JCL Blog

Brand Promise vs. Intention

The actions a company takes make more sense when considered in the context of its intentions.  A few weeks back I posted some thoughts on the brand promise.  This week is an interesting week to think about intention.  

Many years ago Steve Ballmer said he wanted to get a small(ish) payment from every computer user every year instead of selling packaged software.  This it seems has largely been forgotten by the press -- and frankly I cannot even remember what year it was when he said it.  I am quite sure it was long before the popularization of the cloud.  Maybe 10 years ago?  

Either way, I think this is still Microsoft's intention.  Microsoft wants to have a pretty good solution for just about any computing need and would be perfectly happy if everyone purchased subscriptions to gain access to everything Microsoft makes.  I think of Microsoft as the tool superstore of computing, and their desired business model is to have everyone pay for access to the superstore and then be able to use anything.

Google's intention is to get in between us and the information we want.  They realized early on that in order to do this they would need to know a great deal about us.  Smart guys that they are, they anticipated that we would be very nervous about anyone that knew too much about us, so they developed the motto "Don't be evil" to encourage themselves to behave well and to put us at ease.  I think of Google as the toll booth on the highway.  Right now the tolls are being paid by advertisers, and there are other highways, but Google's desire is to have a toll booth on every highway.

Apple's intention is to be the maker of shiny objects.  Steve Jobs knows that the desire for the latest and greatest shiny object is nearly insatiable and he has set out to be the guy that defines and delivers them.  When people say that his creations don't do everything, he says -- the things that my devices don't do, don't need to be done.  I think of Apple as Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium.  The stuff is just so amazing we don't even care what it costs or what it does not do.

So Facebook.  It does appear that Facebook has a highly targeted desire to be the single point of identity management on the web.  The question is -- what is their intention?

 

Facebook's Social Grab

It has been described as Ambition by Robert Scoble, an "impressive feat of innovating at scale" by Albert Wenger, and Dave Winer described it as Zuckerberg's megalomania.  The word scary seems to have increased in usage worldwide just because of Facebook!  The outcry against Facebook wanting to own our identities has been quite the chorus this week.

So on the one hand we think -- everyone is outraged so this will never work.  But on the other hand we are back doing what we do and not changing our behavior.  Just like Wall Street -- we don't trust those guys but we keep giving them our money.  It is a similar psychology.  We know the stock market is set up to benefit the insiders, but everyone thinks they are going to be the one person that defies the odds.  We know that Facebook is making an intentional and targeted and well executed attempt at owning our identities, but all we can think about is getting some of that traffic.

Many people are pulling the fire alarms and no one is leaving the building!  If you think I am overstating this, consider for a minute the idea of unwinding/shutting down your Facebook account.  We are all thinking we will each be the one person that can get out before the crash.  400 million users -- let's just get a little of that traffic before we get out.

So before we just go back to what we were doing and stand by while Facebook gains even more momentum -- let's remember this is not an Open Social Graph -- it is Facebook's Social Grab.

 

Tallying the Impact to the Channel

The announcements in the last few days by Facebook and Twitter are very real reminders of the pace at which things are changing in our industry.

In an effort to take a step back and evaluate the impact of these and other shifts to the technology channel marketing industry, we are assembling a group to do a SWOT analysis on the Channel.  

We are going to kick this off at the Baptie Channel Focus event next week in San Diego.  You can participate even if you are not going to be at the event.  Here is what you need to know:

  •  Follow us on Twitter:  You will be able to see all of the contributions and you can contribute your thoughts -- just put @CSG_Channels in your tweet and we will take care of the rest, or
  • Email us at swot@csgchannels.com.  We will turn your contribution into a tweet -- so others can see it.

We will take everyone's contributions and craft a SWOT Analysis of the Channel that will be shared with the industry.   We will not be completely relying on the wisdom of the crowd in this effort however.  We will be assembling an advisory group that will steer the effort.  In the event you would like to participate as an advisor to this project, please send us an email at swot@csgchannels.com or contact me directly.

Here is the link to the announcement about this project on our web site.

Reports of the death of email...

It is hard to believe but the fax machine that runs over a telephone network has been around for about 50 years.  We still have them in our offices.  In 1996 I was president of a Rotary club in Seattle with a membership of mostly downtown professionals (architects, lawyers, CPAs...) and we distributed our weekly newsletter by fax because only 30% of our members had email addresses.  

Soon after that however, email took off and within a year or two everyone I wanted to reach by email had an address.  Spam was not really a problem yet. It was the golden age of email.  Not only that but we were the email welcoming committee because we wanted more people to do business by email -- so we all promoted it all of the time.

With email on the scene no one defended the fax machine.  The paper rolled up, you had to be there, your document was exposed to anyone that happened by... there was a lot to hate about faxes.  Of course when you needed a signature by 5 pm and it was 4:45 pm -- everybody was glad the fax machines were there.  In fact, all of the real work still came in over the fax machine.  When a fax arrived on my desk -- I paid attention.

The list of technologies that have threatened to do to email what email did to fax is long.  Most recently we have Linked In, Facebook, and Twitter.  And each time the welcoming committee moves to the newest and greatest thing and we all heap scorn on the last thing.

True there is plenty to hate about email.  All of the newsletters (most of which I somehow signed up for), the spam that my IT guys block, the rest of the spam that the junk mail filter traps, the cc's of stuff I will never read, the notifications of changes to online things, the phishing attempts and on and on.  

Twitter on the other hand is just as great as email when it was new.  There is not much spam, everyone is positive about using it, and the welcoming committee could make a Republican feel comfortable in San Francisco.  Mostly however, we all love Twitter because no one expects us to read anything there!  Glance at the stream if you want, but there is no social contract forcing you to read anything or respond.  

The email camp is pretty lonely by comparison.  No housewarming gifts and piles of useless junk and also things that people actually expect me to read and think about.  I don't think anything is even close to displacing email as the medium of real work for a very long time.

 

Is your KPI an RBI or an OBP?

Some marketing departments are just glad to be able to say that they measure something.  The winners are measuring the right things. Everyone has their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and some of the measurements are based more on tradition than on relevant facts.

Over the last 10 years baseball has been turned up side down as traditional measures like Runs Batted In (RBI) have been supplanted by On Base Percentage (OBP).  The teams that figured out how to make their measurements more accurate won -- and the same thing is happening in technology marketing right now.  

Why is the OBP better than the RBI?

  •  The OBP takes walks into consideration (after all, no matter how a batter got on base, he is on base)
  • The OBP works no matter where you are in the line up (someone else has to be on base for you to get an RBI).

 Why doesn't the RBI go away?

  •  Because everyone wants to compare to last year
  • Because the competition is doing it
  • Players are working to improve their RBI number

How many of your measures are quaint and traditional like the RBI?

Here are some of the traps we see people falling into on measurements: 

  1. Better Than Last Year:  We have all done it.  If the numbers are better than last year it must be better right?  Well if you are talking about revenue -- yes.  If you are talking about an intermediate measurement like partner count, attendees at an event, or even satisfaction surveys -- better than last year may not mean the activity is worth doing.  We must take a step back and question the value of the activity before we congratulate ourselves for going in that direction even faster.
  2. More Than the Competition: I am as competitive as the next guy and it is easy to think things are worth doing if the competition is doing them.  Just doing what the other guys do is not necessarily the highest value activity for your marketing effort.  So before you jump into the contest make sure the activity maps to your overall plan.
  3. Assuming Ownership of the Best Looking Number:  It sure is tempting to take the best looking number you can find and make it the result of whatever campaigns have been running -- particularly when the executive review is looming and the other numbers don't look so good.  Unintended outcomes are great, we would not have Post It notes without them. but if you cannot convince yourself of the correlation and be confident that the outcome could be repeated, don't take credit for the number.

Just like in the majors, we should work to reduce everything to contributions to revenue.  This will reduce the tendency to fall into these traps.

 

 

 

IBM's Path to the Future

Yesterday I proposed that IBM leads the world in delivering technology related services to businesses and therefore we may be able to get a sense for future winners by looking at what IBM is doing

Here are a few clues from IBM’s 2009 Annual Report:  

From: Samuel J. Palmisano, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  1. Building Analytics Capability:  “… the knowledge of the world, the flow of markets, the pulse of societies — can now be turned into insight through sophisticated mathematical models, also known as analytics. Where once we inferred, now we know. Where once we interpolated and extrapolated, now we can determine. The historical is giving way to the real-time, and even the predictive.  IBM is moving quickly to capitalize on this promise. We have built the industry’s premier analytics practice, with 4,000 consultants, mathematicians and researchers, as well as leading-edge software capabilities — bolstered by key acquisitions such as Cognos and SPSS. Our new Business Analytics and Optimization service line targets the highest-growth opportunities by delivering integrated analytics solutions based on the needs of specific industries.”
  2. Changes in the Cloud:  “Thus, the data center is shifting from being a single physical place to something more like the Internet, a diverse set of services fueled by IT.”
  3. Customers Want:  “So the questions we are hearing are no longer about whether a smarter planet is a real possibility. Now, there is an enormous hunger to learn how. CEOs, CIOs, governors and mayors are asking questions like: How do I infuse intelligence into a system for which no one enterprise or agency is responsible?”

From the Financials: 2009 total revenue: 

$95 Billion Global Technology Services Group: $37 Billion 

  • Strategic Outsourcing Services
  • Business Transformation Outsourcing
  • Integrated Technology Services
  • Maintenance
  • Integrated Technology Delivery
  • Business Process Delivery   

 Global Business Services Group: $17 Billion

  • Consulting and Systems Integration
  • Application Management Services

 As I read through the report some recurring themes indicated what IBM thinks will be big in the future: 

  1. Cross Platform: No one vendor can solve all problems so there is significant value in being able to work across platoforms
  2. New Ideas: Clients will pay for ideas they cannot think of themselves (new processes, new technologies, ideas that span systems or departments)
  3. Outside the Company:  Security, compliance, and standards are among the functions that can be done better by outsiders

 So if you want to pick the winners of the future, pick companies that deliver technology related services that tie together different technology manufacturers and add some intelligence along the way.

Later:  IBM beats Wall Street expectations for Q1 performance.

 

Picking the Winners

I am not smart enough to pick the big winners in advance.  So I don't play the stock market, and at CSG we sell shovels to the gold miners instead of prospecting for gold ourselves.  Sure striking it rich would be a thrill, but the world is littered with hundreds or even thousands of would be Googles.  I was going to say would be Twitters, but they have not made any money yet!

This strategy has provided us with a very interesting vantage point from which to watch the show.  And it is quite a show these days.  I sure am glad I am not a telecom equipment vendor or a distributor -- it is easy to see what is going to happen to them.  It is much easier to pick the descending parts of our industry than the ascending.  Who in tech is going to do well?  

There has been so much talk about services over the past ten years that we have both lost interest, and lost track of the definition of services.  There are hosting services, IT services, software as a services, software + services -- and each time the word services means a different thing.  IBM, Dell, HP, Microsoft, and Oracle all have significant services organizations.  IBM generates more revenues from services than all of Microsoft's revenue.  What is IBM doing when they deliver services to their clients?

Business pay IBM 50 billion dollars a year for services.  And everyone in tech wants to get into services.  I propose that we could learn a bunch about the future winners by digging into the question -- what are people paying IBM 50 billion dollars a year for?

Stay tuned, in tomorrow's post I will dig through IBM's annual reports.

Death by Home Video

The iPad has been praised for its handling of video including comparisons of the iPad screen at arms length to a giant TV across the room.  I agree Netflix does look great and you can watch YouTube and TV on the iPad.  

However, like everyone else with an iPad, I had created use cases in my mind prior to purchase that were just fantasies.  The one I was really hoping for was the ability to watch home videos easily.  I am not sure why I was thinking this because the rockiest parts of my relationship with Apple have been over video.  I have never really understood Quicktime, and the codecs are a mystery to me.  In fact, after a full switch over to Apple at home a few years ago, it was video that sent me back to the Windows platform.  The final straw was the leap to iMovie 08 from iMovie 6 where Apple just said -- we are starting over and so are you.  I said forget it.

Do I have a synapse missing that makes it impossible for me to decipher home video in the land of Steve?  Does everyone else do this easily and I just don't get it?  

If I am not alone  -- then home video could be the thing that breaks down a wall of Steve's garden.  It does seem like video is getting bigger and soon may be too big for Apple to force into their little box.

Social Media: a How or a What?

Yesterday I referenced Ric Merrifield's new book Re-Think where he helps companies see the difference between how things are done and what is being done.  Here is one of his early blog posts that will give you an idea for the concept.

Ric uses an example of someone sending a fax.  "What are you doing?" ... "Sending a Fax." (almost sounds like the "Making Copies" SNL bit.  He goes on to explain that people have a natural tendency to think that sending a fax (the how) is the actual value adding work -- when in fact it is just how the work is being done.

The fax is clearly old school now and that makes it a perfect illustration.  In fact, the fax is often used as an example of the value of the network effect -- the first owner of a fax machine could legitimately ask "Now what does this thing do?".

Social media is clearly a network, and it is clearly used for creating, organizing and tracking relationships and communicating broadly or directly with the people in those relationships.  Do these activities qualify as what we are trying to accomplish, or just how we are accomplishing something else?

Separating the How from the What

I heard Ric Merrifield speak today as he is promoting his new book:  Re-Think.  There is no question he is doing relevant work and I have already ordered a copy of the book.

I am most interested in the way he articulates the importance of separating the How from the What.  I see this problem often with clients that get caught up in doing the same old stuff bigger, faster, or cheaper -- all without asking "What are we doing?".

It is an easy trap to fall into and we all have to get better at raising the red flag when we see it happening. 

I am also interested in the heat maps -- more on that later (after I read the book).

 

Lessons from IBM

I pointed out the other day that IBM's stock outperformed Google's over the past 4 year period.  There are many things we can learn from the granddaddy of all technology companies.  In its 130 year history, IBM has had more "eras" than most tech companies have had years.  In fact, IBM tangled with the Justice Department before Bill Gates was even born.

The one thing that has always impressed me about IBM is how they seem to be playing on an entirely different level than anyone else.  Real companies count on IBM to give them real solutions to real business problems.  Every time I find myself in a conversation with a senior exec at IBM I am reminded that they have managed to continue to operate at this level regardless of the headlines of the day.  

Somehow I just don't see IBM burning R and D budget on a Twitter clone.

Curiously, IBM also does a great job with its ads.  They come up with fun and memorable ways to make the point that they are serious about business.  Here is my favorite one: which is probably 10 years old now but it still resonates.

Couldn't Resist

Well I held out for four days, but yesterday the hype won out and I got my iPad.  Maybe it was the combination of being in New York, and going past the amazing 5th Avenue store, or the endless articles and coverage.  That store is open 24 hours a day and is swarming with knowledgeable and efficient staff -- I was in and out in 10 minutes despite the fact that the store was packed.

Daniel Lyons summed it up well in his piece in Newsweek:  "Buy into the World According to Steve, and you're making a Faustian bargain -- you sacrifice freedom for the sake of a lovely device that (mostly) works just the way it's supposed to, eliminating the headaches and confusion that most tech products bring with them."  He goes on to list all of the things the iPad will not do (like flash).

Steve Jobs has done it again and he should get most of the credit -- but the conditions that serve as the backdrop for his success were not created by Steve, but by the rest of the industry.

 

The Microsoft Brand Promise

I found myself in a conversation the other day about the Microsoft Brand and was stunned to realize that I could not articulate Microsoft's Brand Promise. Understanding that a brand promise is different than a tag line, I still thought I should be able to articulate it. FedEx's tag line might say: Absolutely positively overnight. But their brand promise is really: "you can trust us with your package". Volvo's tag line might be "There is more to life than a Volvo." but the brand promise is: "you and your family will be safe." I don't know what Apple's tag line is but I think their brand promise is "we know cool better than anyone (including you)".  See my post the other day on the Apple brand promise.

Microsoft used to say "A PC on every desk and in every home" but that was more fortune telling than either a tag line or a brand promise. Here is an article from 2002 where Mich Mathews the Corporate VP of Marketing explains the campaign that intended to "help people realize their potential".  The new Microsoft ads say "Windows 7 was my idea" but I have a hard time getting any promise out of that.  Here is a recent article from the Seattle Times  where David Webster, Chief Strategy Officer in the Microsoft Central Marketing group, explains the campaign but not a brand promise.

So what is the Microsoft brand promise?

4 Years, 4 Stocks, 1 Surprise

Take a look at this chart showing percentage increase in stock price over the last four years for Microsoft, Apple, Google, and IBM.  These are the top four companies in terms of market cap in the technology sector.  Apple is blowing it out -- which is no surprise -- at 275% over four years.  Microsoft is in the back of the bus -- also no surprise.  Google and IBM are in the middle and IBM has performed better that Google over the past 4 years -- that was a surprise to me.

So the question is:  Which stock would you buy right now?

A League All His Own

The iPad mania is accelerating to a level that will make the Hollywood PR industry envious.  Steve Jobs has left the rest of the tech industry in the dust and is playing on a stage others don't even know how to get to.  Show biz was at this game 100 years before the PC was created so tech has got some catching up to do.

I have already said I am waiting until later to get the iPad.  My definition of later is getting modified every day.  This Elements ap is not only enough to get me to eat my words, but now I want to go back and take 9th grade chemistry again!

 Any remaining space in the hype-o-sphere that could have been left for the rest of the industry was mopped up by Jobs with his masterful Apple vs Google fight.  

I suppose the rest of us should just take the month off.

Cool vs. Fool: The Apple Brand Promise

Steve Jobs does bring a great deal of value to Apple.  He sees into the future with binoculars while we have a hand over one eye.  He sticks to his plan while others cast about.  He has no problem implementing unbelievable measures to keep things secret.  He is an inspiration to his employees and no doubt his enemies.

I submit that above all of these things his greatest value is delivered as the keeper of the Apple Brand Promise.  

As the importance of the salesperson is displaced by a customer's interaction with the social graph, the Brand Promise is more important than ever.  The Brand Promise is the context within which the community talks about a product.  A well established Brand Promise erects boundaries beyond which even detractors cannot go.

What do you think the Apple Brand Promise is?  For a long time it was that Apple products were easy to use.  I do not think that is it anymore.  

I propose this:  You will always be cool with an Apple product in your hand, in your bag, or on your desk.  Steve Jobs upholds his promise that you will not feel a fool for buying his creations.

How else could he convince everyone to pre-order iPads -- a first generation product that no one has even seen!

Love him or otherwise, that Steve Jobs is doing it again.

The Timid Need Not Apply

On the morning of August 7, 1974, the Frenchman Philippe Petit walked across a steel cable he had strung between the twin towers of the World Trade Center.  He not only made it to the other side, but spent 45 minutes going back and forth eight times and even jumping up and down and lying down on the cable.  When asked why he did it he said: “When I see three oranges, I juggle; when I see two towers, I walk.”  Philippe Petit is the perfect profile for someone running a marketing department.  We just do this stuff despite the risks.

Marketing is Not Safe

The volatility in the job markets has caused people to be much more interested in job security.  Gallup just did a poll and 70% of working Americans said that their current job is the ‘ideal job’ for them.  The people in the Gallup poll must not be in marketing.  CMO tenure has been getting better over the past couple of years – but it is still very short at 28.4 months.  How anyone can focus on the big picture with a two year horizon is beyond me.  So it is clear that anyone looking for a safe and secure job need not apply.  Marketing is definitely a fun and vibrant industry but by all measures it is definitely not safe. 

Here are five reasons that Marketing is Not a Safe job:

The Environment is Always Changing: The competition is doing things, other industries are doing things, the tools are changing, customers expectations are changing, and the economy is changing.  There are so many things changing all of the time that it is impossible for anyone to sit still.  To make matters worse, the rate of change is increasing.  So if you thought last year was wild – get ready for next year because it is going to be wilder.

No Clear Measurements: Despite tremendous advances in the tools and tactics for measuring marketing performance, there are no agreed upon standards.  The sales department has revenue and marketing has a mixed bag. And just when it seems like a standard is going to emerge the environment changes.

Exposed to the Blame Game: When things go bad people go looking for someone to blame, with no clear measurements and a constantly changing environment, the marketing department can be as exposed as a Frenchman on a wire.

Public: Scientists can do their experiments in a lab, marketing people do not have that luxury.  By definition marketing activities are public and therefore the wins are exposed to be copied and the losses are spectacular crashes in plain view.

Requires New Ideas: The half life of a successful marketing idea is even shorter than the tenure for CMOs so a constant stream of new ideas are required.

So, if you want to exist in a world where there is no job security, no agreed upon measures of success, where you can get blamed for other people’s screw ups, where you regularly fail and sometimes succeed in public, and you have to come up with new ideas all of the time – marketing is the job for you!

Wait! There is More

If you can bear to read on you already know you are well suited for the marketing business.  Here are three things successful marketing people do to not only survive, but thrive in this environment.

Set Expectations Properly: We have all been in countless meetings where the expectations ascend into the rafters – you know, go viral, a Cadbury moment.  There is no question it would be awesome, but it does not happen very often.  So any plan has to be built around a realistic expectations.  If the plan does not make sense with a the laws of gravity applied then come up with a new plan.  There is a big difference between leaving an opening for serendipity and counting on it. Pros don’t get caught up in the hype and set unattainable expectations.

Talk About One Measurement: Measure everything, but only talk about one measurement.  In the end there should only be one measurement that counts and talking about all of the other (contributing) measurements just sounds like excuse making.  You and your team can use all of those other measurements to learn fast and learn a lot, but in the end the one key measurement is the only thing that matters.  Remember, this one key thing should be the thing that your marketing department’s client (the sales department) is expecting to get.

Fail All of the Time: So much has been written about failing and failing fast that it seems we sometimes forget to do it.  Even previously successful campaigns can fail as the environment changes.  Make sure you know what failure looks like and don’t talk yourself into re-casting a failing campaign as a winning campaign by picking out one good looking number and putting all of your weight on it.  Make sure to set expectations properly and that means describing in advance what a failing campaign looks like and agreeing what will be done.

So Marketing is Awesome

Anyone still reading is already converted.  We should remind ourselves more often that marketing is an awesome business and we are all lucky to be in it.  Philippe Petit truly enjoyed his high wire act.  He was in his element, he had done his homework (he had been planning since 1968), he was a professional, and it was obvious to everyone who witnessed the event.    

Lipstick on an Excel Pig

A really smart MBA with a spreadsheet and proper motivation can make just about any idea look good and we have all seen campaigns, ideas, and even entire companies get funded in this way.

One of the things that often impresses me about the people I meet at Microsoft is their ability to be self critical.  Some would argue that at times it goes too far.  I think it is a characteristic other companies should try to emulate.  

Last year at the Monaco Media Forum, Darren Huston, Microsoft's VP in charge of Consumer and Online, gave a great presentation and one of the things he said was: "average creative gets way over measured to try to prove it was great creative.  Great creative -- we don't spend weeks measuring."  The "we" at the end gives away that in addition to making this great observation, he was showing how Microsoft can be its own greatest critic.  I believe this one corporate personality trait is Microsoft's biggest asset.

Whether or not the criticism is self directed, he was making a very good point, and we see it played out often in the technology marketing industry.  Marketers get so attached to their ideas that they lose the ability to call a pig a pig.  

This disability is self inflicted.  By recognizing in advance that many ideas will not produce the desired results.  And that no matter how experienced your team is, marketing is dominated by experimentation.  You can in effect leave the door open to honest self criticism and ensure that there is a safe way to kill ideas that fail.

The Most Expensive Marketing Program Ever

As an outsourced provider of marketing services to technology companies we find ourselves in conversations about how much marketing programs cost just about every day.  These are very important discussions that have a wide ranging and long term impact on a company.  Every company should do everything it can to execute its marketing plans for as little money as possible.  Value achieved is the result of two factors:  the outcome, and the cost.  Driving down the cost is an effective way to improve the value achieved.  The strange thing to me however is the reluctance to drive the cost all of the way to zero.  

That is right, we are the outsourced provider, making us the company that gets the money associated with the cost in the Value = Outcome / Cost formula, and I just said our clients are often reluctant to reduce the cost of their marketing programs to zero.  I am not saying however that we are willing to work for free -- I am saying that the most expensive marketing programs are the ones that should not happen in the first place.  The only way to have an infinitely expensive marketing program is to have zero outcome.  Bad ideas cannot be changed into good ideas by doing them for less money.  Bad ideas should be killed off and replaced with other better ideas.

So the next time you find yourself talking about how you want to do the same thing you did last year, but for less money:  make sure you are also asking if the program is worth doing at all.

Resisting Overproduction

Everyone with a DVR knows that there are only 40 minutes of content in every hour of TV.   When you hear the host say "Stay with us" or "We will be right back" or "We are taking a break" what comes to mind? These and other conventions from radio and TV, fade in and fade out music for example, are often viewed as signs of professionalism.  I propose they are overproduction and reduce the value of the experience.  Begging the viewer/listener to endure a commercial is a dead giveaway to old media does not seem fit our new media reality.

Here are three podcasts that I listen to that range from new media to old media.  How much content do you think there is in each one of these podcasts?  

The Advertising Show

Cranky Geeks

Rebooting the News

I admit, this is not really fair because Rebooting the News does not have any advertising at all -- so it is 100% content (and an amazing podcast).  Cranky Geeks would be next -- 3 short breaks for ads at one minute each -- but they are not that intrusive and I don't even hit the 2X button on my iPod.  27 minutes of content out of 30.  I am a big fan of John Dvorak.  I was following him before there even was a world wide web and I am still not tired of him.  I suspect that all of us are more than happy to sit through the adds -- just for John.  The advertising on Cranky Geeks works -- I use both Go Daddy, and SquareSpace because I want to do my part to keep Cranky Geeks going.  On The Advertising Show -- well you make your own determination, but I leave my iPod on 2x for as long as I can last -- and even then I rarely make it through the whole thing.  It has to be at least half filler and advertisements.

So if you are going to put ads in your podcast -- pick advertisers that will resonate with your audience -- and resist the pull of overproduction.

PS:  Ira Glass says "Stay with us" on This American Life -- and I just don't get that.  His content and production quality are legendary and he holds my attention the whole way through -- not sure why he says it.