While I’d planned to come back to blogging on 3000 Proverbs, alas, it just isn’t going to happen right now. Focusing on growing businesses, family, and blogging on my company site just leave no time for real meaningful insight here. You knew things were bad when I posted from the Time Warner Center bathroom.  

But hey, it was fun while it lasted. I duked it out (very civilly) with one of the leading social change and internet strategists in the world. I talked about technology way more than I should have. And I got three (count ‘em) three followers. 

I may return to 3000 Proverbs. But for now, you can find me posting at www.thelongitude.com.

Apparently the guys from “Pimp My Ride” also do bathrooms. Time Warner Center: not indulgent at all.

I’m a big fan of Umair Haque as a strategist. Whether you know it or not, Haque’s insight has influenced something you’ve read or thought. But I continue to scratch my head when people, Haque included, talk about how News Corporation’s flirtation with blocking Google from indexing its content is certain folly.

In his article today on Harvard Business, “Why Big Media’s Anti-Google Counter-Revolution Will Fail” Haque argues that News Corp’s move will assuredly crash and burn.

While he may be right, he may also prove wrong. Two things we both agree on: News Corp is most likely posturing, and even if the threat is credible they will have a hard time blocking all of the blogs and Tweets that repost their material. Owing to the last problem, Google would still be the beneficiary of free News Corp content. But that could conceivably be solved by blocking inbound links from anything coming to its sites from Google. While that action would be counter to the free information economy, if I want to read an article badly enough I would assuredly go to Bing to get the content, even if I found it on Google. Force me to do that enough, and I (begrudgingly) switch to Bing for search. And on that point, Haque is also correct — “thick value” must be created. News must get better at doing more than re-hashing material every other month, and it must find a way to create value in society.

But if the industry did that, this deal would be all the more conceivable because the content in question would be even more enticing.

Again, I am not arguing that Haque is wrong. I’m simply saying that no one can say with absolute certainty that this deal would not be disruptive to Google’s fortunes. While Bing and News Corp alone may not be a strong enough couple, Ask.com, Bing, and Yahoo teamed with The New York Times, AP, News Corp, CNN, et al. would pose a bigger problem for Google. When I research topics, I except results from these organizations. And based on that recognition, part of me thinks that the news industry has a right to ask Google for a share of the advertising party it has in some sense monopolized.

What Microsoft and Newscorp do have is huge advertising spends. The former could shift its focus to a campaign splash saying that the Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, Fox News, etc can now only be found on Bing. Some people would be indifferent, some enraged, and some responsive. And I’m not alone in thinking this could pose a problem — internet entrepreneur Jason Calacanis also sees the move as conceivably game changing (here).

As for the ethical considerations, to date Google has not stepped up to promise to bankroll one reporter’s salary. That means ultimately these organizations fail on their on, and in the face of declining ad revenues, must try to survive on their own. And that’s an increasingly daunting prospect. What’s the “greater good” if serious and venerable news organizations evaporate into the ether?

That’s why this move is not as nutty or wrong as say, making Tom from MySpace rich beyond his wildest dreams.

I feel like we are re-entering the days of marketing when Coke and Pepsi took body blows at each other. Not that competitors have ever stopped taking potshots, but the tone has again heightened to, “Hey you — our product is better than yours.”

The Buick LaCrosse has taken aim at Lexus by proclaiming its newly designed model, “something else for Lexus to relentlessly pursue.” And on the heels of, “there’s a map for that”, Verizon has launched another major campaign targeting the iPhone. Their bold television spot for the forthcoming Droid phone is viral enough to force you to go to droiddoes.com — is the commercial for a phone, or a viral campaign for a movie? The confusion is, I believe, intentional as Verizon seemed all too happy to prominently and strategically display, “Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilms LTD” (the term droid was trademarked by Lucasfilms). Their introductory email promises that Droid will be: “A phone that listens better than the person on the other end of the call.”

Droid has been a bold, and fairly well-executed campaign. But you promise me a phone will listen better than my grandma, and it had better knock my socks off.

Forgetting the intricacies of the campaign, they got me and thousands of other people talking. They have the web community buzzing. Soon the media will follow as well.

If Droid does not wow the spectrum from the hard-won tech junkie to the tech-impaired mobile phone user, to Walter Mossberg, the company will be restricted from making bold marketing claims for a decade. Further, Verizon operates at a price premium to T-Mobile, Sprint and other carriers — if the phone is buggy, or just not spectacular, why would I ever again care when Verizon puts out another Android phone? As Gartner predicts, the Android market will surpass iPhone, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry by 2012. That means that others will have Android phones that carry lower monthly premiums. If ever there was a time where operations and a product had better back up marketing claims, this is it.

So congratulations, Verizon. You took on iPhone. You put on a good* marketing campaign — now your phone had better deliver. If it does, Verizon could take an early and decisive lead among carriers in the Android phone market. If it does not, it will have to go back to peddling coverage maps and family plans to compete.

*Only good because the “sign-up for more information” email was schlocky and offered no further interaction with the user

When it allows you to stand out in a market full of competitors.

If you aren’t familiar with the Chelsea Market, it’s a teeming marketplace of culinary experiences, home to the Food Network, and speaking in intelligent financial terms, the rent ain’t cheap.

This past weekend, I was waiting for a friend in the market lobby and one name stood out on the swank silver tenant board: Fat Witch Bakery. Chelsea Thai, Chelsea Wine Vault, Hale and Hearty? Meh. Dickson’s Farmstand? Yawn.

But Fat Witch Bakery? Maybe it’s just me, but I think it’s a stroke of naming genius. Everyone knows that chocolate chunk cookies aren’t good for you. But if you must indulge, they might as well be made by a Fat (knows her food) Witch (magical powers). I’m half-joking about the psychological transference of the name. But I did notice the business and have since checked out the website.

And I can’t say the same about Friedman’s Lunch.

Lightspeed Venture Partners’ Jeremy Liew posted an interesting take on how social is changing the face of wishing Happy Birthday. Beyond social trends relating to cake and candles, on a higher level his insight underscores the good and the bad of social media.

On one hand, it’s great that people are connecting more with friends — Liew’s graph shows that even more traditional methods like calls to to well wish were boosted by the fact that social media allows more people to know it’s your big day in the first place.

But it also highlights an obnoxious trend that brings out the old man, why-can’t-we-go-back-to-1997 in me: social media has become a tool of the attention starved. As Liew points out, “Social networks have changed the dynamic – it isn’t enough to wish someone a happy birthday, but it is also important to be SEEN to wish someone a happy birthday…”

Now on your big day in addition to gifts, you get to question human motive, and wonder if that kid from the sixth grade really cares that you are another year older.

Photo via Cayusa’s photostream.

There has been a lot of debate as to whether Google Wave will change the future. And the answer is without a doubt, yes.

It will either change the future for all of us, or change the future for Google.

At the broadest point in the distribution curve for Wave lurks a vicious group: technophiles. I may arouse ire by reducing them to the following set, but in a nutshell, here they are:

Brash, smart, and easily irritated, this group (developers, IT managers, etc.) can become the ultimate collective “fanboy” or they can crush an offering under the weight of relentless sarcasm, and scorn. If Google Wave gets past this group, the rest of the early adapters will follow. From there, things could take off like wildfire.

If Wave does not get past this first group, the world changes for Google as a company. Not that they will start issuing pink slips, but they would have considerable egg on their face. Worse, they would remain susceptible to a company “doing search better.” While it seems impossible to imagine given a roadside littered with challengers, Google is a lumbering giant waiting for a blow that could change its core business and, in turn, its fortune.

Wave (along with offerings like Voice) is a march towards continued diversification – if all that it’s cracked up to be, the implications are endless, and widespread. In my world, Wave could change social networking, email, and multiple other forms of communications.  Whatever world you live and work in, Wave could change that too.

Or it could do nothing. Either way, it will be fun to watch.

While my experience has branched out to include a number of marketing disciplines, my earliest training was in public relations. In my opinion, it is the most underrated discipline — problem is, this poor standing is a self-inflicted wound. There are many brilliant PR practitioners, but also those happy to do whatever it takes for a check, happy to be a mouthpiece instead of a strategist.

So I cringed at the reading of one line in an article about Serena Williams’ profanity laced tirade at her U.S. Open semi-final.

According to the AP:

“Last night, everyone could truly see the passion I have for my job. Now that I have had time to gain my composure, I can see that while I don’t agree with the unfair line call, in the heat of battle I let my passion and emotion get the better of me and as a result handled the situation poorly,” Williams said in a statement released Sunday by a public relations firm.

In a situation like this, Serena Williams needs to be authentic and open — two things she has generally been. But instead, we have a PR firm crafting her apology or at least portions of it.

Tactically, I could pick a two major bones with this: not only should she have not released the statement directly through her firm (they should have advised her to that effect), the statement itself is also lacking: does anyone believe Serena came up with, “passion I have for my job”?

I’m not saying that she should not work with a PR firm, because she should. If anything, social media has increased the need to be intelligent and informed in the way we communicate. But that intelligence should never come at the expense of authenticity. For any person or organization that thinks their firm is happy being a check-cashing mouthpiece, run far, far away fast.

It went largely unnoticed, but during this NFL pre-season McDonald’s provided signs to Broncos fans. The upside: minimal. The downside: tremendous. This has PR disaster written all over it. A couple of random ways (out of a million) this could go wrong:

1. Raiders are dead meat.

2. Our Dfence is nastier than a Fillet-O-Fish.

In one sense, this is almost like a live version of Twitter. By handing out signs, the burger giant is giving potential fans a branded forum. Problem is, they are also giving potential neutrals and enemies a forum too. Do any PETA fans go to Broncos games?

Let’s hope not for the sake of whoever green-lit this idea.

Today I was determined to blog about something positive in marketing — it’s too easy and generally lame to routinely take shots at work instead of lifting it up. And then I came across this Agency Spy post about about a new Illinois Lottery commercial. Lotteries annoy me for so many reasons. But this finding from Gallup sums it up:

A person making $20,000 spends three times as much on lottery tickets on average than does someone making $30,000.

You say lottery, I say state-backed, predatory gambling. I don’t care if lotteries benefit the care of the elderly or schools. This non-sensical justification means nothing. If states focused on educating and benefiting the poor, more elderly would have savings, and more poor children would have engaged parents at school — then states would have to spend less money propping up these two causes. Now, for those who are still with me, to the commercial:

Dopey looking guy at the beginning contemplating work, life, and suicide until cash rains down. Cheesy sentimental 80s music. Woman who goes to grab her tuna salad and comes out of the fridge a millionaire.

It’s likely that this vanilla concept was not (the usually stellar) Energy BBDO’s first choice — lottery commercials have to market around their target demo, lest the truth come out: we all know that they should just slap some Kid Rock, Lil’ Wayne, or Kenny Chesney in the commercial based on region and the ad would do better. On second thought, they already have that demo causing mass delays on Big Bite purchases, what with taking five minutes to play their “numbers” several times per week. So maybe this ad is intended to grab the few middle class people who play.

I’m being hard on advertising, but it’s not just them. Public relations firms, and even the media who report on PowerBall drawings like it’s the Afghan election are involved as well, and all should take a hard look.