The NFL Draft of Dating

Now some of you might be wondering what the NFL Draft and the current dating pool have to do with each other. Well, they can both be paralleled fairly easily when looking at the types of prospects available in each and their various characteristics. In honor of the 2012 NFL Draft, i've decided to have some fun with the two pools of prospects and even use real NFL prospects in this year's draft. Hope you enjoy...


For me, there are five archetypal prospects in the NFL Draft: The Can't-Miss Prospect, The Developmental Prospect, The Special Teamer, The Character Issues Prospect and, of course, The Bust.

1. The Can't-Miss Prospect:

NFL Draft: Andrew Luck, QB, Stanford University - I'm sure most of you that follow sports somewhat remotely have heard of Andrew Luck and the fact that he's a lock for the #1 pick in the NFL Draft and has been the highest rated QB since John Elway in 1983 (that Elway fella turned out alright I guess...). After looking over film and highlights, it's apparent this kid has all the signs of a can't-miss prospect: physical tools, strong work ethic, competitive, has that desire, down to earth, very smart (apparently scored one of the higher Wonderlic test scores in history), great in interviews, and has GMs and coaches salivating at his upside. On paper, and most likely in real life, this kid is a lock to be a solid starter for years to come.

Dating: This guy/girl is special. You can feel it after hanging out only a few times. You start to get those butterflies in your stomach and that certain whimsical feeling whenever you're around him/her. He/she is absolutely gorgeous/handsome, incredibly social and friendly, there isn't a person that doesn't like to be around this prospect. He/she is smart, caring, funny, well-mannered--the type of person you'd happily bring home to Mom and Dad or show off to your friends. While that's all good and dandy, this person has the other factor that is ever so important (well at least to me it is): that edge. He/she is passionate and loving and, at times, isn't afraid to show it; they bring a little something extra to the bedroom. Whether you're staying in for the night or going out with friends, it doesn't matter because this prospect enjoys them both and makes each an awesome time. It's easy to tell that this is the type of high caliber prospect you want to be with for a long time to come.

Shared Traits: Physical tools, smart, down to earth, good with people, has that "edge" and desire/passion, love to show him/her off, every team/person wants him/her.


2. The Developmental Prospect

NFL Draft: Brandin Boykin, CB, University of Georgia - The developmental prospects are usually taken in the mid to late rounds and tend to have one thing in common: ridiculous athletic ability. Let's look at Boykin for a second: incredibly fast, fairly solid covering skills, but a tad short to match up with big NFL receivers. However, this type of prospect is somewhat of a calculated risk. A team sees that there is ability and upside, but it's up to them to take the prospect there. It's a gamble. If developed and coached up properly, he could turn into a solid starter in the league and have a decent career. If not, the prospect could fall close to "Bust" territory. If worse comes to worst, he will probably at least have a role on special teams or as an assignment player

Dating: The developmental prospect is a tricky one. For girls, he might be that 24 year old Senior who's still working on his first degree. For guys, she might be that girl who always seems a tad clingy or maybe a bit bitchy. This prospect usually has one strong thing going for him/her: could be good looks or a great personality. Usually one is stronger than the other and helps offset the less than stellar side. Either way, the hope is that with a little support and coaching, you can turn him/her into a winner and a solid addition to your love life. However, the fear is if you can't change their ways, then what happens? Odds are it's going to be a brief relationship that's blissful in the first couple months and drowned out by bullshit and bitching after the honeymoon phase. The third possibility is that the prospect does improve, but can't be that person in your starting lineup like you had dreamed. So you settle for placing the prospect into a reserved role on special teams as a "hookup buddy".

Shared Traits: Strong in one area (usually offsets the flaws), definitely a project, needs love/attention/time to develop, risky, can still prove to be useful addition to the team in a reserved/specified role.

3. The Special Teamer

NFL Draft: Philip Welch, P, Wisconsin - Like every special teamer, they're not really superstar material. Sure a few have made a name for themselves via special teams, a la Ted Ginn Jr, but those prospects/players almost always have another, more prominent role on offense or defense. These prospects are always taken in last rounds, or perhaps not at all and are picked up as free agents in the offseason. They have one job to do and that's it, no más (no more). He's not going to suddenly break out of his role as a punter, kicker, or return specialist and become a quarterback or lineman. This type of prospect is set in his role and plays it to a "t".

Dating: The special teamer is probably the easiest prospect for a person to deal with emotionally; there is no gray area for you. He/she has one role on your team, much like in the NFL, and does not stray from it in your eyes. Two perfect examples of this prospect are the "friend zoner" and the affectionally known "one-night stand rebound". You're always going to see this person as being in the friend zone. They've got no chance to escape it and they're in that role for you. Same can be said of the one-night stand rebound; it was a one time thing, it didn't mean anything to you and you'll always see them as that. The only difference between these two is that while you'll gladly acknowledge one's presence at a bar or place in public, you do this for the other. The only issue that you might get involved in is that whoever you put in the friend zone or the rebound role might feel a bit more for you.

Shared Traits: One skill set and does it well and no confusion about role (at least on your end).


4. The Character Issues Prospect

NFL Draft: Janoris Jenkins, CB, North Alabama (by way of U of Florida) - There are always those handful of prospects who have every physical gift you could imagine, but the thing that holds them back from being an elite prospect is their character issues. Whether it's an arrest, assault, drugs, bad attitude, poor work ethic or getting kicked off of your high profile college team (i.e. Mr. Jenkins), it throws up red flags for GMs and coaches. They know they have the ability to play, but it's all about the mental fortitude and discipline. Who wants to waste a pick, and copious amount of money, on someone who's never going to see the field because he's always suspended? Some teams think they can change them, others don't bother. Does Maurice Clarett ring a bell?

Dating: For many of us, this is one of those situations where it seems like a great idea at the time, but in hindsight, it sucked out loud. This prospect is the stereotypical bad boy/girl or slutty counterpart of most guys and girls. Physically, they've got it all; you know that he/she would be All-Pro in the bedroom, but your head (the one on top of the shoulders, for men) knows it would be a lost cause. In some cases your brain overrides another part of the anatomy, but for most others, they throw themselves into it and believe they have what it takes to develop this prospect into one of the best the game has ever seen. Things may start off hot and heavy between this prospect and his/her coach and team, but very quickly it'll become evident that this was doomed from the start. You'll realize you can't change people and you'll become an emotional wreck, either by your hand or his/hers. They don't have the same interests, goals, or attitude as you and you can't fix that. You have to cut your losses and place this one on waivers or opt for a trade to try and salvage some value.

Shared Traits: Someone always reaches a little to high for this prospect in the early rounds, has great physical capabilties, bad mental game, good chemistry on the field (and between the sheets), ends up being a waste of time, can't change the prospect, solace knowing someone else is gonna take a chance on it.


5. The Bust

NFL Draft: Ryan Leaf, QB, Washington State (1998 NFL Draft) - Since we can't necessarily be sure if any of the prospects in this year's draft will be Busts, I decided to go with possibly the most infamous Bust of all time--Ryan Leaf (fitting that he is facing four recent felonies). The Bust has many similar characteristics as that of the Can't-Miss Prospect, but for some reason they just can't put it together in the same way. In the 1998 draft, most analysts and so-called experts essentially had Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning on level ground as far as ratings go. As evidence from the fact that Manning is a future HOFer and Leaf was cut by literally every NFL team he played for, it's pretty easy to see something went wrong. A Bust tends to have the exact same physical tools of the Can't-Miss, but they usually differ in two places: mental game and/or injuries. In Leaf's case, it was the mental game. In other uber-hyped draft picks, they catch a bad break and have a string of injuries and never recover. It's a tough thing for a coach or GM to watch as you think the person you shelled out massive amounts of cash, time, and effort for, and who you think is going to be the savior of your franchise, crash and burn in front of your eyes. The Bust is truly one of the biggest tragedies and disappointments of the draft...unless it's someone who played for your university's rival.

Dating: This guy or girl is everything you could dream of, a mirror image of the Can't-Miss prospect. It's possible to think you've found love. It is all there, this prospect dropped into your lap like an angel from Heaven. Maybe you somehow traded up to get into that draft position or the prospect slipped a couple of spots right to your spot because teams and coaches had other needs to fill. Either way, you are sure this one is going to take you all the way to the 'ship. He/she is clicking with fans (friends) and members of the organization (family), things are going extremely well and you've won over the skeptics (your bitchy/douchey friends). Then, all of a sudden, something goes terribly wrong. Perhaps you can't explain it, you can't figure out why after a few blissful months he/she has stopped returning your calls or is acting strangley. The prospect isn't performing in practice (the bedroom), he/she doesn't seem to care in games--that fire is gone. Thus begins the tailspin. You know what you have to do, your pride doesn't want you to, but you've got orders from your fans and GM/owner (friends and family), you've got to cut 'em loose. If you're a guy, you start the process of drowning yourself in a bottle of Jameson, Maker's Mark, or whatever your whiskey of choice is and try to hump anything with a pulse. If you're a girl, you cry to your friends and eat ice cream, watch horrible reality TV, and get fat for a week or five. The dream is gone and you've got to try and move on.


Shared Traits: Great physical assets, initially shows a strong work ethic and has knack for doing right in workouts, maybe lacking in the mental game, prone to injuries, apparent franchise player, dents the pride of the organization that drafts him, messy break-up.


As you can see, sports can teach you something about life, more specifically the dating game. So take this knowledge you've gained from here and apply it to your mock NFL Draft pools and your personal dating lives. Make sure you tune in to ESPN on April 26th for the 2012 NFL Draft; you might learn a little something more from those pundits too. I think my next post may be relating the NHL All-Star Draft to social stereotypes in middle school and high school....a la the fat kid is always picked last for sports....cough cough Phil Kessel at the 2011 NHL All-Star Draft.

ESPN' SEC Blog: My Published Post

Minor personal highlight:

I was featured today on ESPN's SEC Blog and its series about each of the SEC schools' cities/towns. Despite my minor disappointment in the blog editors only posting about a quarter of what I had originally written (I also wrote about Athen's music scene, Terrapin Brewery, and our gorgeous campus and architecture), this is my greatest personal writing achievement to date.

Yes, I have had over 600 visits, hailing from 10 different countries and over 200 unique individuals to my blog since early November (Thanks Google Analytics) and have written pieces that have far more merit and takeaways for the readers, but as a sports nut and die-hard supporter and lover of my alma mater, The University of Georgia, this means so much more to me. It grants me the ability to share my love of my university with the nation, and possibly the world.

It's a tad choppy since they took the intro, second paragraph, and "conclusion" and jammed it together, but enjoy. I would hope you have no problem determining which post is mine:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/41128/the-sec-guide-to-georgias-home-turf

SXSW: The Mecca of Awesome

**NOTE: This post doesn't really focus around the theme of marketing, as other posts in the past have. It's just about a rad time I had, that mildly incorporates some aspects of marketing into it. Enjoy!

Austin, TX—South by Southwest (SXSW), a magical experience of all things technological, interactive, cinematic and musical. I had the pleasure of attending the SXSW Music Festival this year (March 13-18) with a couple of friends, and let me tell you, it didn’t disappoint.

Despite living in Texas for 8 years, I had never experienced all the great things I had heard about Austin. Perhaps it was because the only times I visited were when I was 10 and 12 years old and were for a visit to the capitol and a tennis tournament, but I digress. When the opportunity to visit my friend Spencer, who had recently moved to Austin for work, to be able to experience SXSW and to see one of my favorite bands (Futurebirds) arose, I couldn’t pass it up.

Now I have been to my fair share of music festivals, events and concerts: ranging from Bonnaroo Music Festival to a monster Bruce Springsteen Concert to a listening session at the hallowed Bluebird Café in Nashville, but SXSW is a completely different animal. What makes SXSW so special is that it has the holy trinity, the trifecta, the triple threat, the…ok, I’ll stop…it has atmosphere, interaction and tons of FREE stuff.

The atmosphere is crazy unique; there is literally music pumping out of every door you walk by. No space is spared: bars and parks are converted into music venues, parking lots are transformed into food courts (courtesy of the plethora of delicious Austin food trucks) and your eardrums are filled with the eclectic stylings of bands from every genre. One of the better things about the atmosphere is each party/show usually has somewhere in the range of three to five bands playing. If you don’t like one of the artists, pop out to another show and come back. Literally there is always something going on somewhere.

I have never been to an event that was so interactive. While SXSW does have its own technology-based part of the festival, SXSW Interactive (SXSWi), the week before, the music portion continues that tradition. SXSW requires its attendees to be well-versed in the art of social media: RSVPing to parties and shows, checking Twitter feeds for secret shows or updates about the festival’s happenings and website URLs, Twitter handles and QR codes covering the city. For a social media nerd, like me, it was heaven.

Possibly the greatest thing about SXSW is the ungodly amounts of free stuff you get. For example, I was at SXSW for three days and two nights. I spent just under $60 that entire time on food and drinks. Why? Because SXSW has so many sponsors for each of the hundreds of events that they can give away stuff. Aside from every concert/party/show I went to being free, I got free food, booze and/or schwag (stuff/items) at four out of the six parties I attended. Thanks to SXSW, “free” has become my second favorite “f-word”.

Overall, would I say that SXSW has taught me anything? Would I say that it’s an experience I’ll cherish? Absolutely! So to all you music festivals and general event planners out there, remember that the key ingredients for a truly awesome event are atmosphere, interaction and free stuff.

The following is a list of the bands that I saw, or at least can remember seeing:

Paper Diamond

Futurebirds

The Living Kills

The Shins

Mystikal

(2 dubstep DJs)

Jonny Corndawg

J Roddy Walston and the Business

Yellow Ostrich

New Kid on the (Primetime) Block

According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than four hours of TV each day. For those of you playing at home, in a 65-year lifetime, that means a person will have spent nine years glued to the tube. With so much television being watched, wouldn’t it be nice if there was something to help enhance our experience with it and, dare I say, reward us for our habit? Well my television zombie friends, there is. Enter Viggle. Viggle is an app that can be classified as a “TV loyalty program.” It enables the user to “check in” to both shows and commercials for redeemable points. This app doesn’t just give your account a special title, like “Mayor of Who-Gives-A-Damn” (as with the Foursquare app)—with Viggle, you actually earn tangible rewards. In my opinion, this app is a precursor to how viewers will interact with programs, how advertisers will target audiences, and how television data will be tracked and analyzed.

Let’s dive a little deeper into Viggle. As previously mentioned, it allows a user to “check in” to various television shows and commercials. Each one is worth a certain number of points, with featured shows such as American Idol, Pawn Stars, and Top Chef, being worth more points. These accumulated points can be redeemed for items such as gift cards from Amazon, Starbucks, Gap, movie tickets from Fandango, or to raise money for some of Viggle’s featured charities. The app uses “proprietary audio recognition technology” to identify shows from more than 150 channels, including major broadcast networks. While there are other apps that apply the same principle, such as IntoNow and Shazam (Shaquille O’Neal’s favorite app—if you’re over 26 years old, you won’t get that joke), their user-interfaces don’t match Viggle’s. Viggle uses gamification, the act of taking an activity and applying a game-like quality to it, to change how audiences watch and advertisers utilize television.

Viggle allows users to connect and interact with their favorite shows like never before. Through gamification, people will have a desire to watch TV in order to accumulate points. Furthermore, due to this desire, users may watch other shows they typically don’t. In addition to being rewarded for their program loyalty with points, the Viggle app includes a community where users can Tweet, post comments or chat about each show’s events in real-time. Within this community, users are not only interacting with the shows, but with other users to enhance their experience.

The heightened experience and gamification create a win-win scenario for all parties involved: users, television networks, and advertisers. Let’s break it down: Users are rewarded for watching TV, nothing out of the norm. They have to give away only a small amount of information (name, age and email address) to be rewarded for essentially doing nothing but watch. Television networks are compensated by the competitive aspect of the app—Viggle users wanting to obtain more points by tuning into their programming. If a network’s show is worth a lot of points, more people will want to watch it. Simple enough. Advertisers are indulged a couple of ways: a new medium with data tracking/analytics. Viggle provides a new app and medium upon which to advertise. This could take the form of paying a larger fee for a client’s show or commercial to make it worth more points to the user, banner displays and other options. Additionally, everything from number of watched shows, networks, and commercials to demographics data can be tracked and analyzed for easy data mining.

Advertisers can associate themselves around key shows that they’re engaged with. “You’re basically creating a direct response out of their advertising, which is the Holy Grail,” says Chris Stephenson, president of Function (x), the company behind Viggle.

I believe that Viggle, with some investing, could become the future of television data tracking. If users were to provide more demographic information upon signing up, Viggle could possibly become a better alternative to the Nielsen Box. Viggle is mobile, allows for multiple check-ins for multiple viewers, can field data regarding opinions and feelings of the shows and commercials, offers a motive for users to practice, and can be readily available to a greater population than the Nielsen Box. Suck it, Nielsen. (Sorry, I have nothing against Nielsen, it just felt right to say).

Viggle has the possibility to truly become something special—the next great app. Viggle’s practice of gamification enhances people’s experience with television to the umpteenth degree and allows for interaction with other viewers like never before. Moreover, it creates an uncanny win-win scenario for everyone involved: users, television networks and advertisers. Finally, Viggle could change the way television data is gathered, tracked and analyzed through its mobile components and its built-in community features to gauge audience opinions. I don’t want to get too excited, but Viggle could be the future. And the future is now.

To learn more about Viggle, click here.

You’re Only as Good as THEY Say

We’ve all heard the saying that “You’re only as good as your reputation.” While we all know that to be true on an individual and corporate/company level, but how much do we truly pay attention to it? The answer: not nearly as much as we should. According to a study by Compete.com, the traffic to consumer and user reviews skyrocketed by 158% in 2010 and continues to grow. Additionally, posting and commenting on these sites also increased 91% in 2011 (Wall Street Journal). On top of that, around 70% of consumers consult reviews or ratings before purchasing (BusinessWeek 2008). (Stop, let it all sink in. Ok, proceed…) Not only are more people posting, but more are reading reviews and re-evaluating purchasing decisions. So what does this mean? Several things actually:  The power of consumer influence is shifting to the PEOPLE (instead of traditional advertising), consumers don’t trust what companies say (as you’ll see below), businesses reputations are up for grabs, and progressive steps will need to be taken by marketers to harness this new platform/power and protect those reps.

Wrap your head around these facts*:

-90% of online customers trust recommendations from people they know

-70% trust unknown users

-27% trust so-called “experts”

-14% trust ADVERTISING

-8% trust celebrities

*Erik Qualman, Econsultancy

Based on those numbers, it’s clear to see that companies and advertising are fighting an uphill battle for consumers’ trust. And as we hopefully learned from reading one of my previous articles/entries, TRUST IS KEY. According to another study done by consumer behavior firm Yankelovich, more than 75% of people don’t trust ads. Couple that with the numbers above and it’s pretty easy to see that consumers are no longer as inclined to trust what advertisers say. In a nutshell, when it comes to certain areas of marketing and advertising, what people say matters, not ads.

 The other aspect of frequent posting, viewing, and utilizing of user/consumer reviews is what I like to call the “Amplification Circle of Life and Death” (Copyright pending. Just kidding. But seriously…). Because the digital footprint in this world is nothing short of MASSIVE, consumer-generated information is able to travel much faster and to a far greater amount of people than traditional advertising. Referring to a case done by Deloitte and Touche, 7 out of 10 people who read reviews share them with peers. So think of it as a pyramid: one person reads it, shares it with two friends, who each share it with two friends, etc. etc. and you get the point. Through this amplification process, there is still a great reach (such as in traditional advertising), but it carries more weight due to the trusted source. The “Life and Death” part is determined by what is being said about the company, product, or service. Depending upon the comment/review and its content, it can spell life or death for said target’s reputation on an individual OR mass level.

With the ever-ready Amplification Circle of Life and Death just waiting to be unleashed, it is critical that companies and agencies field special staff to monitor review sites. While any positive opinion or rating is a victory, it’s a minor victory at best; it’s the negative opinions that will stick with the consumers reading the reviews. For those of you reading this that played sports, how easy is it for you to remember you or your teams’ greatest victories? How easy is it for you to remember your toughest defeats? Which are more vivid? Most of you, like me, probably said the defeats. According to Tim Hart, negatives are much easier to remember because they teach us a lesson of what to do or not. He also says, “Impressions and opinions take seconds to develop, but years to change.” This means that a few negative comments or reviews could be detrimental to a product or brand. So how can consumer reviews be utilized to turn negatives into positives? Through a dedicated monitoring staff, feedback loops can be generated to understand what is causing the negative feelings and proactive steps may be taken to correct them. Additionally, staff can post positive comments in order to balance out or outweigh the negative. While the latter option is a little bit shady, let’s be serious, the almighty dollar rules corporate America.

So what is the purpose of my consequent rants? What nuggets of information do I want you to take away from this? Simply that user reviews are increasingly becoming a more significant part of our social media world and, much like Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms, it too needs to be monitored thoroughly. Monitoring feedback loops regarding opinions and feelings about a product, service, or company is crucial. You know the saying, “Caring is sharing”? Well, “Monitoring is protecting”—ok, so it doesn’t have the same ring, but you get the point. Monitoring can help restore the balance to a brand and eliminate troublesome situations. The world of marketing, specifically digitally, is changing rapidly, friends. It’s our job to keep up…

Ad Agencies: A Dying Breed?

A week ago, I came across an article published by Ad Age about how some agencies have dropped off a bit and aren’t necessarily performing up to clients’ standards.  In my opinion, if agencies aren’t so vital to clients anymore, it’s their own fault. However, this has a negative effect on all agencies and the industry as a whole. This got me thinking about a list of “commandments” that I have from a great marketer, Martin MacDonald, and how he would correct this debacle. 

As some of you reading this may or may not know, a few weeks ago was Martin MacDonald’s birthday. Unfortunately, he was taken from us too soon and his loved ones weren’t able to celebrate it with him. For those of you who don’t know, and as those who knew him can attest, Martin was a great marketer and an even greater person. I had the pleasure of meeting and spending some time with him when I was a teen living in Dallas, TX. He worked with my father, Mark Miller, at Rapp, a successful marketing/ad agency. While I will unfortunately never have the chance to work with him, the fact that he has had such an influence on my blossoming marketing career demonstrates how truly impactful his personality and creativity was.

If all of us were to take the approach to marketing and the workplace environment that Martin displays below (whether we’re creative or not) and apply those concepts to both life and marketing, I whole-heartedly believe that agencies would become indispensible and flourish.

(Click to expand image)

I’ve had teachers, executives, and HR managers all tell me this semester how great it is that I have all this energy and passion for marketing and its practices; they attribute it to my youth and my readiness to apply what I’ve learned. While those may be true, what I really hope is that I can maintain that energy and passion throughout my career and that the print-out of Martin’s words-of-wisdom taped to my work station will help to keep me on that track.

Web 2.0: Cut the Clutter

It's kind of strange to think that the bulk of the internet has really only been around for just over fifteen years. During that time, the web has developed into something massive, both on a scale of seemingly endless cyber space and with the sheer magnitude of processed executed over it. By 2007, the average consumer was devoting 23% of his/her media consumption to online channels[i]. As one might expect, that number has since increased. While all of this is fantastic for both consumers and marketers, it does create a problem that has plagued marketers for years: clutter (cue ominous music).

Web 2.0, with all of its P2P, blogs, Wiki pages, Twitter, clouds, avatars, widgets, RSS feeds, video channels, MySpace and Facebook capabilities, has changed marketing and its processes drastically. However, all of these platforms have caused Web 2.0 to walk down a similar, cluttered path as its one-dimensional ancestors: print media, radio, and television. Let’s look at it this way, consumers are besieged with over 5000 advertising messages a day[ii]. Consumers either choose to block out these messages or are completely averse to them. Despite what some people may say (cough cough, the know-it-all kid in my International Marketing class in the 3^rd row), the consumer is smart and is constantly looking to avoid these messages. This means that marketers have to find creative and innovative ways to reach them with their messages. Gone are the days when you could expect people to pay attention to billboards, print ads, and TV commercials. Online, it’s becoming the exact same way: “Banner blindness” has caused the number of people who clicked on the ad to fall from its high of .75% in 2006 to below .18%[iii]. Additionally, users are becoming more and more frustrated with mandatory ads, such as pre-roll advertisements on YouTube. It doesn’t matter the size of your budget or the frequency with which you bombard the market with your messages; what matters is engaging the audience. Otherwise, all you’re doing is spending a lot of money to have messages fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

Furthermore, consumers don’t care about what companies say about their product, they care about what their peers are saying about it. People pay much more attention to “Likes” and Tweets from friends than what’s in a commercial slot. With e-commerce, people look at ratings and recommendations instead taking the manufacturer’s word for it. The best organizations are the ones who have figured out effective ways to hone in on this data and measure it. Those are the companies that understand their consumer and what it takes to reach them. Domino’s (I know, this is like the 3^rd Domino’s reference in the last 4 blogs, sorry) has done a fantastic job of locking on to peer evaluations of their products and taking progressive steps from there. But how does a company or agency ensure that their ads are in the miniscule 1-3% of advertising messages that are actually remembered? [iv] Interaction and engagement. It sounds so simple, but that’s because it is. That’s what makes Web 2.0 so revolutionary, unlike other media, it provides the opportunity for marketers and companies to actually establish direct communication with the market on a mass scale. In order to be successful, companies need to take advantage of it.

 Let’s take a look at Nike and what they did with its soccer division. It created a campaign, known as The Chance, where Nike took submissions from amateur players all over the world and selected the best to receive a chance for trial periods with professional soccer clubs across the world. Nike bludgeoned its website, Facebook, and Twitter mediums, as any company would and should do, but then they went a little off the beaten path by developing a phone app, YouTube series, and got the consumers involved directly. Each of these facets allowed the masses to follow their favorite player and actually interact with them throughout the process. Additionally, Nike did a fantastic job of interacting with followers through social media regarding voting sessions about favorite players, drills the players would participate in, and other interactive applications. This allowed people to feel as if they were part of the process and had an influence on it. On a similar note, why is American Idol so successful? Because the people’s vote counts for something and people believe they have an influence on the outcome. Same principle here with The Chance. Nike was able to effectively break through media clutter and utilize different mediums to interact with the market, generate buzz, and get their message across.

How Nike "Writes the future"...

Media clutter has, and probably always will be a problem for marketers, no matter what format is used. What is important is determining ways to avoid that traffic and to be able to get the message through to consumers without getting lost in the muck. Some of the most effective ways to do that are: using mediums in an innovative fashion, engaging the market, and giving them a chance to participate. Things have been changing since the introduction of Web 2.0, and I couldn’t begin to tell you where we’ll be in the next fifteen years as marketers or consumers. But as Madonna so nearly sang 20+ years ago, “We are living in a digital world, and I am just a digital girl” (Get it? It’s a spin-off of her song “Material Girl”. Get it? Nevermind…)

[v] [vi]

---

[i] Steenburgh, Thomas, and Jill Avery. "UnME Jeans: Branding Web 2.0." Harvard Business School 035th ser. 9.509 (2008): 1-13. Print.

[ii] Ingram, ByMathew. "Marketers Losing Amid Social Media Clutter - BusinessWeek." Businessweek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. Web. 05 Nov. 2011. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2010/tc2010105_764897.htm.

[iii] Steenburgh, Thomas, and Jill Avery. "UnME Jeans: Branding Web 2.0." Harvard Business School 035th ser. 9.509 (2008): 1-13. Print.

[iv] Steenburgh, Thomas, and Jill Avery. "UnME Jeans: Branding Web 2.0." Harvard Business School 035th ser. 9.509 (2008): 1-13. Print.

[v] Ingram, ByMathew. "Marketers Losing Amid Social Media Clutter - BusinessWeek." Businessweek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. Web. 05 Nov. 2011. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2010/tc2010105_764897.htm.

[vi] "About The Chance." Nike - Please Choose Your Nike Region. Nike. Web. 05 Nov. 2011. http://www.nike.com/nikefootball/write-the-future/about?locale=en_US.