To be effective, Marketing of Service needs to a genuine commitment versus a one-off stunt. While few marketers will have the perseverance to make it 108 years like Michelin with its peripatetic guides, I suspect they can make it longer than a weekend like the recent painfully misguided “free taxi” effort by Tylenol.

Thanks to Jason Wurtzel for spotting these when they first arrived in the city on November 3rd. Not knowing anything about the program at that moment, I neglected to post Jason’s shots (see below) or to feel any sense of flattery since these were another attempt to copy the HSBC BankCab, which I might add is in its sixth year of driving loyalty to The World’s Local Bank.

Still on the case, Jason then forwarded this snippet about the cabs on The Gothamist:

The Tylenol (global?) “Warming Taxis” will take you anywhere in Manhattan, today through Sunday, from noon to 8 p.m. Your best shot of catching one is heading to a CVS at 630 Lexington, 540 Amsterdam, 272 8th or 307 6th Avenues and waiting for a stranger in a white car to offer you a lift and some Tylenol.

One weekend? Is that really supposed to heat up our feelings about Tylenol? As the Renegade behind the BankCab, that just plain hurts. It wasn’t even a cold weekend by November standards so the warming part fell flat. J&J, a usually savvy marketer, should know better than to treat Marketing as Service as a Band-Aid or perhaps they got ripped off by an unlicensed guerrilla practitioner.

I gave my first webinar on Friday to about 200 PR professionals. It was a rather bizarre experience as I talked into the great cybervoid for forty five minutes without any human interaction. If it weren’t for the handful of attendees who proffered their thanks via subsequent emails, the silence would have been downright deafening. Anyway, I bring this up because during my speech entitled “What Recesision? Nine Ways to Cut Through Regardless of the Economy” I take a swing at Diet Coke’s recent “Heart Health Foundation” promotional partnership. Here’s what I said in the section called “Find a Partner”:

Stretch your dollars and enhance your brand by reaching out to non-profits organizations. Non-profits are already feeling the pinch of the slowing economy as their supporters cut back on donations. This happens in every downturn and is really painful for the non-profits who continue to perform an incredible range of socially beneficial services. Mobilize your employees and your customers behind the non-profit you truly believe in and you will be amazed at the good will and good business you will do as a result. The non-profits will be so grateful for your support that they will bend over backwards to ensure you achieve your business goals not just now but for many years to come. It may seem counterintuitive to increase your CSR (corporate social responsibility) now BUT that is exactly why it is worth considering. Your employees will undoubtedly respond with increased loyalty that should also translate into higher productivity.

Of course, as with each of my suggestions, there is a right way and a wrong way. The right way starts by making a sincere commitment like MAC cosmetics and their Viva Glam products which generate thousands of dollars in donations to the MAC Aid Fund. The connection between MAC and Aids is long-standing and sincere. If you plan to partner with a non-profit, think in terms of five and ten year horizons, not a quick hit and run. Consumers have wised up to pretenders and can see an insincere commitment a mile a way.

The wrong way starts with the cry “hey we need a charity” like the one Diet Coke seems to have made with their highly advertising (they bought on the Academy Awards) women’s heart health program. I’m still trying to figure that one out. Okay, let’s see, a lot of women drink Diet Coke and a subset of them may be concerned about their heart health. Hmm. So drink Diet Coke and we’ll donate to the Heart Health Foundation. The link between brand and the non-profit seems tenuous at best and the commitment feels paper thin.

So, here’s the truth–while the Diet Coke connection to Heart Health Foundation feels fake to me, I honestly have no clue if indeed it is. If any of you know better, let me know. Unlike the webinar, blogs are a great way to find/get the truth–you straightened me out about Aveda and can do it again here.

Talking about popping your own tires– this story blows my mind.  Brandweek reported this week that the auto industry is fighting proposed legislation to increase auto mileage:

The auto industry takes on the government beginning this weekend with an ad campaign that warns consumers that proposed increases in fuel standards would drive up the price of vehicles.

The series of radio spots and print ads, via Glover Park Group, Washington, will run in ten states. The ads also state that a Senate bill that would impose a requirement that automakers raise fuel economy by 40% by 2020 would make drivers less safe because automakers would have to build smaller cars in order to conform to the mandate.

This is Marketing for Bad in all its tire screeching glory.  The industry is simply asking for ridicule.  Are you telling the American consumer that the same country that put men on the moon and created the Chia Pet can’t figure out how to increase auto mileage by 40% in 13 years.  Heck, we should be able to figure out how to build Jetson-style solar-powered flying cars in 13 years. Instead of fighting this legislation, Detroit should invite the entire engineering world to help the auto makers to solve the mileage problem in a collaborative, totally transparent, Linux-like (open standards) movement. Engineers, like computer geeks, love this kind of challenge.  And if Detroit can’t solve the problem they can better start learning Japanese because I have no doubt Toyota will figure it out.

So, happy motoring this holiday weekend. Drive safe. Use your cruise control to optimize your mileage. And if you happen to hear one of Detroit’s anti-fuel standards ads, honk your disapproval.  Better yet, send them a note when you finally get out of the bad city air and into the country.

BRANDWEEK revisited the infamous Boston bomb hoax today to see what impact if any it had on the guerrilla marketing industry. The consensus among practitioners like Interference, Geek Factory and Renegade is that demand for non-traditional programs is enjoying explosive (pardon the pun) growth. Why? Many marketers were exposed to the potential impact of guerrilla marketing by the bomb hoax and realized that the rewards could outweigh the risks.

What’s difficult here is that I could be thanking Sam Ewen, the CEO of Interference (the agency behind the bomb hoax), for going over the line (again) and drawing so much attention to non-traditional marketing. His efforts have resulted in more business for Renegade and allowed us to stake a claim as “good” guerrillas in contrast to his clandestine clan of boundary breakers. For the record, Sam is really good at what he does (I don’t know any one who is better) and the clients that work with him know that he will deliver the attention they are seeking. We simply differ on the definition of what is “good” for a brand and how far our respective firms will go to cut through…

For example, nothing Renegade has ever done gained the attention of the US Senate. The bomb hoax did just that according to Brandweek:

Under the proposed Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007, the government will be able to sue parties involved in stunts mistaken for terrorism. Introduced in the Senate, the bill would add new clauses to the federal criminal code that would make it less appealing to waste government resources. The amendments include extending the prohibitions on spreading false information, increasing maximum prison terms and letting local and federal governments sue to reimburse expenses.

Despite the short-term gains, the bomb hoax was not a good thing for our industry. It pissed off an entire city resulting in the Senate’s legislative action. It heightened fears among big clients that “guerrilla” is too risky to which the industry responded by simply calling it something different like ambient, experiential or street marketing (a bomb by any other name…)  It forced additionally scrutiny of “ambient marketing” program by lawyers and senior client executives.  So, thanks for the business Sam but I still think this is Marketing for Bad for our industry.

Just in case you felt like jumping on the green bandwagon, here’s a cautionary tale about a supermarket chain in England called Sainsbury that made a lot of noise with an organic shopping bag. Londoners lined up to buy it. Keira Knightly was spotted sporting one. Then according to Treehugger, the fit hit the sham:

Yesterday the Evening Standard revealed that the so-called green carriers were made in China, using cheap labour. And the bag was neither organic nor fair trade. Never mind the air miles. Handbags at dawn: today Sainsbury’s denies any duplicity, insisting that it had never claimed that the bag was Fairtrade or organic. It says that it was made in a factory that pays double the minimum wage and complies with Chinese labour law. Hindmarch says that it was shipped by sea. This is an embarrassment for the supermarket which has been making extravagant claims about its green credentials. Activists said that it was bordering on hypocritical and that the whole high-profile episode tarnished Sainsbury’s image.

Frankly, I love this story. Not the fraud part but the fact they got caught and were publicly flogged. Marketing for Good requires a real commitment to doing well by doing good. It is not make-up that you can put on in the morning and take off at night. It is not everyone’s “bag” nor will it carry the day in all situations. It is, however, one way to cut through.

I really feel for Sam and his guerrilla gang at Interference. Their promotion for Cartoon Network has literally blown up in their face. If you haven’t heard about this fiasco yet, see the press clip below. You might wonder how an agency or a client could even consider placing suspicious looking devices all over big cities like Boston, NY and DC in the Post 9/11 world. As an agency that does lots of “guerrilla marketing”, it isn’t too hard for me to reconstruct the process. The client, Cartoon Network in this case, says we really want to get a lot of attention for our new show, noting how edgy the content is and how edgy the promotion should be. The agency, excited to be working with a client who is really willing to take risks and “push the envelope”, throws out a bunch of ideas including one that is truly outrageous, never imaging in a million years that the client would say yes. But the client, probably a young staffer, is anxious to create a huge “buzz” and get as much “free” publicity as they can, says “go for it, what’s the worst that could happen?” Everyone is swept up in the excitement of the idea, knowing without a doubt that this stunt won’t go unnoticed and the idea does not go through all the internal scrutiny and legal review process that more traditional ad campaigns typically face. A few weeks later the stunt is on the street and “kaboom”, a freelance street team operative is arrested, a major corporation is facing investigation from the Massachusetts Attorney General and a guerrilla agency is suddenly infamous.I have no doubt someone at Cartoon Network will lose their job over this one and frankly they probably should. The insensitivity of this stunt is simply astonishing. We all live in this world together and seeking attention by potentially scaring the snot out of someone is an act of self indulgent stupidity. Marketers need to accept responsibility for their actions and avoid “we win, somebody loses” scenarios. I’m coming down harder on the client because they asked for it, they approved it and they funded it. As for Interference, they are going to take in on the chin for this one and if they are lucky no one will go to jail. I’m all for risk taking but come on folks, grow up! There have got to be ways of getting attention without calling out the bomb squad.

Suspicious packages part of Turner Broadcasting marketing campaign

By Mac Daniel, John Ellement, and Andrew Ryan, Globe Staff

Turner Broadcasting acknowledged late this afternoon that the suspicious objects that ignited fears of bombs across Boston today were magnetic lights that were part of an outdoor marketing campaign for an adult cartoon.

Turner was promoting Adult Swim’s animated television show “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” in Boston and nine other cities, according to a statement e-mailed by Shirley Powell, a company spokeswoman.

Here’s a part of the Reuters story today on the subject with quotes from yours truly:

Still, while Turner Broadcasting may have successfully reached the audience of “Aqua Teen Hunger Force,” it likely faces a broader public relations headache, said Drew Neisser, the chief executive of Renegade Marketing Group.

“They got a lot of P.R.– but they are probably not happy on the corporate level,” said Neisser, who has overseen viral campaigns such as using an old checkered cab with HSBC’s logo to give free rides to the bank’s customers in New York.

“The question becomes in all this does the marketer have any responsibility to the world at large? Obviously my perspective is they do,” said Neisser. “You should be able to sell your products without making the world any worse.”

I’m a little behind on this one, but so is Victoria’s Secret. According to a Wall St. Journal story back in early December (I told you I was behind), Victoria’s Secret mails about 350 million catalogs a year and just recently decided to shift to paper that is either 10% “post-consumer waste” or has 10% of its content certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. The WSJ article first paragraph explains why Victoria’s Secret is suddenly seeing green:

After enduring protests by an environmental group over the past two years, Victoria’s Secret will stop using catalog paper made with pulp from a Canadian forest that is an important wildlife habitat and will move toward buying paper certified by a group that scrutinizes logging practices.

350 million catalogs a year and they are just now thinking about recycling paper? Holy melons, Batman, what have they been thinking about? It is a shame when companies don’t have the foresight to implement socially responsible behavior prior to being attacked. I think last week’s announcement (also in the Wall St. Journal) by top business CEO’s calling for caps on CO2 emissions was a smart preemptive move by big business to address a growing global problem. That said, once a company is caught napping on the sidelines, smart marketers seize the opportunity and embrace the issue with a vengeance. Wal-Mart has taken this approach with their “sustainability” and energy-conservation initiatives. Perhaps Victoria’s Secret will get pumped about recycling and ride the eco-friendly wave with the best of them. Maybe we all just need to give them a little tug.

Speaking of tugs, the folks behind this change of heart at Victoria Secret are ForestEthics, a group which developed a website called Victoria’s Dirty Secret (never underestimate the power of a few activists and a reasonably well-crafted website). This isn’t their first success either. In the last five years they’ve persuaded Williams-Sonoma, Dell and Staples to increase their use of recycled paper for catalogs. I imagine that the catalog managers at J. Crew, Sears and Lands’ End are examining their approach to paper a little more carefully right about now…

One of the tenants of Marketing for Good is that you should never do anything that actually annoys or irritates your target. Even if you achieve short term attention-getting disruption, the long-term consequences of creating ad “pollution” will be bad for your brand. A recent study by Forrester as reported by Promo Xtra notes that 79% of consumers find mobile ads annoying unless they are incredibly relevant.

“To avoid the perception of mobile spam, marketers must work with the unique elements of the mobile channel itself and the relevance of their message,” said Christine Spivey Overby, a principal analyst and co-author of the report. “In contrast to other channels, mobile is highly integrated into people’s daily activities and physical environment. This means that marketers can embrace the real-work connections with relevant location-based services and campaigns that tie mobile and on-premise advertising.”

This evoked the following response from me, “no duh!” I don’t know about you but every time I get an unwanted text message from my carrier, I consider changing carriers. On the other hand, if I was about to run out of gas and I suddenly received a message noting there was a station at the next exit, I’d probably swear eternal allegiance. Of course, that’s an unlikely scenario for extreme relevance but that’s how far you need to think when exploring mobile.

Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Marketers are always tempted to push the envelop and believe me we’ve recommended some pretty crazy ideas over the last ten years at Renegade. But there is a line that when crossed breaks the bonds of trust between brand and consumer. Trust is everything when it comes to brands. Without trust, premium prices are impossible, repeat purchase unlikely and consumer satisfaction is a pipe dream.

A few years ago SONY crossed the line (as far as I’m concerned) creating a “stealth marketing” campaign by having brand ambassadors pose as a real people in bars to sample their SONY Erikson phones. So it is no surprise to me that SONY was recently caught underwriting a fake blog or “flog.” According to MediaPost “the blog, alliwantforxmasisapsp.com, was supposedly authored by an amateur hip-hop artist ‘Charlie’ — whose cousin, ‘Pete,’ craved a PSP under the tree.” Once this blog was exposed as a flog (industry blog DigitalBattle.com wrote a lot about this), SONY issued a release that noted it was developed as a “humorous site” and have “added a posting that provides clarification to consumers visiting the site.” The blog Digital Battle has more coverage on this topic.

Is this really a big deal? Should we be concerned that one of the largest CE brands in the world has twice tried to trick the consumer into engaging with them? On one hand, since Panasonic is one of my clients, I’m thrilled that SONY has undermined the trust they have built up over the years and maybe more people will chose Panasonic over SONY. On the other hand, when one marketer tries to pull a fast one, it hurts our whole profession. Ironically, in both of SONY’s marketing transgressions, all they would have had to do is reveal their connection upfront and the consumer would have responded equally well. When it comes to Marketing for Good, honesty is indeed the best policy.

Update 12/17: Looks like SONY took the blog down;-) Will keep you posted.

One of the challenges of writing this blog is figuring out what is good and trying to determine what will make life a little better. For example, yesterday I alluded to my concerns that banning trans fat would not necessarily make life better. (As a side note, I like my glazed Krispy Kreme donuts just the way they are, trans fats and all. When I want something healthy, I’ll eat a banana. When I want to indulge, I don’t want to compromise on a trans fat free sugar free glutten free taste free donut!) Part of my rationale against the trans fat ban is a firm belief in the law of unintended consequences. Banning trans fats will result in the consumption of other fats which may or may not prove to be healthier, which may or may not promote increased weight loss. Undoubtedly one of these other fats will create problems for some consumers that were unexpected and suddenly new lawmakers will be wondering what is good, too. Peanut oil, for example, doesn’t have trans fats and works well for high temperature frying but lots of kids are allergic to peanuts, so that “good” wouldn’t be so “good” for some people.

This notion became particularly clear to me after reading an article on the first page of the 12/5/06 Wall St. Journal. Titled “As Alternative Energy Heats Up, Environmental Concerns Grow,” it also includes the telling subhead “Crop of Renewable ‘Biofuels’ Could Have Have Drawbacks Fires Across Indonesia.” The article described how the need for more palm seed oil for the processing of “renewable biodiesel” in the US was leading to the burning of forests in Borneo which was causing really bad air pollution over there. Here we were thinking that “renewable biodiesel” was a no-brainer “good” since we’d have cleaner air for our cities and the next thing we know is that that “good” turned out to be bad for Borneo. If you didn’t appreciate the law of unintended consequences before surely this example will help you appreciate its validity now.

So, where does that leave us marketers looking to make life a little bit better? Should we give up because we might cause bad as we try to do good? Not on your life. All we can do is try. That’s why I’m forgiving of marketers who align with non-profits for blatantly self-serving purposes. Even if their motivation is ignoble, their actions might help raise some money that will definitely make someone’s life a little better. For example, it only takes about $6k for the Moravian Open Door to house an elderly homeless person for an entire year in New York City. That’s not a lot to ask from a marketer who wants to do a little good, tainted or otherwise. Let me know what you think is “good”.

Business 2.0 reported in a story called “YouTube for Dead Guys” about a new product called the Vidstone Serenity Panel. Evidently, a sizzling rise in cremations is hurting the mortuary business so morticians are killing themselves trying to come up with new revenue sources. For about $2k, Vidstone provides a Ken Burns-style video tribute of the deceased right on the tombstone. It is even solar powered so long after your dear departed has departed this baby keeps on projecting. No doubt some folks are going to think this is the cats meow but frankly, I’m stumped why anyone would do this. Not really sure this is Marketing for Bad since it is unique and may actually make life a little better for someone who really wants a video remembrance with their grave visit. What do you think?

Sorry folks, lost my sense of humor on this one.