The juice bar has been down for a few days.

The juice bar done got hacked!

Nothing unusual I am told. Even our presidential candidate Barak Obama gets his site hacked.

How I got hacked is anyone’s guess. I was hosted on BlueHost and was using a relatively antiquated version of WordPress. I am rigorous in my spam filter and (as you can see) avoid a lot of the crazy widget madness.

I’m told it was all fairly mild by comparison to some of the “big hacks” out there.

But it is interesting how VIOLATED you feel when someone hacks your site. It isn’t the privacy issue — although that is nothing to sneeze at.

And I don’t want to suggest that this compares to physical assault.

Rather it is the indignation that comes when someone lets their dog take a dump in your yard.

Actually, it is more than that. Because when you’re hacked it is not just cyber vandalism, it is often vandalism to spread all sorts of dirty, nasty, and unwelcome stuff.

I guess it is more like coming home and finding out that a bunch of pimps and crack dealers moved in. And they’re sitting in your favorite chair drinking and eating from your fridge!

I am told there are ethical hackers. They specialize in “penetration testing.” Hmmm.

I’m not buying (or renting) it. I think that was what got Governor Spitzer in trouble.

According to Symantec Security Response’s 13th annual “Global Internet Security Threat Report” the cause is our new Web 2.0 world colliding with:

“a mature underground economy for hackers, client-side attack toolkits such as bots, and the wildcard: human behavior in the workforce,”

Of the three, it is the “human behavior in the work force” that scares me the most (and I am including myself!)

Anyway, we moved the juice bar to a new server, updated the software, and, in general, cleaned the place up.

The health inspector was just by and gave the juice a clean bill of health.

Back open for business.

Apologies for the inconvenience.

(And many thanks to Ryan Canulla of Brodeur who is an absolute rock star !!!)

I’ve got an offer for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Here’s the offer:

Scalia stays out of the business of providing brand, marketing communications and pr advice about the American justice system and the judiciary …

I promise not to become a Supreme Court Justice or otherwise make judgements about what is and is not constitutional …

Scalia recently strayed into the communications business in comments to Virginia high schoolers about television cameras in the courts.

If you hadn’t guessed. Scalia’s not a fan of television cameras in the courts.   According to a report in Broadcasting and Cable in arguing his case against cameras (and these are CSPAN cameras … not exactly CourtTV or the E! Channel … ) Scalia said that people should either watch EVERYTHING the Court does (which he admits is boring) or NOTHING.  You either watch them gavel-to-gavel or not at all. 

Why?  Because for every person who watched coverage gavel-to-gavel …

“there would be 100,000 who would watch a 15-second take-out from the C-SPAN feed. And I guarantee you that the 15-second take-out would not be characteristic of what we do. It would be man bites dog, so why should I participate in the miseducation of the American people?”

Justice Scalia seems to be still living in a communications world where people don’t have choice.  Surely he’s heard of YouTube.  Why not put footage there and let people make their own choice? 

And if Scalia is current on the way communications work in the 21st Century, his statement suggests a lot of contempt for the wisdom of the average American.

I spend much of my time advising clients about the new, "transparent", communications environment in which we live.  It is a world where people are empowered with technology and tools so they can access information when they want, how they want, and in the format they want. 

It is a new communications environment where organizations have to be more relevant and respectful of the people because people have power and choice.

Apparently Scalia is having none of these notions of end-user communications democracy when it comes to allowing people to observe and learn from our system of justice.

He appears to be stuck in the Dick Cheney school of communications.  Don’t ask.  Don’t tell.  You either get your information my way or you don’t get jack. 

The transparency and democracy thing might be good for others, but let’s keep that blindfold on the statue of justice.

Check out Modernista!  They are the advertising agency behind such brands as Hummer, Cadillac, and TIAA-CREF.

Modernista!’s non-site-site was brought to my attention by Bill Mount of Trephine Inc. via John Brodeur, both of whom are working on the new web site for the agency I work for, approporiately called, Brodeur.

In the words of Bill, Modernista! may have …

… created the first ’siteless website’ and, in so doing, have sent the message that these are people for whom unconventional thinking is like breathing (they didn’t say ‘we’re unconventional’, they proved it in th every form of their communication).  They ’simply’ appropriated parts of the web that everybody’s already familiar with and used them to tell the Modernista! story:

• About us is on Wikipedia
• Leadership team bios are on Facebook
• The TV reel is on YouTube
• The Print Portfolio is on Flicker.

And it is all bound together by a discreet, little red banner in the upper left corner of your browser.  Damn!  I mean, seriously.  Damn!

I don’t know if Brodeur’s going to have a “siteless website” but the Modernista! approach shows the power .. and the logical extension? .. of true social media.

I agree with Bill.

Damn!

 

I’m in love with my Flip Video.

I love my wife, children, and grandchilren more.  And Cody, my dog, is still safe.  I think.

But my Flip Video has me enchanted.  At first I thought it was just a fling.  A passionate trist, if you will.  A dalliance of video lust and carnal multi-media pleasure that would fade.

But the passion endures.  And lovers have become friends.  What was once a temporal and fleeting orgy of digital consumer generated content emotion is fast becoming a daily, practical, and meaningful experience.

And not only that, others are confirming and affirming my passion.  I demonstrated my Flip Video to several consulting colleagues.  Not only have they bought Flip Videos for themselves, they’ve integrated Flip Video into two major clients campaigns, sparking literally thousands of Flip Video romances.  I just got finished showing Flip Video to a client.  They, too, fell in love. Another thousand orders — er, I mean romances — are blossoming.

So in addition to personal passion the Flip Video has become a true business partner.  Part of my personal and professional day-to-day.

My Flip Video can capture, store, produce, and share video via one button, one USB port, and fifteen minutes of foreplay (or afterplay?).  The size of a small digital camera, it is ready anytime, anywhere … no need for contraceptive or ED planning. 

And with the video management software on the device I don’t have to walk the dangerous Internet alleys downloading God-knows-what from people who’ve been God-knows-where in order to edit and share what I shoot.

This thing has changed my life.  I don’t even care that other people — like David Pogue of the New York Times — are having their own Flip Video affairs.

And my bet is — at $125 — this thing and the technology behind it is going to change the way we communicate in the future.

PS. Thanks, Nicco.

mar222008-vid00007-1.wmv

Perhaps I write this because I am sitting in the McCarren Airport in Las Vegas, having spent the last four days in a city where every carnal pleasure is not only possible, but actively promoted.

But it was two recent events that prompted the title of this blog.

Greed is NOT good … for society … and also for brands.

I say that greed is not good for society and that may sound a bit preachy.  But I am, after all, in Vegas.  And I am having a problem putting aside the fact that Vegas thrives on people who — defying all pretense of rationality and logic — support the local economy due in some part to their own personal greed. 

If you think greed is too strong a word, check on (or click on) Gordon Gecko’s definition — greed for profit, greed for life, greed for youth, sex, enjoyment.   By his definition Las Vegas is a very greedy place indeed. 

Under Gecko’s definition, greed is good for companies.

Two recent events suggest not.

Bear Sterns, and Starbucks.

Bear Sterns.  Not much to say there, is there?  Aggressive. In pursuit of the highest margin at the highest risk for the highest return.  Noteworthy that much of that return helps pay some of the highest bonuses in the U.S. economy.

Starbucks.  No, I’m not talking about the fact that they skimped on taxes and tips. Rather, I’m talking about the overweening desire to expand at any cost — albeit to quality, cannibailization of their own market, even the sapping of the experience that was core to their brand experience (much less about the quality of their java which recently was rated right up there with McDonalds!).

Maybe it is time for a capitalism reality check.

Greed is not good for brands. 

The only thing it clarifies (again, a Gecko reference) is the inability to stay true to brand values.

Are there successful brands that are organized around greed?

Well, that brings us back to Vegas and specifically, gambling.

I’m not saying that a greedy brand can’t be successful.  Just that I don’t think it is by accident that Vegas’tagline is:  " What happens here stays here."

Amen to that. It should stay there. Don’t bring stuff like that into the community or the home. It will only screw you up.

Today’s most interesting quote:

“Almost all of the mistakes we made, we didn’t give people enough control. 

We need to give people complete control over their information.

The more control and the more granular the control, the more info people will share and the more we will be able to achieve our goals.”

Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg at SXSW as reported in BusinessWeek.

In those three sentences Zuckerber summed up the essential characteristic of social media and its conflict with the instincts of private enterprise.

I’ve been traveling again. Even more than usual.  And I’m continually astonished at one simple observation.

A lot of people don’t smile.  I mean A LOT of people.  No smiles. 

(Note:  the fact that I am "continually astonished" about anything says something about me and about the human condition — but that is another story.)

Why don’t more people smile?  Are they really that unhappy?  It is such a simple, easy thing to do.  And just about everyone from every discipline will tell you — smiling is a very, very good thing.

According to Dr. Stibich’s post at About.com, smiling will do everything from making you more attractive to lowering your blood pressure.

Overall, smiling will make you healthier and live longer.

It will even help you have more and better sex.

Interestingly enough, you don’t even have to ‘mean it.’  Just doing it is theraputic.

All those benefits — vitality, longevity, happiness, sex — and then look at all those people you see at home, in the neighborhood, in the office (or in my case, in the airport) and how few are smiling.

So what does all this have to do with brands?

Good brands smile.  They make you smile when you think of them.  Their people smile when you talk to them (from a travelers viewpoint I think of Starbucks, Southwest, Ritz Carlton).

I spent nearly ten days on the road.  The brands I remembered (at least remembered fondly) were with companies whose people were smiling.

So.  Want to improve your brand?  Simple.  Think about (a) how you can get your people to smile; and (b) how you can get your customers to smile.

Hint:  most of the time they’re the same thing.

In the past few months I’ve had the opportunity to work with a client on a project that focuses on how people think, how the brain works, and how all that fits into the things they buy and the things they do.

With that as a backdrop, take a look at today’s New York Times business section’s story titled:  Daring to Think Differently About Schizophrenia.

Most of the story surrounds the biology of schizophrenia and its relationship to dopamine and glutamate.  Modestly interesting to me.  Very interesting to someone like my wife who is a mental health social worker.

But it was one paragraph and an accompanying chart that caught my eye and prompted one of those those out loud “hmmm … of course!” moments …. moments that happen when you read a fact or development that more tightly ties a lot of loose and floating dots that have been orbiting your brain for some time.  The paragraph was this one:

Driving the industry’s interest is the huge market for drugs for brain and psychiatric diseases. Worldwide sales total almost $50 billion annually, even though existing medicines have moderate efficacy and have side effects that range from reduced libido to diabetes.

$50 billion annually.  Just for drugs to fix your brain. 

Let me see …. $50 billion divided by 300 million men, women and children … by my math (which is often incorrect) that is somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 plus for every living American and illegal immigrant in the country — from eighty years  to eight days old.

All just for fixing your brain. 

Forget about fixing your heart or liver or curing cancer or diabetes (which apparently some of these brain drugs actually cause!).  All this for fixing your brain.

Which leads me to my client project:  understanding the intersection between the science of the brain and the science of commerce.  Because as in the area of health care and pharmaceuticals, I’m increasingly convinced that a huge and important issue, idea, and brand tool for the 21st Century will be about a better understanding of the brain and how people make decisions.

In short, in marketing and brand communications, just as in the pharmaceutical world … It’s the Brain Stupid!

Consider the following recent factoids and data points on the latest research on how we think and how that impacts what we — brand communications folks — need to consider:

• A study in the Journal of Consumer Research that suggests “appetitive stimuli” — exposing people to certain types of foods or imagery — can significantly influence their decisions and make them more impulsive in unrelated areas.
• A study by the National Academy of Sciences study showing that the perceived price of wine actually impacted how people thought the wine tasted. The more expensive you thought the wine was, the better you thought it tasted.
• And based on my utterly subjective assessment about half of the last eight Nobel Prize Winners in Economics were given the honor primarily or partially for work they did on the economic impacts of individual human decision-making.

Note also the slew of recent popular books that focus on how products and brands interact with all that strange and wonderful thing in your head called your brain:  Beruhmte casino. Made to Stick, Emotional Branding, Paco Underhill’s Why We Buy (the science of shopping), and the most recent book by Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational (recently published and highly recommended!!).

There’s also a slew of good blogs out there that are tracking this from the science of marketing (NeuroscienceMarketing.com)organizational management (Rowan’s Future of Choice) and human behavior (NeuroscientificallyChallenged).

So there it is, folks.  It is all about the brain. 

And everyone from the drug companies to Madison Avenue are spending billions trying to figure it all out. 

Now, back to the $50 billion market for psychotropic drugs. 

Here’s how I see it. 

Growing up we had the famous anti drug commercial:  “this is your brain … this is your brain on drugs … any questions? “

Today’s version goes a bit like this:

“This is your brain.  Hmmm.  Your brain is really messed up.  How about some …. drugs?

“A horse.  A horse.  My kingdom for a horse.”

So said King Richard after tortured dreams, a fallen steed, and recognition of the battle lost.

For some reason that was the phrase that came to mind when I heard of the attempt by Microsoft to buy Yahoo!

From Ballmer and Microsoft a cry to find something — anything — that would give it the means to battle its nemesis, Google. 

From Yang and Yahoo! a cry to find anyone — anyone! — who can save it from the clutches of the lumbering establishment behemoth, Microsoft.

Microsoft’s offers up $40 billion at a share price that Yahoo! hasn’t seen in two years to purchase what many view as a declining asset that has been busy acquiring but not innovating but still is the only thing left out there that can seemingly blunt the Google juggernaut.

Your potential, our passion … indeed.

Yahoo! snubs its nose at the offer and even considers teaming up with AOL (now there’s a edgy brand) to save its guilded heritage of online innovation (Yahoo! was launched 3 years before Google) and spare itself from the cold, corporate MSN. 

Yahooey!!!

I agree with Mat Ingram at Seeking Alpha:  “deperation all around.”

A sad and tragic tale.  As sad as poor Richard III.

The story is one of an ambitious, rogue Richard who cagily climbs to the throne of his brother King Edward only to, once there, atrophy and collapse through angst, worry and doubt.  This summary form the entry in Wikipedia sums it up:

In dramatic terms, perhaps the most important (and, arguably, the most entertaining) feature of the play is the sudden alteration in Richard’s character. For the first ‘half’ of the play, we see him as something of an anti-hero, causing mayhem and enjoying himself hugely in the process … Almost immediately after he is crowned, however, his personality and actions take a darker turn. He turns against loyal Buckingham (”I am not in the giving vein”), he falls prey to self-doubt (”I am in so far in blood, that sin will pluck on sin;”); now he sees shadows where none exist and visions of his doom to come (”Despair & die”).

And so goes both Microsoft and Yahoo!  Once proud and mighty brands — true “anti-heros, causing mayhem and enjoying themselve hugely in the process” … now scrambing to contend with ominous shadows of Google.

Visions of doom, indeed. 

Now is the winter of their discontent.

(BTW, for a handy chronology leading up to this mess check the Associated Press)

Not every brand should blog.

I think of it this way.  Some women should not wear halter tops.  Some men should keep their shirts both buttoned and tucked inside their pants. 

Only a small percentage of people should be allowed to wear belly shirts or have a thumb or toe ring.

These truths are as self-evident as all men being created equal.

So why are folks out there insisting that brands should blog?

John Moore (who is really smart and has a great blog) takes Starbucks’ CEO to task for not blogging.  Maybe he’s right, I don’t know.

But I’ve met a lot of companies and have gotten to know them pretty well.  And my advice to many of them:

"Put down the WordPress and slowly walk away."

For those brands that do blog there’s now a club they can join.  It is called the Blog Council.  I exchanged some emails with one of its organizers and it seemed like a good enough idea — a cross between a "best practices" organization and group therapy for corporate bloggers. 

But I don’t think that corporate / brand blogs — whether they exist or not — is the issue.

Rather, the issue is what do corporations and brands do when they’re besieged by the swarm of new media demands all going by the same name … blogs … and insisting to be treated like Walt Mossberg.

Unfortunately, many brands do the same thing that Target has done recently … blow them off.

The problem that most brands have with the blogosphere is not that they are not speaking properly through this new social medium.

It is that they are still trying to figure out how to listen to it.