Hmm, this step is seriously important in today's internet market. I do believe Murdoch-person importance in all markets will make same king of noticeable impact in between big players' and google relations. http://www.amcarguide.com/ –Vilnius, VI

I might not like Mrs. Murdoch's politics, and I might think she is pretty heinous as a person, but she is a kick butt businesswoman! With 22% of all browsers able to block all Ads including Google paid search positioning, and the weak digital performance for online advertising I doubt this move will affect News Corps revenues or site traffic. Most News Corp's web properties get bookmarked and visited directly. And since most properties are name brands they don't need to advertise because everyone knows the url to type in if needed. –Los Angeles, CA

@ jay_miletsky "I'd rather have 1,000 visitors who genuinely want to read my site and that my advertisers want to reach, rather than 3,000 passers-by who really have no vested interest in my content." I totally agree with this statement, however that's exactly what Search Marketing does. As long as your campaigns (PPC and SEO) are properly targeted, only people with 'genuine interest' will see your site. Can fully understand concentrating efforts on one medium/ distribution channel, but why Bing? Could this be more a political move than an astute business decision? –Dublin, -

When I started at SportsLine.com many moons ago, all the content was behind a paywall. Daily visits were probably listed in the hundreds, if that. When we got rid of the paywall the visitor count exploded, eventually reaching dozens of millions of visitors a day, sometimes more. Moral of the story, in my opinion, is that content is everywhere. If you want people to read yours make it available. Otherwise they'll find it somewhere else. David Kaplan www.DROL.com –HAWTHORN WOODS, IL

Stevie Ballmer is both a fool and a foil in this supposed alliance. He is a fool to think that he can buy up a truly critical mass of media content. The MSFT treasury, already greatly diminished because of his other follies will be further eroded while his core software hegemony crumbles day by day. He is a foil for the tough, smart Aussie who has nothing to lose and everything to gain by hanging tough on the principle that only fools give the store away. Mike McDonald Co-founder, McDonald & Little, Atlanta –Atlanta, GA

Traffic you can't monetize actually costs you money. Publishers will need many revenue streams to be profitable. But why limit themselves to one or two models. Offering users "many ways to pay" leaves no money on the table. See the model at http://www.PayCheckr.com –Westport, CT

Rupert Murdoch can live without Google. And he has nothing much to lose by tilting at Sergey and Larry's windmills. But, none of this is the same thing as having a viable business. We live in an era of rampant media oversupply. And, the most oversupplied and commoditized niche is news. I'm all for trying something crazy if what "makes sense" has been proven not to work. But, right now on news.google.com there are 1,666 articles about the top story. With 1,665 free options, why should anyone choose the one they must pay for? That is the question Murdoch must answer in order to make his idea work. –White Plains, NY

I can't believe I agree with Rupert Murdoch. –Bristol, VA

@dsrtrosy: I actually think that's a great question. I'm not sure why, all other points being accepted as true, Bing would be considered the better choice. I'm going to have to meditate on that for a bit... @Kevin: Good points. I could likely be swayed by your points on Google as a driver of relevant traffic, and that the benefit of a more focused audience won't necessarily be achieved by shunning the search giant. But I think we may have to let history determine whether or not closing off content to subscribers will end up being successful. Murdoch hasn't (to my knowledge) said how he's going to do it, and if he expects people to subscribe to each site on an individual basis then the experiment will certainly be DOA. However, if he packages them together and provide access to all sites for a single price ($X per month for access to WSJ, NY Post, Fox News, etc.) then that's a different story. In that case, I believe consumers who do value more professionally developed content will be willing to pay the fee, and advertisers will be willing to pay a premium for less transient viewers. Jason Miletsky –totowa, NJ

I think Murdoch is trying to change quite a bit by this move. He does understand that not all traffic is the same. Google makes money by delivering ads that meet the searchers objectives. They work hard to keep them relevant. Without that CTR and ROI is not what it needs to be and people stop using the service. So Murdoch is going to try a different approach to see if he can increase his ROI. He may also be using it to bolster Bing against Google. While Bing may not have the best search engine, they are clearly #2 especially when they take over Yahoo's search. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I don't think any of use conclusively know what will happen. He may execute extremely well and change the model or he may fail. The good thing is he is willing to try something to keep his company profitably and relevant. Scott http://www.AskTheWealthSquad.com/SimpleBlog http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottlovingood –Riceville, TN

Jason, I agree and disagree I think that you and Murdoch are both right when it comes to the value of traffic on a website that it is quality not quantity that matters most. Both to the advertisers and to the site owners, but having dealt with many e-commerce sites I can tell you that Google is a driver of relevant traffic if it weren't then platforms like Google AdWords, which consistently drive conversion rates of 10-20% on some of the sites I've worked on, would not be possible. Thus while you might see Google as a largely one-and-done traffic source, I don't think this is true in all or even most cases. As for Murdoch's wish to reattempt the subscription-based format for information on the web, you said past failures don't preclude future failures, and I respectfully disagree I feel that barring a major paradigm shift in the way the internet works past failures will play out again. Murdoch and his news holdings will not, alone, be enough to change anything. Even if he succeeds in stemming the flow of his content through Google, a thousand bloggers who subscribe and pinch the information to publish on their blogs will be more than enough reason for a million other users not to subscribe. Something may very well need to change in the way we as a society view the cost of information, but Murdoch and the WSJ will not be the dam that diverts this river. Hopefully Murdoch and the WSJ will realize their mistake before they lose too much money and too many visitors. Kevin –Glenm Rock, NJ

The article is missing the problem of being marginalized if not on google. Look at myspace losing to Facebook. Look at the rise of Linked in. Ad Age hasn't patted itself on the back, but could. Until there was a free online edition, we didn't get it. Now we are deeply involved daily. Ditto for slash.org, paidcontent, and many other sites. The Boston Globe, NYT, WSJ, and IBD keep descending on our list. Boston Globe and NYT sometimes; WSJ and IBD never. And I am a senior, not a young adult. Watch out for pay walls--you'll be alone with your voice/print. –Lincoln, MA

I don't disagree with the premise--of the article or the first comment--but my most burning question is still not answered. Why Bing? As most savvy searchers continue to reject Bing for its lack of content and inability to deliver on the promise of its catchy commercials, why on earth would any business rely on it? If Google is still providing the best search engine, it seems that Google will also provide the best qualified customers. You're right, Jay. Quantity doesn't equal quality. But in this case it seems that the quality of the search provides a larger quantity of traffic as well. Why is it so revolutionary to eliminate both quantity AND quality? –Tijeras, NM

@jay Murdoch does get the Internet and he will be skewered on Twitter, mostly by free-loaders who have no real business plan for their own stuff OR are free-loading off an employer and can afford to be wrong. An analogy. http://www.dogwalkblog.com/2009/11/20/rupert-murdoch-gets-the-internet-really-he-does/ –Englewood, OH

Murdoch is right on, even though I'll bet anything that by noon he'll be skewered on Twitter as a dinosaur who doesn't understand the digital space. In reality, I think he understands it quite a bit better than most. Those who are overly enamored with online media seem to subscribe to the philosophy that openness and free availability of information are unbreakable online commandments. Considering that few subscription-based online content platforms have really been successful to date would seem to reinforce that idea. But failure of something in the past does not preclude failure of that same thing in the future. Murdoch is taking steps toward what will inevitably be News Corps' reigning in of their content to a subscription based platform, and quite possibly definitively proving for the first time that it can work. And good for him. He's made an investment, and built a company, and professional journalists have a talent and skill that the large majority of amateur bloggers don't have, and there's no reason that better content should come at a price. In terms of traffic (sorry to veer off topic), he's also spot on to no care about sheer numbers. Ultimately, will the decisions he's making cause fewer people to visit his sites. Absolutely. But so what? As a business owner, I'd rather have 1,000 visitors who genuinely want to read my site and that my advertisers want to reach, rather than 3,000 passers-by who really have no vested interest in my content. My prediction is that by this time two years from now, Murdoch's moves will be hailed as revolutionary, and, in showing profitability (or at least a trend towards it), other major media outlets will follow suit, and the Web will be a vastly different experience. Jason Miletsky CEO, PFS Marketwyse Author, "Perspectives on Marketing" http://www.getperspectives.com http://twitter.com/jaymiletsky –totowa, NJ

Michael, Bad time to be a "guycon". First the cingular logo, now the running man. I wonder who is next? The MySpace guycon? -- Axle Davids –Toronto, ON

Running man has run his course. Bravo to AOL for seeing the finish line was hit long ago. –Richmond, VA

Grant, loved meeting you in Boston last week. Looking forward to buying the book. –Tampa, FL

"Right on" Grant. In these days of deep rethink, people are looking for some meaningful satisfaction apart from simply doing their duty as consumers to help get the economy out of its current funk. The companies that find ways to tap into this earning will do well. Thanks for pointing the way. cheers –TORONTO, ON

wow - $150 million at the box office. how come all these kids didnt just watch it for free on Hulu? what? oh, I see. OK. never mind... –New York, NY

Re: 6. Business is lost. By the time you learn the business is lost, the decision to cut staff has been made for you. 12. Your company will acquire or be acquired by a competitor. This means all jobs at both firms are under scrutiny; neither side is safe. The acquired company may gain the upper hand in the consolidation process. Restructuring, lost business and acquisitions have pulled the rug out from under me so quickly there was no time to leave. Janet L. Falk janet@janetlfalk.com –New York, NY

Great article. I like your notion of constantly evaluating where you are in your career. As a freelance copywriter, I'm always asking this (http://bit.ly/6SEsA9). Do yourself a favor and read Alain de Botton's The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work (http://bit.ly/6JMe91 ) –Saint Paul, MN

Another typically excellent article from Paul Gumbinner. If I might suggest #11 to his top "10 Signs It's Time to Leave Your Job" ... 11. Your agency isn't pitching or winning new business! When an agency loses a current client, everyone knows immediately. And chances are, depending on the size of the account relative to agency income, certain expected and perhaps not-so-expected heads are going to roll. So, as the Boy Scout motto states, "Be prepared". But when your agency isn't getting into very many meaningful new business pitches or consistently losing once they're "in", it's probably a good time to start looking and hook up with a winner. All agencies eventually lose current accounts. That's just part of our business. The other part though, is constant new biz prospecting to replace them before the inevitable fact. If you don't see your agency doing that, get going. Bill Crandall at bcrandallnyc@aol.com –East Rockaway, NY

In this race for the finish ... Gotham "by a slice"! bcrandallnyc@aol.com –East Rockaway, NY

Yeah, but can either-- Gotham or Martin-- produce the volume of assets required effectively and efficiently like Ogilvy's RedWorks unit (http://redworks.com/) or McCann's WorldGroup EXP (http://www.worldgroupexp.com/). The agencies forget that they will get killed on outsourcing all of the versionsing and adaptations for in-store, print ads, Web, etc. Or Pizza Hut will get a soaking in costs. –FARMINGDALE, NY

Indeed Bill! I'm really glad to see more Asian American actors in TV and films, and not being mocked for their heritage (except on Chelsea Handler, but that's another topic in itself.) However, there seems to be more Asian male than female actors on air, did you notice that? Just take a look at shows like CSI, Three Rivers and Community, why aren't the beautiful and talented Asian American female actors being casted for important roles on those shows like their male Asian counterparts? Is it because there aren't enough of them out there, or they're just beautiful, but not talented? That'll be a good blog topic. –New York City, NY

Bill, Your assessment is absolutely correct. Within the past year I have seen more and more Asian American actors used in mainstream commercials. This is very encouraging as we such diversity incorporated in messages that reflect a "typical household." –Rosemead, CA

The noticeable presence of Asians in non-stereotypical TV spots seemed to come overnight. Had to be the corporate bean counters crunching the demographic data and thus attaining their current state of crass enlightenment. Even as recently as the '80s, the Asian face would conjure up images of trade imbalances, "Buy America" and savage whaling, so you seldom saw an Asian in, say, a Honda spot. Let's watch and see what the continuing emergence of the Chinese economy has on the perception of Asian Americans at the ad shops. Post-racial America is not here yet, and I hope this trending isn't an anomaly. –Sherman Oaks, CA

Bill, I was really impressed with the CBS show, Cold Case, on this weekend. It was about two murdered youth in ChinaTown, instead of glossing over the differences, they talked about the differences between Chinese from China and those from Vietnam, and how the community and family structure works. It wasn't a deep thing but it showed an understanding of how people of a community view things differently from the mainstream. It showed a glimpse into the complexity of the issue. –Grand Prairie, TX

Bill - I completely agree - its so great to see APIs being portrayed in a more mainstream light. Also - did you notice how Pixar showcased their first API kid character in UP! Lovable, sweet, funny and could have easily been a "white" kid... Onward and Upward I say...squirrel! –Santa Monica, CA

Great examples, Bill, and I agree, it's so refreshing to see more and more Asian faces in TV commercials who AREN'T cast for their "otherness" or exoticism, but just as representative American consumers. That Priceline ad with William Shatner stars Kenny Choi, an actor who's getting a lot of exposure on TV shows these days. And is the Asian dude in the AT&T commercials Tim Kang, who plays the wonderfully deadpan cop Kimball Cho in "The Mentalist"? Here are a few more that I love to watch: Shaqulle O'Neal is in a new commercial with an Asian American dad and son. This one's especially notable because back in 2002, Shaq was pretty unapologetic about making "ching-chong" comments towards then-rookie player Yao Ming on a radio interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfhZajm0Mos Anything with the adorable Kylie pitching Windows and PCs, including this latest for Sony Vaio (with Windows 7, of course): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XG_omEyKmg And this cool Target spot with an Asian American mom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFiMXtT-3eU Thanks for noting this uptick in AAPI visibility, Bill! –Denver, CO

It's good news for this guy: http://tinyurl.com/yd7g9pl –Chicago, IL

I think part of the discussion should revolve around what you're trying to achieve. Viral videos today are (usually) about awareness and (sometimes) about message. But we are also seeing the beginning of the next generation of viral video... customized video with the implicit call to action of returning to the site to make your own. Last year's ElfYourself.com and this year's CheerFactory.com are perhaps the best known to English-speaking audiences; Impossible Software Jetstream has been the technology under German websites like Starfieber.com and Playboy (Germany) Bunnies at Home. While individual videos in each of these series may have only a few views, the aggregate over all of the videos from these sites can be quite large. And that implicit call to action -- my friend sent me a video with him/her so now I want one of me -- may drive different tactics from the open loop of today's viral video. Tim/Josh -- care to comment? –Lexington, MA

Josh: The point I was attempting to make in my recent Advertising Age article ("15 Risks Agencies Can't Afford Not to Take") was that marketers wrongly push to allocate most of their money to "media volume" rather than investing it in producing better ideas. I appreciate that getting views of a YouTube video takes not only a good idea, but also the kind of smart marketing done by firms like the Feed Company. Thanks for helping to put this into perspective, and I'll try to make the point in a less simplistic way next time! Tim Williams Ignition Consulting Group –SALT LAKE CITY, UT

In the world of "Save Money. Live Better" - Walmart's new store brand approach certainly lives up to their customer promise of "save money". The part I find difficult for the consumer to reconcile is that one of fully delivering on "live better". The Great Value branding approach misses on the opportunity to also deliver on an experience that makes the consumer feel good about themselves. I am not sure about how many customers want to be physically and graphically reminded about their inability to "afford adequate food for their families". A pantry full of white packaging is a strong message that resembles the day of generic brands. It is a missed opportunity to make the consumer feel good about how they provide to their families. It is also a missed opportunity to drive an image of quality for Walmart. In my experience as a store brand marketer I learned that store brands can deliver on the promise of savings while also making the consumers feel great about achieving those savings. The packaging should be used as a vehicle to further solidify the experience without missing on the opportunity to reinforce the retailer's image of quality. The quality message is hard to become credible when your packaging works so hard to look frugal (on the upside) and perhaps cheap (on the downside). A great store brand should feel like the "better value alternative" instead of the "cheap alternative". How can you really tell that the cake mix is as good as Betty Crocker's? Or that the cereal is a good as Kellogg's? Or that the detergent has the stain removal ability of a P&G product? Even if it (product quality) is just as good, the value formula should be bigger than giving a low price and assuming that the branding and packaging image are not a critical part of the store brand product mix. After all, when the product leaves the store it will inevitably become part of a home experience and you want it to be a guest you will like to show as opposed to something that makes the customer feel embarrassed. A pantry full of a generic store brand experience can be an unwanted reminder of "how bad things are" instead of how smart should they feel about their value shopping. I believe that there is a fantastic opportunity for Walmart to make their consumers feel that they are truly living better by shopping Great Value. –San Antonio, TX

Bottom of 9th paragraph should read - "established by the retailer." –FRISCO, TX

According to this speech, private labels at Walmart enable people who otherwise couldn't afford food and household goods to buy them. That's noble of Walmart and any retailer that steps up for the customer. Many consumers that can afford to purchase big brands, are buying the private labels too. Those private labels sit on the shelves next to big name brands that are priced substantially higher to cover the marketing necessary to create product categories. The big brands through their investment in marketing have built categories and educated and managed consumer expectations for those products. What are those big brands to do that sit next to their competitor who is also the customer they share proprietary and financial information with? They could pull out of some retailers and let them become a house of private labels, much like an Aldi. But no brand wants to be the first to leave, because others will stay behind and pick up the market share. For many big brands in the US, Walmart represents 40-60% of all of their sales. Some financial models identify Walmart as the "cover" for brand overhead, and depend on the rest of the market to make up the margin. It's an interesting point in time for retail and CPG. Some tough decisions will have to be made on both sides. Those that have long term vision, that make tough choices now, will have more sound footing in the long run. The status quo isn't going to work for most CPG brands in categories that are being commoditized by private labels. At some point, CPG brands with enough clout are going to either have to push back and not have their products in close proximity to private labels or they're going to have to pull out or reduce their commitment and selection to retailers that become their biggest competitors, because the financials just won't work. Perhaps this is already taking place through natural selection. Most retailers are cutting back on their SKUs by each category, in part to move in more private labels, but also due to consumers who no longer support certain brands enough to meet their financial velocity targets established the retailer. A single mega retailer that decides to reduce floor space to make room for other categories delivering better margins or velocity can substantially change an industry or category overnight. Dwindled brands are being sold to private label manufacturers, investment groups and directly to retailers, all of whom are flipping them into private label brands. Retailers still need big brands. But over time, it's looking like more of the big brands will be store specific private labels. That's why now more than ever, big brand companies need to focus on shopper marketing and advanced trends to secure their place at the table with real added value for the consumer and the retailer. We cover the advanced trends changing the marketing landscape in our XL Trends reports available free on our web site. Rodney Mason, CMO www.moosylvania.com www.twitter.com/rodmoose –FRISCO, TX

The fact that other marketers would even get hot under the collar about this is very discouraging to me. National brands are still sold at Walmart. People will still buy the national brands. But I'm glad someone is concerned about those who can't afford to feed their families at the end of the month. –FORT ATKINSON, WI

To paraphrase Sir Winston, bad analysis get halfway 'round the blogosphere before truth has a chance to get its trousers on. When Time-Warner bought back Google's 5% interest in AOL earlier this year, AOL was NOT valued at $5.5 billion. A significant portion of the $283 million paid to Google for its 5% of AOL was a "make up" payment for cash distributions received from AOL by Time-Warner while Google was a shareholder. Time-Warner and Google did not disclose the details, but AOL's cash distributions were significant during the three years that Google was a shareholder. In all likelihood, the valuation implied by the Time-Warner/Google deal was $3.0 to $3.5 billion, roughly in line with current estimates of AOL's value. Details: http://roberthheath.blogspot.com/2009/07/aol-rip.html, see the notes. –SAN FRANCISCO, CA

AOL (sorry, I mean Aol.) better launch some new marketing efforts that strive to better connect their customers to themselves and to one another. It's telling that they really have bet the farm on the fact that they will attract new advertisers. What's going to change there that will finally be of interest to advertisers? "Content" they say. Man, that train has left the station. Armstrong is among the best and brightest out there, but come on Tim try another one and please don't use the word "engagement" on us. AOL has been holding their customers back for years. This is the key to the next success for them. AOL should be looking at implementing ideas/services/products that finally liberate and modernize those customers. Dear Tim; Don't try and grow your customer base just yet - first, help your current customers grow. Innovate around their actual lifestyles - not new logos. Lead them forward and retain their business. Only then will those golden advertisers follow. –DENVER, CO

I guess Tim is trying to ape Google. At least the redesigned logo appearing on different images makes me think if AOL (nee Aol.) will have different images for different occasions, a la Google! The redesigned logo on 6 different images below: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3317515-time-warner-to-split-off-aol-time-warner/image/42788400 –Hyderabad

I'm glad to see that Coca-Cola is recognizing the Hispanic market as one of the most important multicultural consumer groups. Coca-Cola dominates the soft drink market in Mexico and many other Latin American countries. Brand preference remains strong as Latinos migrate to the U.S. However, connecting with Hispanic men through futbol (soccer) and with Hispanic women through telenovelas appears somewhat simplistic, and one would hope that this is only one component of Coke's overall Hispanic strategy. Although both activities are highly favored by this consumer group, it is mostly immigrant, Spanish-dominant, and unacculturated Hispanics who consistently follow them. Today, the unacculturated segment represents only a 31% of the U.S Latino population. The growth of the Hispanic market is being fueled mainly by bicultural Hispanics. They, in contrast, represent 52.7% of the U.S. Latino population. This growing group of bicultural Latinos, who comfortably navigate both the Hispanic and the American cultures (and who are for the most part bilingual), are strong influencers in regards to the other Latino market segments. Their interests go beyond futbol and novelas. Bicultural men also follow MBL and NFL, while bicultural women cite Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives at the top of their list. To have a truly effective impact on the Hispanic market, Coca-Cola should not ignore the bicultural Latino segment. I wonder how they plan to tackle that segment? Are they planning to capture them through their general market strategies, their Hispanic strategy or synergistically through both? What do you think? –Austin, TX

As starters, Mr.Tripodi, the former All State Insurance guy and newbie Coke guru, might want to cut back on high fructose soft drinks if he wants to make a credible, contemporary example for the new world of beverages of The Coca-Cola Company. The previous Coke regimes, and all of its dullards. have now been thrown under the bus by the new regime of Muhtar Kent, who was involved in an insider trading scandal brought by Australian securities regulators, later given absolution by Warren Buffet and his board of cronies, Once again, we have a New Coke formula. Full of beans, with all the answers. And many of the answers lie with clever, contemporary, social media, the horse that everyone with a computer is flogging and finding of little substance, other than for generating lots of smoke and would-be coolness. Marshall McLuhan may have had more than his thirty minutes of fame with his provocative, but never proven: "The Medium is the Message" back in the late sixties. However, for Coca-Cola since 1886, the Message has always been the Message. Notably: 1904 - Delicious and refreshing 1908 - Good to the last drop (Sorry about that Maxwell House) !923 (circa) - The Real Thing (Sorry about that McCann) 1929 - The Pause That Refreshes 1947 - Thirst knows no season 1963 - Things go better with Coke 1969 - It's the real thing (redux) + Buy the world a Coke In 1984, John Bergin, he of "Now it's Pepsi, for those who think young" fame, penned a great, but short-lived slogan: "Coke is it!" only to see it turned into "Coke was it!" by the dumb, not smart, launch of New Coke, at the hands of a crowd that never really understood the Coke brand and is largely still in positions of influence. The latest two banal messages, "The Coke side of life" and now, "Open Happiness" demonstrate how far the brand Coke has fallen from its iconic pedestal. And how little is understood about what makes this great brand tick. There will be more of the same glib, show bizy Coca-Cola presentations to Wall Street analysts, the very ones that have put America in dire jeopardy by their greed and caprice. Unfortunately, everyone involved, on both sides, will continue their destructive ways at the expense of those verities that once made this country so great. Michael G. McDonald Co-founder, McDonald & Little, Atlanta –Atlanta, GA

Nice to see that Coca-Cola had just woken up and started to smell the flowers by shifting its marketing strategy. But we have to give Nike the credit of making the similar statement way before. "We're not in the business of keeping the media companies alive. We're in the business of connecting with consumers." Trevor Edwards (Nike's Corporate Vice president for Global Brand and Category Management) – The New York Times 2007 A music to my ear as digital marketing consultant... Who will be waking up next? Köksal Abdurrahmanoglu —————————————————————————————————— President & CEO of adinteractive Founder of istanbul.com & adinteractive Check my Blog "adnews" at http://koksala.wordpress.com Follow me on Twitter: @Koksal —————————————————————————————————— Join us where we discuss the Future of Advertising at http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2090773&trk=hb_side_g –Istanbul

Teens (who were raised on Coke alternatives like juice and water): $158 Billion in disposable "income" Consumers age 50+ (raised drinking Coke): $2.5 Trillion in disposable income Hispanics: 33% of Coca-Cola's US volume Consumers age 50+: 60% of US sparkling beverage sales Amount of year Coke is dedicating to Hispanic and African-American market advertising: 12 months Amount of year Coke is dedicating to 50+ consumer marketing: 0 Near as I can tell, advertising and marketing for Coke, Diet Coke and all of the Coke derivatives is about reminding people of the great taste of Coke. So why ignore the largest, richest, fastest-growing, most pro-Coke consumers on the planet and risk them switching to Pepsi? By next year, 50% of all consumer spending in America will be by consumers over age 50. And according to national research, the majority of them feel that advertising either doesn't speak to them or ignores them altogether. I would like to introduce Coca-Cola investors and analysts to a new term besides operational marketing: missed opportunity –New York, NY

When Atlanta all get on the same page, they are an awesome force. I just hope Pepsi is listening or they are in for some tough times in the years ahead. I also see great merit from Wendy Clark's decision to move from 46 agencies to 35. In fact, I believe Coke will see how to trim that even further as they progress with their digital, direct and brand experience building activities globally. Just look at P&G who leads by example. Wendy Clark hits the ball out of the park when she states "One hundred forty million people watch the top 10 TV shows in the U.S. And there are 140 million people that go into Walmart stores each week." Again, Coke is starting to really understand that today...that they must put the consumer front and center and build unique experience for everyone. Real-time, customized or localized solutions are Coke's future. Good luck and I am sure no one ever really thought you lost your way. Geoff De Weaver –New York, NY

Mr. Tripodi and the folks at Coke get it. The traditional 4P's of marketing are now the 5P's of Marketing. Product. Price. Place.Promotion & PEOPLE. Much more than just consumer targeting. It's recognizing that a People strategy (connecting with, caring for and cultivating everyone than can influence a brand and its consumers)is at least as important as the the other four P's. Here's a link to my address to the 140character Twitter conference last month that covers this very point. http://thewisdomguy.com/ Glad I own some Coke stock. Hank Wasiak –NEW YORK, NY

I truly hope that never in our life the effectiveness of a marketing campaign will be measured in the number of twitts and facebook fans... Instead, I hope we should measure effectiveness in the number of customer conversions, sales volumes, perception studies, etc. Let's get back to reality. –Cliffside Park, NJ

Wonder what Al Ries or Jack Trout would say about Coke's plans. Seems to me that the leader ought to maintain a sharper focus on what brought 'em to the party. Hope Coke doesn't forget that it's "The Real Thing". Tsufit Author, Step Into The Spotlight! : A Guide to Getting Noticed www.spotlightblog.com www.twitter.com/tsufit –Toronto, ON

Facebook; Coke has 4,003,331 Fans Pepsi has 262,965 fans, it's other lead brand Mountain Dew has 613,747 - so close to 1M all in. Starbucks 5,102,881. Twitter; Coke has 12,173 followers. Pepsi has multiple Twitter personas, but brand Pepsi has 17,075 and Mountain Dew 18,588. Starbucks 530,363. Coke's "Expedition 206" plays out very much like an old episode of MTV Road Rules. Coke is fishing in the right place, but is using the wrong bait as the execution shouts and doesn't listen or promote conversation. Coke Zero's facial profiler app for Facebook has 23,350 monthly users. The tool allows user to find the other people in the world who have the same face - http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=88852343963 . If it builds enough critical mass it could add value on Facebook that is distinct, own-able and builds a sizable following. What's missing in this report for the future of Coke and really all marketing is mobile. Mobile changes the game and Coke can use it to elevate its leadership role in all the key pillars it has identified as key growth engines of the future including local relevance, social, digital, multicultural, retail and even overarching big brand TV. Soon the shelves will be alive with the sites and sounds of Coke as mobile will enable complete customer engagement at retail. For 2010 and beyond mobile with GPS and Bluetooth proximity opt-ins, augmented overlays on digital video, snap tag technologies, Google, Facebook, Twitter, video programming, digital coupons and comparison shopping all in hand, will become the #1 way customers engage with the web and make purchase decisions. Some reports right now show smart phones in the US approaching 30% penetration. When the number reaches 34%, smart phones will outnumber computers. It is anticipated, by mid next year, smart phone penetration will be between 40-50% in the US and growing exponentially worldwide. Additionally, smart phone penetration is higher with multiculutral groups in the US and for many places in the world smart phones are used in lieu of computers. Coke and Pepsi, are you listening? We have a report, "XL Marketing Trends," available free on our site that highlights the biggest trends changing the marketing landscape now and over the next 10 years. Mobile is identified as the #1 trend. Rodney Mason, CMO www.moosylvania.com www.twitter.com/rodmoose –FRISCO, TX

"We're changing fundamentally from being TV commercial producers to content developers. ... We're leading a new and unique approach ... from purely mass marketing to one-on-one marketing." It is affirming to see Coke playing a lead role in what IBM recently called "The End of Advertising as We Know It". Where they said we would see more change in the next five years, than in the last fifty years of advertising. -- Axle Davids @1day1brand | http://www.distility.com –Toronto, ON

This is an excellent piece. However one must tread with caution - as Matt put it very rightly - the factor of "trust" is key; and I feel brands cannot earn it without a 2-way conversation on issues. Often a brand finds it difficult to have a conversation as consumers start seeking 'recommendation'; for many brands this is a key stumbling block. Sandip www.experiencecommerce.com –Mumbai

Thanks for raising this issue, Steve. It will be interesting to see if brand curated content gets traction with consumers. This also reminded me an LA Times article (http://bit.ly/1ObqJ6) from last week that discusses Guvera.com opening up a new business model for music streams and downloads. Rather than relying on advertising support, it is established to allow brands to sponsor specific channels of music. I personally think that it will be difficult for brands to gain trust as effective content curators, but we will see... Matt http://twitter.com/mattquint –Astoria, NY

Great, timely piece. Daylife.com is also helping brands like RoadRunner (http://roadrunner.com/news) and Madison Square Garden (http://www.msg.com/ajax/dayLife.jsp?name=mlb) to curate content for their markets. –New York, NY

Totally agree that digital curation will be the next big thing to shake the web. And, what's also interesting is that the proliferation of blogging and reblogging platforms levels the playing field for who curates - or "deejays" the content. Publishers, bloggers, brands and social influencers all have a voice and a means of low cost distribution. For example, Gary Vaynerchuk's Thanksgiving wine picks: http://sprng.me/3h86 were featured on Mashable's How to prepare a Thanksgiving Feast with help from the web: http://bit.ly/4WOZlg next to Martha Stewart, Allrecipes.com and Jones Soda –BOSTON, MA

Steve, Agreed. I set up a Tumblr (http://www.chrbutler.com) page last year to collect all the different content I found online that was of interest to me, mostly as a resource that I could refer back to. Since then, it's become clear that it works well as a referral source to my company's website, particularly because it funnels interest based upon the peripheral content I've collected there. People see that and quickly become interested in who has collected it and why, which directly positions them to have something to gain from our newsletter and blog content on our site. Every now and then, I'll add in Newfangled content to the Tumblr page, too. Chris Butler, Vice President, Newfangled.com –CARRBORO, NC

Why would you stop advertising if you are still growing and expanding? It would be like running a race and catching up to the leader and giving up with the "oh i could have won if i wanted" I say go for it, keep the innovation and keep improving the search market for everyone! –Brisbane

It makes for great copy, but is there really a battle royale between bricks and mortar (Black Friday) and e-commerce (Cyber-Monday)? Now that kmart, kohls and co. are online in a big way, the distinction between genres is increasingly meaningless. It's all about market share, margins and turnover. What's the bet that the two genres emerge from the 2009 shopping season with the same market share they enjoyed going in, with both experiencing a drop in average consumer spend? The more important question: why has online shopping hit the wall? Something to do with the way it works, perhaps? (http://www.doubleyourconversionrate.com/?p=178) –Providence, RI

Wasn't it Richard Branson who said "How do you become a millionnaire? Be a billionnaire and start an airline."? Branson's nothing if not open to breaking formulas (even his own)! Carol Spieckerman - newmarketbuilders http://www.nmbblog.com Twitter: @retailxpert –BELLA VISTA, AR

Branson gets it right. The legacy companies will always struggle to set things right. They have deeply entrenched costs (unions, old planes, etc) and an even more deeply entrenched mindset. Virgin puts customer service and product delivery first. Southwest and Jetblue also fall into that category. Provide something different, provide it extremely well, and you will do well. Plus it doesn't hurt that he understands how the human mind works. Not often a business man understands psychology too. Launching a business or product is a tough thing to do. If you want to watch one happen in real time you can learn a lot from it. http://AskTheWealthSquad.com/SimpleBlog Scott http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottlovingood http://www.twitter.com/scottlovingood –Riceville, TN

I love it when guys like Mr. B sticks it to the establishment. It's like David Neeleman, who created JetBlue. Unfortunatly, DN got ousted by the Jet Blue board for apologizing for the huge gaff that occurred. Now, Neeleman has started Azul in Brazil: http://viajemais.voeazul.com.br/ I gotta love watching this kind of competition unfold and grow!. Mr. B, can I offer our services? ;) We already carry the same red flag at RedWorks http://redworks.com/ –FARMINGDALE, NY

Wait, so Branson's suggesting people prefer riding new aircraft to old, would rather have friendly service than surly service and prefer entertainment to oppressive containment? Hmmm, that guy may be on to something. Brilliant! http://www.thelintscreen.com –ATLANTA, GA

Interesting Branson identifies my favorite airlines, Southwest and JetBlue. Never had the good fortune to ride on Virgin. His enthusiasm, energy, and sense of fun is just what the airline industry is missing, except for Southwest and JetBlue. TransAir had it; but something went astray. Fun to read about and I am sure Fun to travel on. Well done! –Lincoln, MA

I want to work for that guy. @freshpie –NYC, NY

BudTV.com's failure was inevitable because they approached the website as if it was a cable TV network. Great video content for Men 21-29. If we build it (and the content is excellent) they will come was essentially the strategy. Failing to incorporate Search, Community and Personalization strategies doomed BudTV. Marlboro understands the role of community in its website strategy and therefore, it succeeds where BudTV failed. Blaming age-verification is just a bunch of senior executives and one big-time consultant trying to save face. BudTV quickly grew to 400,000 monthly uniques so age-verification was not the problem. The problem was that these visitors did not come back and they did not tell their friends to go there. –PELHAM, NY

I endured a VERY rigorous signup for this site. The most detailed and probing one I have ever persisted finished. The reward is a good site. The cowboy movie is/was my main curiosity. It didn't disappoint. Very impressive that they were able to get access to some of the land. They hit the "Marlboro man" mystique quite well. I wonder how well they satisfy the "what next" urge that most loyal viewers have. The challenge for a site/brand like this is creating compelling new content that keeps their loyal viewers coming back. Good content, like that Cowboy movie, is very expensive. I wonder if the ROI that Marlboro is seeing is enough to continue? –Stoughton, WI

The "gather around the water cooler" experience that all smokers enjoy as they huddle together, neglected, and outside in the cold is obviously not lost on Marlboro. "Persecution" drives the "victims" together and reinforces that sense of togetherness. I would think that the sharing that goes on between smokers as they huddle around chitchatting is quite strong. And no I do not smoke. I am against it, but the socialness of multiple smoke breaks during the workday is easy to see. –Stoughton, WI

Very curious to see what agency they choose and see some of the ways that they will expand their global presence. I will admit that if they want to expand their current network, this below is a great way to advertise but only if they can get the MTA on board. www.crowninfrastructure.com. –New York, NY

Get ready. Betting that they select one of the usual suspects who specialize in million dollar logo development totally devoid of strategic brand value. Should be interesting. Rob Frankel http://www.robfrankel.com –Encino, CA

Wow. Insulting to everyone. The us vs. them mentality taken to new heights. :P –Geyserville, CA

Love the ad campaign, but I'd shoot my husband if he took the lazy way out and bought me a piece of jewelry that took no thought to buy. Give me a practical, thoughtful gift, any day! –Charlottesville, VA

I love that ad! –philadelphia, PA

Return to the Dumbhouse! Once again we're subjected to stereotypically stupid, insensitive married men who do all manner of acts that land them in "the dog house". What strikes me about all this is not the idea of going to JC Penny to get a "good" gift for my wife, but more so that these men are married to some pretty insecure, petty people. And JC Penny has a lazy advertising agency. Perhaps instead of taking the creatively easy route and slipping into overdone stereotypes, maybe JC Penny could do something more important...like getting a brand identity. -RTA http://knpbranding.wordpress.com/ –Atlanta, GA

Dude, this is hilarious! Great job at Saatchi for a sequel that might be as good as the original. A feat rarely accomplished. In cinema: Godfather II, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, and Evil Dead II. This ad creative nailed it, IMHO. F.S. - If you actually SAW Weekend at Bernies II, God help you. But that is not a accurate comparison. I'm trying to think of a better analogy...maybe City Slickers. Now let's see how "viral" this gets. I will start by posting it on Facebook. Well done. –Culver City, CA

Why? It's like Weekend at Bernies II. It was dead the first time. –New York, NY

"the Internet of things" is as much an interesting statement as it is an interesting idea. To imagine a world where information is sucked out, for lack of a better word, of everything possible to improve the world around us is a very intriguing thought. My immediate reaction is, who will make sense of it all - would it not take an army of real-live people to curate all this information? I'm all for technology driven solutions to any type of problem, but humans need to analyze this data and implement these changes to make them a reality - am I wrong? –Winnipeg, MB

Whoops! My last comment was intended to comment on the article: "How Technological Illiteracy Will Cost Creatives Their Jobs," not on this article. Too many windows open at once! As for this article, thank you AdAge for this roundup of the conference. I'd say that "Look beyond short-burn ROI" should be the mantra for all of us going forward. –Encinitas, CA

This isn't news for creatives! Back in 1995 perhaps, but not now. Hopefully all those senior people are flexible enough to have become computer literate. If not, they should be out of a job, because they are dinosaurs. How can they stay ahead of the pack of new graduates? One way is to make sure that they constantly educate themselves (see my work on Media Bistro under "Aliyah Marr"). On the other hand, as a design teacher (Parsons, Pratt, SVA), I continue to be appalled by the lack of traditional design training in a lot of the younger people who call themselves designers. Some of them went to design school, but others never went to any school at all. Just because you are a software jockey doesn't mean you are a designer. –Encinitas, CA

Thanks for sharing. Particularly enjoyed the data from Eco:Drive on national driving habits. Exciting times to be a 'creative technologist'. /Ben –NEW YORK, NY

I couldn't agree more with lastminute.com's belief in limiting consumer choice (even if their site offers the usual content vomit and passive navigation). Google Stendahl Syndrome. The sooner the high tech world adopts their interfaces to take account of real-world psychology, the better. For all concerned. http://www.doubleyourconversionrate.com/?p=91 –Providence, RI

Kunar, Emma, Are my eyes deceiving me? Did I just read "Marketers are Focusing on Useful Products Instead of Advertisements"?? Probably the best news I have read all month. -- Axle Axle Davids | @1day1brand | http://www.dstiity.com –Toronto, ON

Thanks for the summary. Interesting point of views in fact. –Sausset Les Pins, 00

Without a doubt has proved over and over to be the biggest scam artist of American History...what IS her quality??? self-promotion...GOOD RIDDENS!!! her ratings are not even half of what they were just 10yrs ago!! –Fort Wayne, IN