It shows what you can do if you really think about who is the user. Maybe Schlitz can make it back –chicago & san f, CA

This makes me happy that PBR has become hip. My dad drank it for 50 years and we always made fun of him. When he died a few years ago, we all popped a can of PBR at his funeral and toasted him. Then you heard a collective "eewww.." from everyone ... –Winter Park, FL

If you want to try out a pair, get 15% off with this code: newbono –Chicago, IL

It is not too late. But Bing quite frankly sucks as compared to Google. And, despite the coolness of the initial ads poking fun at Google's shotgun search results, I am not impressed with the "decisions" that Bing makes at all. Google still reigns supreme. Period. MS has found itself in a new age where it actually needs to start creating good if not great products to survive. It is still such a behemoth in the industry that it doubtfully be going any where anytime soon. But, don't look now MS, but the Barbarians are at the gate! And, "People thought about search engines about as much as they thought about tapping their fingers in a meeting -- that is, not much,"... is that so?! I just can't take MS seriously. –brooklyn, NY

While is it easy to agree with the first comment that implies Bing is too late to the game, I respectfully disagree. Those same words were said about other MS products such as Office, Server, SQL Server, CRM,XBox and well the list goes on. Each has either dominated the market or has carved out a nice niche. All of the products I mentioned with the exception of XBox took evaluation, money and training to switch from what was the old standard, to the MS product. Switching your search engine doesn't require much work. I was a "I will never use anything but Google" person. I tried Bing and liked it. I haven't used Google since. My switch is purely based on my opinion but if they can get me to switch then others will too. –Miami, FL

It's interesting to note that Microsoft is trying to cut deals with computer brands that run Microsoft Windows as their operating system. Juggle the numbers a bit, and the marketing cost isn't really there. Instead of offering lower prices on the OS, a different division can offer money to "place" their search engine. Net result is they get the incumbent position without the public perception of monopoly again. If they were truly interested in buying/influencing people with the power of word-of-mouth...why are they not cutting the same deals with Apple? Or, at least mention that negotiations failed? How many novice users were/are stuck with MSN.com as a home page for years, (or still search with Microsoft) because that's how the browser was set up. Do they recommend it to their friends, or are they dumb eyeballs? Point is, the money spent on getting the incumbent search engine spot is not nearly as many millions as Microsoft claims. Call a spade a spade. –Whittier, CA

Microsoft should have entered the market a few years ago when it was still in its growth stage. Now with such an established category, and market leader google having a whooping 80% market share, any attempt to attack google as seems doomed to fail. Google promoted the category so well that its name has become generic for it- just like Scotch tape, Cleenex paper tissues or Heinz ketchup. "Let's google it". Its users are so loyal and used to their search engine that there is no need to defect. In contrast, they become blind to all other options in the category. Of course Bing's heavy marketing will lead to a boost in awareness, curiosity and initial trial. However, long-term favorable attitudes and repeat usage is another matter. Google seems to be out of reach for Bing. It seems more promising to go after their non-users, using Yahoo or Safari as a frame of reference to start with. And what exactly is Bing's point of difference anyway? Bing seems like another generic search engine. Instead, it should rather present itself as the alternative to google or seek to preempt a very focused piece of the pie- like the search engine for business topics. Francesco Wesel Integrated Marketing Communication www.francescowesel.com www.brandnewtimes.blogspot.com –Boston, MA

I have long said...The guy who staved off a future wave of angry consumers who are tired of "faked" singing and can turn it into a positive description on album liner notes ..." Featuring Auto-Tuned vocals" deserves an award. Bravo... Now I have a face to admire (or throw darts at : )) It would be as cool as promoting steroid use as a good thing in sports... but cheating would be bad...Right? Again...Bravo! –Nashville, TN

Brands are of huge economic relevance to companies. It is therefore not surprising that top managers put brand building efforts on top of their priority list of management challenges. Walmart has done a great job taking Great Value to the next level. –Mexico City

Ad Age, Why don't you do a reality TV show, where the contestants are forbidden to wear, eat, beautify, travel, compute or play with any brands - except for these ones. -- Axle Davids http://distility.com –Toronto, ON

What makes brands "hot?" What does "hot" mean anyway? The marketer and the client must have a relationship of trust if the client is to attain a hot brand. Read "The Trust Manifesto" at http://www.famefoundry.com/1085/the-trust-manifesto @FFcommunicator –charlotte, NC

Billy did a great job for us launching the Mighty brands, Mighty Putty and Mighty Mendit. Thanks Billy. –Montgomeryville, PA

Long live Billy Mays in our hearts! –Montgomeryville, PA

In an odd way, you almost have to include Billy Mays on this list— not for the products he endorsed, but the the brand he build for himself. –Glens Falls, NY

First off Jameson is the biggest liquor at Burning Man. So you have 40,000 mostly affluent drinkers downing the stuff. Then the fact is a bottle is still 30% less than single malt scotch. And then there TV advertising. Back in the day liquor was never advertised on TV and they are great ads. Now it is. And lastly they have done great marketing. The NYC Subway ads where a whole car has only Jameson inside showing off the triple distilling is brilliant. –Los Angeles, CA

but this was run past the NFL first -- HELLO, they have the same ad agency!!!! –new York, NY

Bileana, Sorry are you for following the rules and doing things responsibly? Or are you more in favor of great stunts? Regardless of the rules? -- Axle Davids –Toronto, ON

I'm all for following the rules and doing things responsibly but I think this was great marketing on Captain Morgan's part. I actually didn't see Brent Celek strike the Captain Morgan pose but I definitely heard about this little scandal from several people and now I'm hearing about it again. If people like me, who didn't even watch the game, are talking about this stunt, then I think Captain Morgan has achieved an effective marketing objective. Even though pulling off a stunt like this is a "double no- no for the NFL" and cost Captain Morgan $10,000 in charitable donations, it probably was still a lot more effective and cost efficient than traditional advertising. –Lawrence, KS

just a query, how come you don't mention (as responsible reporting) that both NFL and Cap'n Morgan are clients of GREY worldwide? –new York, NY

Congrats to Barbarian for doing its own thing. Cheil ownership would be the kiss of certain death! To wit, Barbarian at least has offices in Boston, New York, and San Francisco. Cheil's U.S. headquarters is in Ridgefield Park, NJ (wherever that is). All kidding aside, Cheil is about 30 years behind Japan's Dentsu and Hakuhodo in America, who are only now finally finding their footing in this market. When North and South Korea finally reunite, look for Cheil to make a mark in the U.S. beyond Samsung. LOL. bcrandallnyc@aol.com –East Rockaway, NY

Rich, great summary of a wild 2 days - but want to clarify that the statement that you attribute to me was actually made by WEGO Health Activist Megan; it's a verbatim from research we did with over 160 of our unique community of health social media consumer opinion leaders. That said, Megan echoed what we've heard from our health social media power users: "we understand monitoring is a burden for companies, but we want them in the conversation - and we believe they have the resources to get this done if FDA helps with clarified guidance." We were proud to bring the voice of our community to these 2 days - and we have much more data for anyone that's interested. –Boston, MA

This is one of the better articles I've read on the current state of marketing and practical situations. –MERIDIAN, ID

Thanks! –TORONTO, ON

Smart that permission to fail can make you fearless. Give it a try! –BRONXVILLE, NY

Well captured and distilled reporting. RR –NYC, NY

It would be interesting if it was FUNNY. It would be a lot funnier if the show took aim at modern racism, instead of featuring one. –Oceanside, CA

I agree completely with your review , it's the same message every comic gets told after their show gets canceled " be yourself ". TBS is trying to compete with Comedy Central and it has been slapping together shows with talent they find that seems to have a voice , then they construct a show that completely changes the "voice" they thought would get herd . George had a similar problem with his sitcom , the first season was so tame and safe it was like a really bad version of Everybody Loves Raymundo . The second season they wen't in the other direction and put in all the edge that made the show very watchable and at times very funny . Lopez tonight is like an empowerment seminar and he is a motivational speaker that just wants you to like him .The show can go as far into the cable waters as it wants and take aim at anything , comedy and hugs aren't funny . Lopez tonight needs to stop clapping like a Richard Simmons support group and start slap fighting and blow some stop signs . TBS , is timid and plays to every demographic which is a perfect way to make sure none of them watch a show , that is not "very funny " . –beverly hills, CA

I appreciate your fair review and it seems like you watched more than 20 minutes of it before spouting out random idiocy about the show (unlike your hispanic colleague), even if you were a bit perjudging due to the commercials. But I agree, give him a few more weeks. I also think it is the producers fault about some of the weird segments that they put together for him, like that freaky girl bit last night, that was just too over the edge for me. They either need to find better writers or better producers or both. He did seem a bit nervous at first (and who wouldn't when there is so much pressure on him being the "first") but I think he is getting a bit better. He is after all a stand up comic / tv show actor and not an interviewer so I can forgive him if he stumbles a bit here and there with his guests... –Plano, TX

Have your heard about "The Smart Phone Diet?" –West Orange, NJ

Considering that the Pharm industry has been involved in more scandal in the past fifteen years than it has in the entire history of the industry, they have a right to be terrified. For the first time people can discuss this stuff amongst themselves knowing that the drug companies cannot interject any spin into the conversation legally. This is a good thing and I'll tell you why; simply put, for-profit companies cannot be trusted to tell the truth about their products and our government cannot be trusted to keep them honest as long as they continue to accept money from special interests. The internet has helped tons of people get information out that would have never come to light unless the freedom from "offical" representatives was there. I for one wish to keep it that way until regulation is in place to make it criminally illegal for them to publish lies like they have been for years. Think you can trust the drug companies? Take a look at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/11/business/blood-money-aids-hemophiliacs-are-split-liability-cases-bogged-down-disputes.html?sec=health&&n=Top%2fNews%2fHealth%2fDiseases%2c%20Conditions%2c%20and%20Health%20Topics%2fAIDS I can post a ton of links just like that one from major news articles discussing the dishonesty and sheer evil aspects of the drug industry and now you encourage the FDA to let them engage in spinning attempts where people are discussing this information? Dude the more I read your site the more I realize your an elitist. I'm not trying to insult you but you would have to be a fool not to know just how much influence advertising has on the masses and yet advertising is still not being regulated and forced to be responsible! –Dallas, NC

Transformation is what marketing needs, not yet more special pleading. As the CMO of P&G said, "today's marketing model is broken". 1. We could pay off the national debt with the money marketing wastes (see survey running on LinkedIn) 2. Are marketeers dealing with this issue, investing in becoming faster, leaner and better? No they want to "market themselves" 3. Marketing has become the most reviled function in business today, because of its self-serving aggrandising hype. 4. Business School marketing puts too much emphasis on "strategy" (or slogan writing to give it its correct description). The syllabus needs to change. Most MBA students don't want to go into marketing, after what they hear. 5. Strategy is not the issue. Operationally, marketing is slow, expensive, unaccountable and slippery. Some marketers (e.g. P&G, Unilever) recognise these issues and deal with them. Transforming marketing won't be a load of fun, so some marketers won't do it, but for those that do, marketing will regain its former glory. –London, IL

I've been humbled by this thread, and the outpouring of ideas and debate on this topic, not to mention the dozens of emails I've received at home and at work! My intention is very simple -- to shift the conversation about marketing from service provider to growth leader -- as best one man can. I have my marketing heroes, and revere those brands that do it right. But in my experience, I've seen too many organizations relegate marketing to the "kids table" and treat brand-building like a fad diet -- expecting unrealistic results overnight. Sure, marketing has done a lot of this to itself. And too many marketers are afraid and unskilled at the left-brain conversations. But I'm taking a stand for marketing! I believe marketing minds are best equipped to lead the future of business ingenuity, and to create the original new consumer-centered ideas that can change the trajectory of brands. –Durham, NC

Man, I've loved this thread! Great perspectives, passion laid bare. Here's to more like this! -- Axle –Toronto, ON

The following comments are directed at Mike McDonald. In reading your "editorial" to the author of this article, I found myself a bit taken back by your assertions. I have been in this business for 20 years, so I feel like I have some grounds to make these comments. While thoughtful, it seems like your response sounded like you were pitching to your client the value of your agency - like a buch of intellectual hocus-pokus. I've experienced it, and done it myself. When there's doubt about your value, there is an issue. I think that's all the author was trying to get across...that we've lost our way in what the true meaning of STRATEGIC marketing really is. Your "editorial" seemed more like a whining diatribe. Too many of us in this business think we're too darn smart for our own good, and clients will never be able to match our "intelligence". Marketing is hard work, and takes alot of non-glamourous and most often non-praised work. Most people don't like that - if they can't do the thought work, pretty ads are dazzling, etc. Do the hard work, make the hard decisions, take responsibility for the results, and move on - if you or your organization are good - you will be rewarded. –San Antonio, YX

Oh, and PS... super self promotion alert... bengin.tv –MERIDIAN, ID

Good stuff. Marketing rules. –MERIDIAN, ID

Hm, well as a veteran of the industry with a different, but similar 'war stories' to tell, I have to say I like the 'mash-up' of both Jeff and Mike's points! Both contributions add up to say that marketing/advertising is both alive and well, and facing some formidable challenges in looking forward. I think the underlying value in this discussion is not in the details, but in the bigger picture. Mike, your points are well-taken, but defending the current relevancy of marketing, while we're in a real 'ice age' during which almost a century of 'push' strategy (and tactics) are going extinct and 'pull' is still evolving, with a great deal of pain and experimentation, is kind of counter-productive. To Jeff's central premise, what's needed today is for the industry to embrace change and a deep strategic shift -- a simple, small shift, theoretically, but a challenging one nonetheless, as it means change from the very starting point of marketing planning/strategizing on up. What's most interesting is that another article running at the same time on AdAge: "P&G, Walmart, Unilever, General Mills Are Major Marketers on a Mission -- From 'We Save You Money' to 'We Nourish Lives,' Giants Make Some Big Statements", suggests that a confluence of strategic trends have finally taken hold. An integration, by the most forward-thinking marketers, of: • Cause-related core 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. The best article-writers challenge assumptions and provoke innovation. It seems like Jeff accomplished this goal, and I have to say his core premise seems timely, given that, as an industry, we're about to kill (or damage the credibility of, which is just as devastating) the biggest 'Golden Goose' we've seen in 100 years, "social media" and the formerly unbiased consumer reports we were privy to there. For more on the approaching death of social media credibility: http://tinyurl.com/yhqvsmf –Toronto, ON

Jeff, Excellent points. Marketing could well be the most misunderstood business function, even by marketers themselves. I wonder if much of the confusion derives from definition and operationalization. Regarding definition, if marketing is everything -- strategy, finance, innovation, "responsible for growth," etc. -- then what isn't it? By defining marketing so broadly, we risk losing any distinction of form or purpose. I respect Zyman as well, but his definition is like the classic definition of a corporation: "create shareholder value." Of course, but I think we have to be more specific. I think that the classic "four P's" definition is a good one, but even under that more bounded definition, you rightly point out that marketing has been relegated to what I call the "promotion ghetto," i.e., marketing communications. Increasingly, those who wear the title of "marketing" don't have much say in price, placement and product. I think we should reassert those aspects of marketing in just those terms. Operationally, the marketing function finds itself increasingly lost or misplaced. Should it operate under a CMO, a VP of Sales, as part of a shared services organization, doled out to geographic business units, or, as implied by the Business Week article, simply non-existent as an organizational unit? It's as if marketing is being sublimated into the "higher" business functions of "product development," "customer relationship management," "consumer insights" or some new buzzword heralded in the business press. It's essence is there but it no longer exists in any substantial or real form. As a once, and possibly future, marketer, I know that we have brought many of our troubles on ourselves. And the only way out of it is to reform ourselves. Marketers must have a solid business core, either through a MBA program or rigorous non-marketing experience. Too many business people just don't trust marketers to do anything beyond communications. If we want to determine price, then we'd damn well better know our numbers. If we want to drive product decisions, then we need to understand not just what customers say they want but how they they actually behave, what drives a purchase, and the underlying technologies and economics of the product line. If we want a seat at the placement table, then we should be able to demonstrate why a 60/40 indirect/direct sales model is optimal, and what potential consequences are of any proposed change to that mix. A deep understanding of product, price and placement will then determine how to best to promote (which may or may not result in a Super Bowl ad...). I'm sure the people you mention in your article have this understanding, as I know you do. Keep up the good fight, man. And encourage all marketers to model the expertise they would like to wield in their business. –Landenberg, PA

Marketing is not advertising. Thank you Jeff for saying what needs to be heard. www.twitter.com/derekchen14 –San Francisco, CA

There is fear and loathing in Atlanta. I can identify with all sides of the argument. I'm a believer in marketing. Broadly defined it is at the confluence of innovation, leadership and communication. Growth cannot happen without it. But I also despise it and regret that I spent three years of my life marketing Pepsi, an evil concoction of corn syrup, carbon dioxide and caffeine to kids who would otherwise be healthier. Tom Beakbane beakbane.com –TORONTO, ON

Great article. In fact, one of the best I've read in Ad Age all year. Mr. McDonald, you lost all credibility when you repeatedly addressed Mr. Jones from "McKinsey" instead of McKinney. –Calgary, AB

Nothing has changed really. Marketing was misunderstood and still is misunderstood. With the convergence of media and technologies, the confusion becomes even more. In the digital era, Marketing is being perceived mostly as only the last part of the cycle, promoting/visibilty of the product/service towards target groups, not the initial/middle steps in the cycle. Short term as well long term planning is essential to CMO's, the digital world forces accountability because it can, quick wins are important, but the digital world evolves fast, enhancing current strategies to new ones is just as important. It only gets tougher and more challeging. Gianluigi Cuccureddu, CMO www.agoramedia.co.uk www.agoramedia.co.uk/blog –London, UK, NY

PS Amazon is one of the best marketers, and by far the best retailer not only for the reasons above but also because Bezos is, by his own admission (and it shows), obsessed with CUSTOMERS! –Atlanta, GA

Interesting discussion between Jeff and Mike and some very good points on both sides which are not at all mutually exclusive. CMOs have indeed missed the accountability to drive growth. While the recession makes growth a relative term (as most of marketing is relative...including spend, distribution and price), it hasn't been the bastion of marketers, and that is a shame. Going forward CMOs need not only additional leadership and political (i.e., consensus building) skills, as Jeff rightly suggests, but they also need to be able to think like CFOs and, most important, customers. Phil Rubin rDialogue Atlanta www.rdialogue.com www.twitter.com/phil_rubin –Atlanta, GA

Hopefully now you've learned your lesson about getting marketing insights from BusinessWeek (who is probably putting together an article "Twitter is Hot" as we speak). And I agree with another commenter - seeing Zyman quoted, I had to rush for the bathroom. Not sure if it was you or BizWeak who got it wrong, but Amazon didn't exactly build its business the way you claimed. Go check its Income Statement (SEC doc, readily available) since its formation. It spent disproportionately on "ads" and other marketing for its first 7 years, helping to keep the company net-income-negative all that time. Since then, of course, once the brand was built, it has never looked back. PS Strangest headline of 2009. Kevin Horne - NYC –New York, NY

Jeff, good thoughts. Come on over to our offices at CMG Partners and I can share some of the insights from the 60+ CMO conversations we have and summarize how the CMO role is changing to require transformational enterprise-wide leadership. Free report at http://bit.ly/diDSV –Durham, NC

Mike, Glad my thoughts provoked yours - thanks for the feedback! Let's talk anytime -- you can reach me at McKinney in Durham, North Carolina. 919.313.0802. Best, Jeff –Durham, NC

(As I was saying)....would deign to hold up to us as an uber marketing expert? Selling more stuff such as a 20 oz single serving of Coke may, in the long haul, be harmful to the drinker and the seller. Same with more of the time, if it results in caffeine and sugar dependency. And at higher prices, this too may be short term thinking, not enlightened marketing, especially in a down economy when high pricing opens doors to competitive alternatives and/or private labels. Per capita consumption of Coca-Cola has been on a long-term decline. Do you think there may be a correlation with these "drive growth at all costs and beat the prior comparables" objectives? All three of these tactics cum strategies once championed by Zyman may ultimately rival New Coke as wrong-headed marketing fiascos in the 21st century. In my book, advertising is a component of the marketing mix and it is misleading and disingenuous to simplistically say "Marketing isn't Advertising". And where is it written, other than by you, that "by 'brand', most people really mean advertising". This and other straw men that you have conjured up must be Halloween leftovers. Most of the rest is tired bromides and gratuitous non-starters such as "forget the ads for a minute", "universities, make marketing relevant again" ... Relevant again? I'll bet there are a ton of kids on any campus who wouldn't jump at a chance to be in marketing. How dare you say that marketing has ever been not relevant. What the hell do you think great companies like McDonalds and IKEA, both of whom I have worked with for many years, are doing? As well as the Harvard Business School where I am an alumnus. You list a cast of business stars that may be recognized in most everyone's galaxy, if not mine. One star did catch my eye, the guy who fired BBDO after all they did to put Pepsi on the moon and then hired Arnell to virtually destroy the Pepsi brand lineup with sophomoric, ugly packaging and also did the same to Tropicana and Gatorade and other PepsiCo brands. And you, Mr. Jones, after all of the above have the audacity to pose as a self-proclaimed expert and commentator on the marketing scene? Paraphrasing George Carlin, what you have written is bullsh*t and it's not good for marketing. Mike McDonald, Co-founder, McDonald & Little, Atlanta –Atlanta, GA

I decided to jump the gun and share my notes on my rebuttal to Mr. Jones' observations before receiving any response to my challenge. Notes for debate with J. Jones of McKinsey We don't stand on the verge of economic recovery. Just look at your personal balance sheet, or that of most of us, and its prospects, as well as those of every major engine of the US corporate economy. Brands do have somewhere to go and sadly, it's more likely to be down than up. Marketing is filling customer needs. And today customers need less. And can't afford more. If there is no market, e.g., real estate, no amount of marketing can create one. Marketing is not a magic potion that defies reality. Growth is not always a given. Many of the nostrums of the past fifty years are now recognized as hokum. Along the way we have moved from the roaring nineties to dot com busts or dot bombs, as you would say, to the current witchcraft of digitalitis. At great agencies, the last thing they did was to create great ads. The first thing was to only work for clients who had a sound and differentiateable business model, paid on time and who believed in the power of the marketing mix: Product, Price, Place and Promotion ... the verities, the 4 Ps. Next, came the hardest part, developing strategy. Making great ads was never easy; it was impossible without a great client. Marketing per se, doesn't drive growth, the entire enterprise drives growth when there is a market and there is a compelling competitive advantage. To glibly say: "Why it's time to restore Marketing's credibility by driving growth" is shallow and frankly dangerous. Amazon is one of the greatest companies in the world and I doubt that it is a McKinsey client. It has a unique and virtually bulletproof business model and as a heavy-user customer, I have long been in awe of its marketing acumen and its ability to meet and exceed customer expectations. Last time I checked, product was part of the marketing mix and distribution was part of logistics, neither having primacy. Who said Marketing isn't Advertising? "Sergio Zyman?" He, who once or twice, in sojourns at Coca-Cola, who "used to teach us that the role of marketing is to sell more stuff, to more people, more of the time at higher prices". Really. Teach would be the last word that I would choose to describe the antics of Sergio that I personally witnessed during a mercifully minor part in my career of over fifty years of involvement with The Coca-Cola Company, starting in 1956 when McCann got the worldwide Coke account and including when McDonald & Little was agency of record for Fresca, Hi-C and mello yello. The 25th anniversary of New Coke, the greatest marketing fiasco of the twentieth century, spearheaded by the Ayah Cola Zyman, will occur in April 2010. And this character is the exemplar that you, Mr. Jones, would deign to –Atlanta, GA

I decided to jump the gun and share my notes on my rebuttal to Mr. Jones' observations before receiving any response to my challenge. Notes for debate with J. Jones of McKinsey We don't stand on the verge of economic recovery. Just look at your personal balance sheet, or that of most of us, and its prospects, as well as those of every major engine of the US corporate economy. Brands do have somewhere to go and sadly, it's more likely to be down than up. Marketing is filling customer needs. And today customers need less. And can't afford more. If there is no market, e.g., real estate, no amount of marketing can create one. Marketing is not a magic potion that defies reality. Growth is not always a given. Many of the nostrums of the past fifty years are now recognized as hokum. Along the way we have moved from the roaring nineties to dot com busts or dot bombs, as you would say, to the current witchcraft of digitalitis. At great agencies, the last thing they did was to create great ads. The first thing was to only work for clients who had a sound and differentiateable business model, paid on time and who believed in the power of the marketing mix: Product, Price, Place and Promotion ... the verities, the 4 Ps. Next, came the hardest part, developing strategy. Making great ads was never easy; it was impossible without a great client. Marketing per se, doesn't drive growth, the entire enterprise drives growth when there is a market and there is a compelling competitive advantage. To glibly say: "Why it's time to restore Marketing's credibility by driving growth" is shallow and frankly dangerous. Amazon is one of the greatest companies in the world and I doubt that it is a McKinsey client. It has a unique and virtually bulletproof business model and as a heavy-user customer, I have long been in awe of its marketing acumen and its ability to meet and exceed customer expectations. Last time I checked, product was part of the marketing mix and distribution was part of logistics, neither having primacy. Who said Marketing isn't Advertising? "Sergio Zyman?" He, who once or twice, in sojourns at Coca-Cola, who "used to teach us that the role of marketing is to sell more stuff, to more people, more of the time at higher prices". Really. Teach would be the last word that I would choose to describe the antics of Sergio that I personally witnessed during a mercifully minor part in my career of over fifty years of involvement with The Coca-Cola Company, starting in 1956 when McCann got the worldwide Coke account and including when McDonald & Little was agency of record for Fresca, Hi-C and mello yello. The 25th anniversary of New Coke, the greatest marketing fiasco of the twentieth century, spearheaded by the Ayah Cola Zyman, will occur in April 2010. And this character is the exemplar that you, Mr. Jones, would deign to –Atlanta, GA

Jeff: I'd like to take you on head-to-head, mano a mano and line- by-line on your proposition, with which I couldn't disagree more. How do we get it on? Mike McDonald Co-founder, McDonald & Little, Atlanta –Atlanta, GA

Jeff, Thank you and amen sir. Never has true marketing been so confused with advertising, with communications, with branding - nor has it ever been so undervalued. Strategy is paramount; all other things should follow. Thanks so much. –05401, VT

Good article Jeff - helpful reminders - Ad additional thought - HR - you can't build a culture through process and rules - Great brands brand from the inside out and the CMO can and should help create a company's culture that results in brands that delight consumers and drive value for all stakeholders. Consumers want authenticity in the brands and products they choose - this has to start from inside - shared passion and belief in a company culture is what will create the best consumer experiences. HR and the CMO are key partners in creating sustainable advantaged cultures in their organizations. –SAN FRANCISCO, CA

I've been following this debate for a while now and am staggered by some of the things that are being said. A couple of points: - It is everybody's job to maximise shareholder value. ROI calculations (yes, even for creative spend) are key to that. - Making multi-million pound investments based on good, solid data is good practice. Making such decisions without such information is, well, negligence. - C-level marketing folk in the business are working with procurement to drive down cost (with the full support of the CEO). They are happy with this because the money saved isn't always passed to the bottom line - often it stays in the business function and is reinvested, ie, more marketing dollars to spend. - This isn't going to go away. Procurement is growing in strategic importance all the time. Agencies - indeed all suppliers - should recognise this, adapt and improve as a result. http://blog.procurementleaders.com/procurement-blog/2009/11/18/advertising-agencies-have-to-grow-up-and-quick.html –London, NY

As a Supply Chain Management senior at a university that has arguably the best procurement program in the nation, I have yet to learn how to best procure innovation. Moreover, most professionals who have extensive experience in procurement roles do not know how to source innovation. When speaking with a Senior Procurement Manager from General Mills, he informed me that innovation in suppliers is a key characteristic the company looks for, but has a hard time measuring. A common metric used to measure supplier innovation includes the number of new products launched per year. Other metrics are similar, and most of these metrics have a hard time (1) accurately evaluating a supplier and (2) predicting the likelihood of success for the client. Advertising and marketing have soft qualities that most procurement agents don't know how to gauge--at least not yet. Though it is becoming increasingly popular for people in the procurement function to have marketing backgrounds, many procurement agents solely focus on data. But there is no PPI for an advergame developer; there is no process kaizen measurement for drafting a creative brief. The service quality can not be determined by the NORMSINV function in excel. Simply, Supply Chain folks are not yet ready to take on the procurement role for marketing. A seasoned (and incredibly intimidating) negotiator from Intel even admitted that he overpaid for ad space despite all the research he conducted. Additionally, it is a common practice for companies to outsource the procurement of direct materials and labor to a third party consultant like Li & Fung with good cause. It's a little strange that a client would hand over the procurement of direct materials and labor--something its procurement team should be experts on--, but won't let agencies procure indirect materials and services. –New York, NY

I think that you agency folk are all chasing your tails. In my experience I have found that marketers are legislated by their boards to use the Procurement to negotiate fees. It is not their choice. Agency compliants cause resentment with the marketing group, as they are being squeezed between two "partners". It is a no win situation for them and they must comply with their company's policy. They are not going to fight this battle for you. I'm not sure there is an answer for agencies but you have gotten yourself into this predicament and should not punish your clients for it. Your best bet is to hire professional negotiators to represent you with Procurement. Linda Fidelman ADvice & ADvisors, Inc. New York –New York, NY

Michael, above, echos the common perception of most people out there, that creative agencies should just learn how to compete for reasonable compensation. Like most people, he fails to acknowledge (because like most people he's convinced he's just as creative as those odd-balls at the ad agencies), that those 'Creative Specialists' actually can do something that most people cannot. Working with strategically astute teammates both in-house and client-side, agencies (the better ones) develop media-neutral marketing efforts that build brands out of mere products. That's worth something. Actually, it is almost incalculably valuable -- the difference between carrying a Zune and an iPod. The difference between soapy stuff in a bottle and Pantene's global sales results. It is something that sometime soon the smarter (and visionary) clients will begin to acknowledge by transforming the compensation business model from commission-based, to break-even retainer + revenue-sharing-based. This shift will be accelerated as the more astute agencies begin to acknowledge that they've been 'giving away' their sales-driving, brand-creating IP for the sake of a steady salary. Forget the Cleos, Lions and BMW leases and share the risk/reward like your clients do: accept lower salaries but demand really big bonuses. From one of my posts on the subject: "Trimming the fat from your golden geese will kill their value. "That's the underlying insight for clients, here. When the aggressive, strategically-creative, entrepreneurial types out there who create and run the world's most creative and leading-edge businesses lose the opportunity to "strike it rich," they abandon that pursuit, to the detriment of their clients' brands (and go to work in the 'creative financial sector'). "Sure, clients should look for ways to cut costs, for 'efficiencies', but they need to keep in mind that there are some high-margin supply businesses that, strategically, should be coddled and nurtured, not cut to the bone. (Yes, their principals drive new Porsches and vacation in Patagonia -- that's called "a cost of doing business" -- a small price to pay for captivating and motivating marketing efforts.)" More at: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yak7zbt –Toronto, ON

Jonah Boom? Nice knowing you Hoag. –Calgary, AB

Commodization of the creative process is basically saying "ideas don't count". I have seen time-and-time again that strategically brilliant ideas (which come at a fraction of the cost of the media placement) can make the media placement cost much more cost effective. As the speaker pointed out, a significant reduction in agency margins did not materially increase advertiser margins. I once had a client that decided to cut our commission rate from the standard 15% of billings to 10%. Thay said it was only a 5% reduction in our income. My reply was it was a 5% savings to the client and a 33.3% reduction in our income. This made it increasingly difficult to staff their account in the manner to which they had grown accustomed to expect. I think there needs to be more accountability and I am a big proponent of marketing ROI. The issue is "value", which is "what I get for what I paid", not simply "what I paid." Or, as the expression went: "If you want fresh, clean oats, they come at one price. If your willing to buy oats that have already been through the horse before, that can be had at lower cost." Charlie Larson Indianapolis, IN larsonassoc@earthlink.net –INDIANAPOLIS, IN

I also find it interesting that the marketing mavens are complaining about having to actually market their services and benefits to non-marketing people. Isn't that what marketing is all about??? –Point Pleasant, NJ

I fail to see why a purchaser of a service or product should not be using whatever strategies will result in their reduction of cost of goods. If they will receive a benefit from paying more then it is the supplier's job to inform them of such and then permit the client to decide if the cost is justified. –Point Pleasant, NJ

Walmart did a nice job of promoting the game to this year. Check out there landing page http://connect.walmart.com/mw2/ –rogers, AR

I sincerely hope a quick decision can be made so that the pharma industry can start kinking in the much needed dollars into interactive & social marketing. Rajiv http://www.interaktco.com –New York, NY

PhRMA should specifically NOT be allowed to use short-form communications. It is simply not in the public interest to truncate or transfer the details and risks of pharmaceuticals. Besides, the last thing we should want is for drug manufacturers to further bypass prescribing doctors. It is the doctors who need to have the "conversations" with patients that social media enable. Medical information should never be shorthanded, and that's what PhRMA is asking the government to allow. It surely sucks for their marketing departments to have their hands tied regarding DTC advertising, but that's the nature of their business. (And rightly so.) Also to note, DTC "awareness" communications aren't required to include detailed risks, since they don't mention a particular drug. So PhRMA already has a way to market around this, albeit at a category and not a product level. –AUSTIN, TX

With the increased competitive nature of the industry with all these fake/cheap versions of branded drugs being sold online, only the big Pharma companies have the budgets to compete.... There are issues around big Pharma targeting health benefits and generic terms but agree that there needs to be clarification around what they can or can't do in social media to influence and promote. –Brisbane

I agree with iwonder, regulatory needs to keep up. –New Berlin, NY

thankfully the First Amendment is not in Igjaffe's hands. The presentation of risks and benefits to pharmaceutical medications is both required and prudent. But that's not the real point. The area of concern is that our regulatory framework (broadly-speaking, not just in healthcare) is not up to handling the evolution of the marketing environment in which customers engage, consume, share, and act. The concern is that this government will try to change the marketing environment instead of update the regulatory framework. –NEW YORK, NY

Big Pharma should not be allowed to peddle their products on social media or any media. A person can go to the doctor if they want to find out about them. Media is ridiculous with big pharma ads full of deceit - with side effects worse than the "disease" they are supposed to cure. Some of these products they promote are so harmful and should be banned altogether. I do not want to see any more of their ads claiming to cure when they do not. –Clearwater, FL

Why should they complain about losing a dime on a burger when they are making way more than that on each soft drink they sell, especially at the drive-thru. There can't be a quarter's worth of product in a $1.99 drink. It's called a loss leader. –Roanoke, VA

Crispin? any comments? –New York, NY

This issue relates to the math of the offer, Burger King following its own franchise agreements, and the ability of Burger King to deliver multiple marketing messages. Burger King as a publicly traded company is influenced by stock price, comp sales(which the business press WAY over weights) and sales (it gets royalties based on sales). Burger King franchisees twice voted down this offer, and we were surprised to then see it rolled out nationally in October. Did the franchisees shift position? Promotions involving big discounts and big portions of the product mix often need a 5-10% traffic increase just to get back to gross margin breakeven, let alone pay for the incremental marketing. A key goal of any discounted offer is that customers will trade up or buy more add on items when in the store. But the marketing and instore POP/execution must promote that tradeup. Finally, burger wars or new burger offers are underway everywhere you go this fall (Wendy's, Carl's, Hardee's, McDonald's, etc) and BK's media weights get drowned out. Could BK have anticipated what the competitors were doing? When you have a system that is 90% franchised, you simply have to build marketing and economics systems that support the survival and growth of franchisees. John A. Gordon Chain Restaurant Earnings and Economics Experts www.pacificmanagementconsultinggroup.com –San Diego, CA

Sounds as if The King has become a tyrant Sic semper tyrannis? –New York, NY

Seems a $1 offer in the middle of Chicago or New York costs the franchisee more than it does in Dubuque or Sioux Falls. Unwise ruling by the Circuit Court. –New York, NY

I'm sure they never considered the metrics...and customers (esp. the heavy users) walking away from lower prices in a bad economy...huh? –Cleveland, OH

What are the metrics on the $1 Double Cheeseburger? How much does it cost to produce, how much is being lost, and how much incremental business does the offer deliver to offset the loss? It's certain the metrics vary by region and market. That's why it's common practice for pricing communication to remain predominantly regional. National media, which is a cheaper reach, pushing a loss leader price saves media dollars, but it also makes Burger King look a little desperate. And this lawsuit only legitimizes that sentiment as "operators say they can't afford" the program. Even when customers are looking for values, the majority aren't looking for a desperate restaurant to serve them their next meal. Franchisee / corporate battles are prevalent in the industry. That's why resolution policies that keep key critical issues out of public forums are imperative to keep competitors from capitalizing on disagreements and customers from walking away. Rodney Mason, CMO www.moosylvania.com www.twitter.com/rodmoose –FRISCO, TX

Good article. I appreciate the point about making threesomes taboo, but do we want to put these examples in front of teens and younger kids? They learn from what they see on TV. While they might hear about threesomes from friends, putting it on the screen makes it credible and salient, especially for young hormonals. Not to mention that when it comes right down to it, CW is attracting teens by hyping sexual content in its programming. Adults = not a problem. Teens = a bit exploitive. –ATHENS, GA

Hmmmm...making things taboo only creates the urge in teens seek whatever it is out and do it. Reminds me of Soviet Russia trying to deaden the Beatles Mania. It just created more of it. –CHICAGO, IL

Lincoln Stephens is inspiring and pushing boundaries. I think the key to what Lincoln is doing, is how he is shifting the advertising pipeline. The social pipeline in all aspects of our society is lacking diversity. Whether it is gender, ethnicity or race, persons with diverse backgrounds continue to be deprived of the opportunities whites receive. I am not sure if our society needs more motion pictures with African-Americans in leadership positions in the media world or if it's the responsibility of the individual to take the initiative to diversify the pipeline? I have not met Lincoln, but I agree with Derek that it's obvious Lincoln is more action than talk. Action will help change our problems and I think, if anything, we can be inspired by what Lincoln has done and is doing. Sammy Greenberg University of Kansas –Lawrence, KS

I have met and talked with Lincoln, and I can say for a fact that he is more action than talk. His energy, vision and passion is exactly what the minority recruitment effort needs. Hopefully, those milking this issue for their own gain will take notice and step up. He is doing more than individuals who are backed by both the industry organizations and large agencies. Shame on them. Hopefully, the Adcolor "Army" will find its way to Dallas to give him support. This young man deserves our support and encouragement. Great job Lincoln!! –Grand Prairie, TX

After Watching this on adage what would motivate general market agencies who have nothing to gain finacially by investing in the marcus grapham project and another diversity program? We all know about the census, and the value of bringing different cultures or different voices to the table. All these white agencies/GM agencies care about is holding on to the power and money and holding onto their comfort zone as long as they can. They have money power but they are lacking a human conscience. If minorities are setting trends and understand multicultural markets why aren't they being given a seat at the table? Every agency should be giving lincoln stephens a call.The marcus gragham project should be modeled at every agency that cant find diversity. Enough is enough, these gm agencies need a change, hopefully this will be a spark to those who say they cant find talent. Watching these agencies hold back on diversity is like watching a fat kid drink a gallon of apple juice and go the hold day without using the bathroom. Its only so long before these agencies wet themselves for the world to see and it will be embarrassing. How long do these agencies can hold out for? The bathroom is right around the corner, but its pride that's holding them back. Hopefully ad agencies that adapt will see the long term benefits of partnering with programs like the MG Project. Its not about money anymore its about doing the right thing! –insider

Lincoln is off to a great start. This will help to infuse the industry with even more bright lights that mirror his own brilliance. More importantly young viable promises of humanity will be able to access their own potential and actualize their fruition. It's amazing what can be done through the most sincere of efforts and a disregard for perceived limitations. We could all learn a thing or two from Lincoln. –Atlanta, GA