Important Chart

The Least Interesting Website in the World

This microsite represents everything that is wrong with digital marketing. The Most Interesting Man in the World from Dos Equis is one of the most clever campaigns in recent memory. I'm guessing it is based on the insight that people who drink XX are more curious, and therefore more interesting people. But instead of helping visitors quench their thirst for a more interesting life, they came up with a bunch of lame games and experiences, like this one. Stay Thirsty, My Friends ... by seeing how long you can hold down a space bar.

What I Talk About

A study from Pear Analytics finds that 40.55% of tweets are pointless babble.

I’m not sure this is any different from the conversations in real life. I have analyzed my own conversation and found that it breaks down thusly.

Conversational Nuggets Explained

Conversational Nugget Theory ™, was based on a conversation in college with my friend Bill Carrig. The idea was based on the observation I had at fraternity parties. You’d often run into the same people, but often you didn’t have a whole lot to talk about. You’d see some guy or girl and you had one, maybe two topics, you could talk to that person about. Like that fact that you had taken Intro to Sociology with Prof. Moskos together. Or that you lived on the same floor your freshman year. Or that you both got drunk that one time at that guy’s house.

So you’d have a number of conversational nuggets you could talk to someone about. And the strength and depth of a relationship was based on the number of conversational nuggets available. Think about when you have drinks at a work event. With some of your colleagues, you really only have one conversational nugget at your disposal: work. But with your colleagues that you also consider your friends, you probably have a lot to talk about. In fact, just talking about *work* seems to denigrate the relationship a bit when you’re not working. And your best friends, your soulmates, you can talk to them about anything.

And that leads us to the first corollary Conversational Nugget Theory™:

1. Chemistry is then defined by the ease at which you can form conversational nuggets. A good date is often one where the dialogue just flows naturally. You’re not forcing anything, or having those weird awkward pauses. With people that are closest to you, you no longer have a cluster of individual nuggets, you’ve one a big clump o’ conversation. When you’ve got good chemistry with someone, you get to that big giant conversational mountain right away.

So what does this have to do with marketing? We talk so much today about having a conversation with our consumers. Yet most of the time it’s still very one-way. Often this seems more like code to just say you should be listening to them. Or having a blog or twitter feed or whatever.

But I think the bigger issue is that if you want to have a conversation, you need to have something to talk about. That’s why guys like Russell Davies are so keen on brands being interesting. Brands like Apple, Nike, Virgin, The North Face, Phish, In and Out Burger and Google always have lots of stories to share. I think the other piece is that these brands tend to have lots of hooks into people. When you talk about Nike, do you talk about Just Do It, or their athletes, or their cool designs, or about the crazy tech behind Nike Plus, or about puppets. Or do you talk about shows, or covers, or ticket design or over-the-top concerts when you talk about Phish? They strive to reach that big chunk of conversation, reserved for the deepest relationships.

Coming soon: Twitter and the Perpetual Multi-Logue(tm)!

Starting Five Revised

Like millions of other MJ fans, I watched all 2.5 hours of Michael Jackson's funeral. Clearly the King of Pop is a starter, and the only American artist who could match up with the Beatles. Further consultation is also suggesting that Bob Dylan needs to start as well. So now I am going with two Kings, MJ and Elvis, at point and center respectively. With Dylan at shooting guard, and Hendrix and Springsteen at forward.

I like the US chances with this lineup.

Starting Five: US versus UK in Rock

A few weeks ago the guys in my proto-band Growler debated the musical prowess of the US versus the UK. It became readily apparent that if you are talking about bands, the US gets smoked.

Consider fielding your starting five bands if you’re British. You’ve got The Beatles at point guard, The Stones at forward and Zepellin at center. Those three alone could pretty much take the US. Add in Pink Floyd at off guard, The Clash at power forward and you’ve got a tremendous starting five.

Not to mention how deep the UK bench goes. The Who, the Police, U2 and The Sex Pistols could claim to be starters as well.

How could the US match up against that? With the Grateful Dead, Beastie Boys and The Doors? Ouch! Metallica could do a workmanlike job, but they’d eventually wear down in a 7 game series. Nirvana would be an interesting wild card to put out there, kind of like a Dennis Rodman or Birdman type, but not sure they’d come through in the clutch. Talking Heads? Please.

For some reason the best US bands US are dominated by a singular persona like Morrison and Jerry Garcia – no one knows who the drummer to The Doors was.

So let’s say the US gets to field individual artists. Now it gets interesting. Put James Brown at point guard, Jimi Hendrix at forward, and Elvis Pressley at center. Controversial choice here, but I’d start Madonna at shooting guard – super clutch, big game shooter. I’m thinking I’d put out Bruce Springsteen at the other forward. Though I might go with Frank Sinatra at this position instead. Maybe Stevie Wonder?

And think of how versatile this team would be. Like Magic Johnson, Hendrix could legitimately play all five positions. J.B. can be both a maestro and a shooter. The Boss could be both a calming influence as well as an explosive scorer on the team. The UK team would rigid roles – Beatles writing perfectly crafted songs, The Clash and Zep providing muscle, and Floyd spacing out. The US team would display a beautiful, flowing unpredictable game, with players endlessly riffing on each other and bringing new ideas to the table.

Deep bench for the US here as well. Prince would be a terrific sixth man . Johnny Cash would be a tremendous enforcer, unafraid of the hard foul. Bob Dylan could make the case to start. Take your pick of guitar heroes: SRV, B.B. King, Santana and Muddy Waters. (Think how comparatively weak the UK is here. Clapton is perhaps the only UK solo act that could even make the US team, much less be a starter).

Not sure what to do about Michael Jackson. Surely MJ in his heyday had unstoppable game, but his behavior these days would really throw off the team chemistry. Same goes for Snoop Dogg.

So back to the big matchup: The Beatles, Floyd, The Rolling Stones, The Clash and Led Zepellin versus James Brown, Madonna, Jimi Hendrix, Bruce Springsteen and Elvis Pressley.

I dunno. I still have a feeling the UK is going to pull this one out.

Thoughts?

Ries vs Davies: Brands as Physics

Al Ries is the father of Positioning, is the Isaac Newton of marketing. He likes to write books that employ the phrase “immutable laws” in them. Marketing and branding can be understood like clockwork. The universe of brand and consumer relationship can be broken down into discrete laws and relationships between the consumer and brand. Identify a unique position for your brand in the market place. Give your brand a good name, a good logo, and a good slogan that reflects this positioning. Then bombard the consumer with 30 second ads that reinforce this positioning ad nauseum. Lather, rinse repeat.

Note how Ries went from “22 laws” for branding and marketing, and down to merely 11 laws for the “11 Laws of Internet Branding” published in 2000. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the Internet is pretty mutable.

Then we have Russell Davies, the father of Interestingness. He’s like the first quantum account planner. His philosophy questions Ries insistence on focus when we have an increasingly fragmented yet simultaneously networked world. Writing in the more ambiguous format of the blogosphere – and rejecting words like ‘laws’ in favor of words like “maybe” and “perhaps” – Davies posits that strong brands are first and foremost interesting. They ‘do stuff’ and don’t succumb to the tyranny of the Big Idea. When ‘engagement’ is the watchword of the day, perhaps we communication needs to be complex for us to be considered worth thinking about.

More on complexity to come.