They are about ART and HUMOR. What does digital have to do with that? Digital is a DELIVERY SYSTEM. It has nothing to do with the IDEAS that promote a product or service. There is no comparison. Chalk and cheese folks. –Toronto, ON

Sad, but not unforseen. –Sammamish, WA

Wasn't the writing on the wall regarding BBDO and Chrysler? Yes they reduced their staff to 485 but wouldn't it have been wise for them to pursue new clients? I understand their location in Detroit is important in serving the auto industry but said industry has seen zero profits for some time now, especially Chrysler who can't seem to build a car the buying public wants. Chrysler's history has been troubled for years, notwithstanding Lee Iacocca and his K-Car. They couldn't even make a merger with Mercedes work. It just seems a little better forecasting was in order. –Mesa, AZ

Google has a ton of respect for the creative work BBDO has done with Chrysler and its other clients, and places great value on the experience of BBDO and other agency veterans. I, along with more than 1/3 of the people in Google's Birmingham office, came to Google with deep agency experience; I can attest to the significance Google places on that knowledge within both the Michigan and worldwide sales organizations, and know that we consider agencies some of our most important partners -- and their employees to be some of the most imaginative, inspired minds out there. –Birmingham, MI

The entire car industry has seen a seismic shift. Due to the Clunkers program destroying cars dealer have no more low priced inventory for the average Joe's out there. Banks and Credit Union's are becoming reluctant car dealers now with a surge of repossessions (see http://www.repofinder.com ) and are selling cars commission free all day long. Another reason the Clunkers program is backfiring on the car industry. Just let the free market be free. –beverly hills, CA

Indeed a very sad state of affairs, especially given the current economic situation. I hope everyone displaced is able to find something worthwhile soon. My wishes and prayers for all. Rajiv Interakt Communications, New York http://www.interaktco.com –New York, NY

question for magnetplanner - is the state law only for people with over 13 years experience? It seems like BBDO picked such a random tenure requirement to get the two months pay –SAN DIEGO, CA

I am telling you, BBDO is not making it. –New York, NY

Incredibly sad for all. Poor Detroit. Also angry that a contract could not be reached. I would have like to know more about that. –westwood, KS

hastily made cleveland tourism video 2nd attempt ended with: "See our river that catches on fire.... It's so polluted that all our fish have AIDS.... See the sun almost three times a year.... Buy a house for the price of a VCR.... Our main export is crippling depression.... But at least we're not Detroit! WE'RE NOT DETROIT!" it was recently removed by youtube. but i am sure it will be up again soon. SOOOOOOOOOOOOO funny. http://www.redshiftagency.com/ –Richmond, VA

BBDO is not "giving" the next two months as severance. That's a state law in Michigan. Any company layoff involving over 60 people requires a 60-day notice. How about a little actual reporting in this article. –Whispering Pine, NC

My heart goes out to my former colleagues at the same time my hat is tipped for the astounding body of work they've done for the Chrysler brands and others over the years. Don't forget that. You may not know where you are going, but don't forget who you are. –Nashville, TN

Very Sad, I see a lot of good people work very hard to give a lot for this account. –Mexico City

So very sad...but wait until Detroit is without Chrysler AND GM –CHICAGO, IL

At least we now know what the threshold of concern; there were once 2000 people at the combined BBDO/Ross Roy/Bozell amalgam. So much for lamenting the other 1515 people. If they couldn't see this coming, they weren't looking. –grosse Pointe, MI

Hard to believe the comments about BBDO staffershaving trouble with small clients etc –Birmingham, MI

Very sad! –New York, NY

Print media companies enjoyed years of "printing money". The irony is that the traditional strengths of their business models turned out to be the downfall of most. Today, examples of those that have succeeded at making a full transition are hard to find to the detriment of the marketplace. The biggest names are surviving, but the fact that no one pays for content does not bode well for them in the long run. These companies established the strength of their brands after many years of vast circulation in print. How many executives (and aspiring ones) read and wanted to be seen carrying the Wall Street Journal? Is there a digital equivalent today that had no previous life in print? My theory is that there is a fundamental failure in the perceptive value of print and digital (and all its moving parts, including mobile) as a function of usage. The advent of modern technologies have affected our daily lives in such ways that the brands that stand out are those that are not either 'digital' or 'print' only. These brands are multifunctional and designed to meet the lifestyle habits of their respective audiences by incorporating the attributes of print and the attributes of digital. The recent campaign strategy of Barack Obama is a good example. Print is a strong driver for digital and distributed correctly serves as creating strong value for the brand and thus serving as a powerful marketing tool. In practice, I developed the strategy for AutoTrader.com's Latino brand based upon these principles. This has created a dynamic user experience that directly benefits the brand, not specifically challenged by spending a fortune trying to get users to find our website. Our print product with the addition of text messaging features has transformed what many considered a dead product into the driving force for our digital growth and costs $0 for SEM. As most print media companies are dying slow painful deaths, this is a great time for those that take a more practical approach...build to meet lifestyles. There is little competition left for those that are brave enough. As long as children continue to be taught out of textbooks (and my 7 year old still is), print will continue to be a viable format for advertisers. –Alpharetta, GA

This is one of the most interesting articles I have read this year but it leaves me wanting more. As a media executive who has transitioned from print to digital, I need to know what the financials of these companies looked like before and now. Great idea but just needs that little bit more information. –Manly

In 2007, The Latino Journal closed the doors on its 2,700 sq ft offices and laid off 7 employees. We had a monthly readership of 35,000 for our print publication. In 2008, we resurfaced with an online publication by the same name. Our readership runs about 3 million per month and we publish weekly. Yet, we find many national advertisers are still skeptical, except for locals who want to compete on a national scale. –Sacramento, CA

Fair points but there has been many opportunities where Google has not been so aggressive in the past and lost to competitors in other areas. As @phuctt points out there are more markets than just the US such as BT in the UK where Microsoft can still win marketshare by being smarter. Looking at the devices that often run Windows they lack the cool factor so Microsoft need to be smarter when choosing device partners. –Brisbane

While it is true that Microsoft could have done more with VZW, I expect a fierce and healthy battle between Microsoft and Google... as well as other heavy weights - Yahoo and AOL to name a few - within the mobile advertising space. The game is far from over; it's just beginning. Expect ad dollars flow into the channel and more technology solutions rolling out in 2010 such as mobile BT and analytics to name a few. –Boston, MA

Good article. Another point is that marketers often have the best information about a topic, and there's no reason not to accept their advertorial contributions if the content provides value to the reader. –CAPE CORAL, FL

Chris, in Little Rock, I completely agree with you, though my stint was only 4 years...it's why I've tried to go it alone too, though in Asheville, NC it's even a harder nut to crack. gj www.jamesgangcreative.com –Asheville, NC

AHRL... very well said! –brooklyn, NY

In addition to the above clarification-- Many of the recommended firms are retained generalists, not the bread and butter industry specialists who really know the biz and the people after years of tracking who and what and why: Marianne Gordon, Bob Herman, Cathy Hurless (Media), etc. A "digital mapping" effort. Please. The pros in digital are in San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Denver, Austin, and NY (some, maybe, Dallas; less so in Atlanta). Such a pronouncement makes this recruiting effort appear scientific. Ummmm, not so much. It is far more of an art these days than a science. The business must push truly earnest clients to articulate what they want to do for clients or their companies; how to deal with the huge ambiguity facing clients and agencies alike as the previous silos are torn down(please?); and helping them articulate what they think "digital strategy" really is. Of utmost urgency is to identify, understand and apply the talents and aspirations of professionals who can connect the dots and have proved they can evolve. The "recovery" for which many hope, will be, instead, a "reset." Professionals who are multidimensional will be in great demand. Those clients who understand what that means and how those skills can be applied to solve their issues of thought leadership in this new, wonderful, challenging world will win. I am the first to want the "short sale" to win (I may have forgotten how to create an invoice in 2009). But the reality is--the industry I love needs to get a grip, think proactively and decide what it wants to be, whether internally for advertisers or for agencies. And it all starts with the people who can drive thought. Not the "talent," not the jargon-y stuff, but the passionate, innovative people in the biz who do it because their curiosity is piqued, their comfort zone needs to be challenged and their aspirations are to contribute and solve problems. "Fit" must be defined in future think, not "with whom I might want to share a beer." Only about 30% of the candidate pool is truly engaged professionally, whether "employed" or not in this economy. Rather than finding professionals that meet the box-checkers' requirements, maybe it is time to demand that recruiters-internal or external- look for the real best and brightest. As hiring entities-you need to articulate what that means, relative to your corporate vision. Are you up to it? –CHICAGO, IL

I must correct the "accurate" but inadequate listing provided by Ms Zmuda-- Anne H Ross Executive Search Headquarters: Chicago. Other offices: Boulder CO with representation in NYC Website: Under construction About: National industry vertical specialist for both agency and client side; innovative placement for strategic communications roles. Strategic/ account/context planning, client services, creative and senior media agency positions--digital and "analog". Also the occasional GM, CFO or COO, when the requirement is that they hail from the communications industry. Key Contact: Anne Ross, founder/owner, 773.525.7879, aross@annehross.com, http://www.linkedin.com/in/annehross Anne H Ross –CHICAGO, IL

As a sr. copywriter looking for a full-time gig, it is infuriating to see job listings with the "current ad agency experience" requirement. I guess a guy who freely quit a successful eight-year stint at a respectable regional agency to freelance for a few years is out of luck when he decides that he wants back in to the agency life. Hopefully, smart agencies and recruiters know better. And if they are reading this and looking for a sr. copywriter: http://www.apostropheadvertising.com . –Little Rock, AR

Which of these firms would you consider to be the best for a student getting out of college trying to get started in the industry? –Elon, NC

Terrific article and good news for all. For 20 steps to successful job hunting check out http://bit.ly/RtgjN –ATLANTA, GA

Glad to see there's an uptick. Can you provide a link to your full list of recruiters? –New York, NY

Well, that's a good news. We're slowly having a good economy now. Alternative financial services come under fire as being predatory, but the numbers don't work to prove it, and never have. A recent study was done on the financial services, including alternative financial services like check cashing, money orders, and payday loans, by a coordination of the University of Michigan and the Federal Reserve on low to middle income (LMI) families in the Detroit area. They found that alternative services, including payday lenders, cost less than traditional services, such as NSF fees, bank account fees, credit card fees, etc. did. That would at least lend credence to alternative financial services, including payday loans, as an innovation against traditional services that benefit from unrepentant government favoritism, such as bailouts. –San Diego, CA

Jack: So delighted to hear of the continued success of Brita. I take particular pride and interest in Brita, since our we were the first PR agency to launch Brita in Southern California in the early 90's. Interesting that at the time Brita was up against the Evian's of the world so our initial campaign was themed "Bottled water of the 90's may not be bottled water after all." Still, going up against bottled water is relevant today, but with a different bent, focusing on economy and environment. It is a credit to Clorox, and in particular to Susan, for bucking the recession, smartly. Noemi Pollack www.ppmgcorp.com –Los Angeles, CA

Subaru's success really boils down to building better cars and providing better value than its competitors. –MT VERNON, NY

Interesting that Honda of America now has its own "Love" campaign... –Seattle, WA

Congratulations Panera. Much deserved. Great food and equally nice experience every time I go there. –BOSTON, MA