As marketers, we are constantly inundated with data and analytics that are supposed to help us better perform our jobs. These reports, so we’re told, are designed to help us draw better insights from our campaigns and develop actionable strategies based on our performance metrics. The reports are supposed to make us more efficient, more tactical and more knowledgeable of our industry.

The problem with much of the information we receive from these data dumps is that it is often overwhelming, unwieldy or simply too difficult to understand. We’re forced to perform countless repetitive tasks just to get to a point where we understand what the data represents – before we can even attempt to draw any legitimate insights.

Excel, at its core, is a problem-solving tool. When used correctly, Excel can eliminate many of these tedious and repetitive steps from our analytic process and allow us to concentrate our efforts on what truly matters: drawing useful insights that affect strategy moving forward. This week I had the pleasure of speaking on the Extreme Excel Excellence panel at SMX Advanced in Seattle, with the overarching theme of embracing the opportunity that Excel presents for marketers to better analyze their data.

To illustrate this potential, I’ve developed a Bid Management Tool in Excel to help search engine marketers better evaluate their performance reports and make smarter decisions when optimizing campaigns. The Bid Management Tool is available for download here, and the following outlines its creation, from concept to completion.

 Identify the Problem

 Avinash Kaushik is credited with coining the 90/10 Rule for Magnificent Web Analytics Success, which essentially states that 10% of your resources should be allocated to tools, but the other 90% should be dedicated to the people who will wield these tools. Our people, not our tools, interpret and act upon data – and the tools only serve to help them accomplish this goal.

Our problem, one I’m sure we share with many in the marketing world, is that at Nebo we were not able to dedicate 90% of our time and resources to the human element of analysis. Our PPC team pours through thousands and thousands of rows of data to evaluate opportunity and optimize toward our campaign goals. They needed a more efficient way to prioritize their efforts, specifically in terms of managing keyword bids. To be clear, this tool was not intended to replace the human element but rather to empower it. Inspired by a clear understanding of the problem, we sought to eliminate the more monotonous tasks, thereby restoring time and resources to our most valuable assets: our people.

Determine the Criteria

Before we approach any problem, we need to determine the criteria most directly related to that problem. In the case of our Bid Management Tool, the most important factors were impressions, conversions and cost/conversion. These elements are highly indicative of campaign performance and influence what terms we bid on and how much we’re willing to spend. By understanding how these criteria are used to evaluate overall campaign performance, we were able to streamline our resources to identify and alter existing bids based on our individual thresholds.

Find the Key

Once our problem and criteria had been identified, it was time to put Excel to work. We first had to ascertain which formula or formulas would allow us to manipulate our criteria according to our needs. From there, we established the appropriate combination of nested formulas: multiple functions embedded within one another that allow us to execute multiple actions within the same cell. These nested functions would allow us to automate many of the protracted, repetitive tasks and translate our actual data into actionable data.

Build the Solution

Our Bid Management Tool was built using primarily IF(), AND() and OR() functions (for some background on these functions, check out Distilled’s Excel for SEO resource here). These functions operate on user-defined thresholds for our criteria, working together to classify our keywords based on whether or not these thresholds have been met.

For those keywords that meet the established criteria, the Bid Management Tool will furthermore increase or decrease our existing max CPC bids by the percentage indicated.

Every time they are run, these Excel functions transform our actual data into actionable data. As I mentioned above, these tools will never replace human analysis; but in a world with finite time and resources, these tools save countless hours that can be reallocated to the human endeavor.

Once again, the Bid Management Tool is available for download here. (Note: You may need to adjust some columns in the spreadsheet, as AdWords columns are likely different across different accounts.)

Feel free to share any questions or comments you might have!

Direct response marketing doesn’t work. In fact, it doesn’t really even exist. Many marketers have suspected this for years, but haven’t really had the analytical tools to back up this sentiment.

Now, I know many will argue with this post and this assertion. There are probably litanies of “success stories” that showcase amazing direct response campaigns. But they’re all BS.

We don’t exist in a vacuum. There can be a direct response component to a larger campaign, but too often we hear clients (and less savvy marketers) say, “let’s just focus on direct response.”

Really??

Direct Response, Debunked

Imagine you’re walking down a busy street passing random strangers as you go. Now, imagine that I ask you to create a direct response campaign to get engaged.

So, you randomly ask passersby to marry you. Think you’ll get any takers? Okay, maybe marriage is a tough task. How about just a kiss? Still no luck?

Now, contrast that with trying to get the same response from a loved one. I bet you can pretty much kiss your significant other any time you want – assuming it’s in an appropriate time and place.

What’s the key difference? It’s obvious – you’re already in a relationship.

That’s why direct response seems to work; because you’re in a relationship, even if its just semi-casual. Why does the direct response darling email marketing work?

It does and it doesn’t. It’s awful for consumers at the beginning of the Buyer Journey. But if they already have a relationship with your brand, especially if they’re already customers, email marketing can be powerful.

However, if you’re emailing strangers (or those at the beginning of the Buyer Journey – in the Awareness stage), email marketing underperforms. It’s like asking for that kiss from the random stranger.

Buyer Journey

Marketing is a lot like relationships and dating. You have to communicate. You have to deliver the right messages at the right time to the right people. Just like in dating, there is always a decision cycle.

The Buyer Journey / decision cycle varies by product or service. It also varies based on cost, competition, and whether the purchase is a high or low consideration decision. However, there is always a journey.

In dating you typically go from a casual conversation, to asking for a date, to not-too-serious dating, to actually dating, to engagement, marriage, etc.

Each step takes its due time. You can’t go from asking for the first date to marriage in one step. (Maybe you can, but it’s not advised.)

The same goes for marketing. I’ve given this example many times, yet people will still debate me.

Conversion Path Analysis

We’re one of the leading digital marketing firms in the southeast, and we rarely see single-interaction and/or one-medium paths — at least not any of substantial volume.

Below are two examples of conversion paths analysis from two very different clients.

The first is an example of a high consideration, long sales cycle product set. Notice the variety in the channels. This is very common and shows the complexity in the buyer journey.

Next, is a low consideration, short sales cycle product set. Now this should be where Direct Response shines, right? Wrong – notice how the channel variety isn’t as robust as in the previous example, but you also don’t see any conversion paths with just a single interaction.

Why aren’t there any single interaction conversions? Because they don’t exist. Not even if a product is given away. Another story I like to tell to illustrate the power of brand and the myth of Direct Response goes as follows:

Imagine a soft drink company sets up shop in your office parking lot. They’re playing cool music with a sign – “Free Widget Cola”. Would you go over and get a free Widget Cola? You’ve never heard of the brand before. You’ve never seen their sleek looking silver can. Would you drink the mystery cola? It’s free, but you’re busy. You’re heading back to the office with stuff to do and you just can’t take time to drink something that will probably taste bad anyway.

Ever watch how many people bypass most free snacks and drinks at the grocery store? Almost everyone – right?

Now contrast that with Coke doing the exact same thing.

Coke just set up shop in your office parking lot. They’re playing cool music with a sign offering free Cokes. Would you go? Substantially more people would.

Why? Because you know the Coke brand. You trust it. You have a relationship with it.

Convergence and Assisted Conversions

So if Direct Response doesn’t exist, what’s left for marketers to hang their hats on?

It’s called Multi-channel Attribution, and it encompasses nearly the entire digital Buyer Journey – painting a much fuller picture of a user’s conversion path in order to determine how your digital efforts work together to drive conversions.

It’s not perfect – we still can’t measure most offline or cross-device interactions (although Google is making progress on this). But in a digital world, Multi-Channel attribution is by far the most effective way to make sense of the Analytics data that we do have.

Attribution Models

It’s all well and good to say that Direct Response doesn’t exist, and that Multi-Channel Attribution is the only way to effectively optimize your campaigns, but how do you do it? How do you determine how to distribute credit across all touch points that assisted in a conversion?

There are several Attribution Models to choose from, each with its own merits and flaws. The key is choosing the right model for your product and unique Buyer Journey.

Last Interaction 

The Last Interaction model gives full credit to the last user touch point prior to conversion. It’s helpful in the sense that it emphasizes the final marketing effort that was able to encourage the user to purchase, but the problem is that this model gives zero credit to any marketing efforts that may have come before – thus feeding the myth of Direct Response.

For that reason, we don’t recommend Last Interaction modeling for anyone in 2013.

First Interaction

The First Interaction model is the polar opposite of Last Interaction – giving 100% of the credit to the first marketing touch point, regardless of the final conversion path. It places an emphasis on brand awareness, but completely ignores the majority of the Buyer Journey.

This is an incomplete model and is, quite possibly, more destructive than Last Interaction.

Linear

The Linear attribution model distributes equal credit to every touch point in a conversion path, regardless of the order of or time between events. Google suggests that this model is best for campaigns that attempt to maintain contact with users throughout the sales cycle.

I would recommend a Linear model for products with a long sales cycle, where the direct relationship between touch points is less clear. Linear can also be helpful for those that don’t fully understand their customers’ Buyer Journey just yet and don’t want to risk minimizing a critical piece of a given campaign.

Time Decay 

For marketers that want to emphasize the final touch point before conversion without discounting the rest of the Buyer Journey, the Time Decay model serves as an effective alternative to Last Interaction. This model distributes conversion credit across all touch points, with events that occur farther from the conversion receiving less and less credit.

Time Decay is most appropriate for low consideration purchases, where the right promo or message can encourage a user to buy at a moment’s notice.

Position Based 

Position Based attribution modeling gives marketers the most customization of any model – allowing them to assign credit to touch points based on position in the customer Buyer Journey. One effective technique is to weight the first and last touch points most heavily, emphasizing initial awareness and the conversion catalyst.

This may be the ideal attribution model for marketers that have a strong understanding of their Buyer Journey. The customization options allow you to decide for yourself which touch points are truly most important.

Other Models

Google Analytics also offers models like Last AdWords, which can be helpful for PPC heavy campaigns, and Last Non-Direct, which is the default attribution model. These models have their uses, but still tend to ignore the majority of the Buyer Journey. For that reason, we prefer the models noted above.

Conclusion

As the Coke example above illustrates, the only way Direct Response can work is if there’s a pre-established relationship between brand and consumer. Multi-Channel Attribution is how we measure that relationship.

There’s more that goes into it, of course, including assisted conversions from social media (which are harder to measure). But the key to effective digital marketing is understanding your company’s unique Buyer Journey, choosing the attribution model that works best for you, and taking an integrated approach to optimizing all touch points along the way.

We don’t live in a vacuum. We shouldn’t analyze our marketing efforts in one either.

Everyone who knows Nebo knows we take our donuts seriously.

So, for National Donut Day, we filled the office with dozens of treats from the best spot in Atlanta – Sublime Doughnuts (not that we needed a holiday as an excuse). But that was only the beginning of the celebration here at Nebo.

After the grazers of the office got their fill, two of our bravest and most confident eaters stepped up to the plate for a gut-busting, winner-take-all donut eating contest.

Nate Shivar from Digital Marketing Side vs Chris Allison from Design/Development.

The newcomer vs the wiley old veteran. 

Digital Marketing has won this annual bout five years running – could they make it six in a row?

Since Google+ launched to huge demand in the summer of 2011, it has been ridiculed as a “ghost town” – as Google’s sad wannabe social network. It’s that social site that you accidentally check once a month – only to confirm that, yes, there’s nothing still going on.

But in January, eMarketer confirmed that Google+ has surpassed Twitter to become the 2nd largest social network worldwide, behind Facebook, serving 26% of internet users – with 343 million active users according to GlobalWebIndex.

Even so, Google is smart enough to know that this race will be a marathon and not a sprint. After taking a second look at Google+, we think it’s poised to become not necessarily the largest, but the most successful social network in the long run.

Google’s Playing a Different Game

When Google+ launched in 2011, it was generally received as Google’s “better” version of Facebook. The idea of having a Facebook profile without the hassles of Facebook (constantly changing privacy policies, etc) was a powerful motivator for many and drove much of the initial excitement throughout that summer.

And then the Network Effect reared its head. The network effect is the idea that the more people that use a network, the more valuable it becomes. It is seen in all industries, but is most exemplified in the tech industry where platforms and whole companies live and die because of mass adoption (or lack thereof).

That’s why everyone has thought of Google+ as a failure – or at least an underachiever. Even though millions loved Google+ in theory, they didn’t actively use Google+ because not all their friends were there yet, so they just stayed on Facebook. So, Google+ remained a ghost town.

But what people missed is that Google+ was never competing with Facebook head to head – or Twitter, Pinterest, or even mySpace for that matter. Google had already tried to compete head to head with Facebook back in 2004 with Orkut and failed.

It had already lost the general-purpose social network game so, like all good strategists, it decided to change the rules. It went back to its core mission – to organize the world’s information. And part of the world’s information is you and me – and all 7 billion of us.

Unlike Facebook, which wants to make the world open and more connected, or Twitter, which wants to connect you to whatever is meaningful to you, Google wants to be the 3rd half of your brain.

When you’re logged into Google, Google knows what you actually search for (see your search history here), what websites you actually visit (see your ad preferences here), and what videos you actually enjoy (see your YouTube history here).

Google’s goal with Google+ is not to win a head to head competition with Facebook or Twitter. It’s to add a social layer to all of Google’s services – to give users no reason to leave or log out.

Twitter wants to serve you ads based on whom you interact with; Facebook wants to serve ads based on whom you like and whom you are friends with. Google wants to serve you ads based on what you will need and want… before you know what you need and want.

And that means that Google can play to the competition very differently.

Google+ Is Product and User First

Since the goal of Google+ is to help Google understand you better than you understand yourself, it can focus more on features, designs, and core product than other social networks. Google can play the long game. It can use Google+ to make money in different and better ways (such as search ads) without interrupting your social life with display advertisements.

In the marathon of tech competition, this ability will put Google+ ahead of Facebook, not necessarily in number of users, but in innovation, mindshare, and overall profitability.

This scenario of a better product and a better focus breaking the Network Effect has already played out in another market. In the 1990s, Microsoft consolidated its dominance in the desktop and laptop market via the Network Effect to the point of nearly driving Apple out of business. But in the 2000s, Apple began focusing on brand, design, and inventing completely new products for consumers. Apple still does not have the majority marketshare in desktop and laptop operating systems, but it has become the aspirational brand, and the most profitable company in the space. It has created a whole new market where Microsoft is only a marginal player.

There is a similar parallel happening in the social space. Facebook’s US growth has plateaued in the developed world and the company is now focused on exploiting the network it has. Pew recently found that a majority of teenagers “hate using Facebook” and only use it because they feel like they have to.

Facebook and Twitter are nearly 100% dependent on 1 finite resource to improve revenue – users’ attention span. They are both trying to break out of this model, but are still knee capped by the tradeoff required to both improve user experience and show even more ads.

Google, on the other hand, makes money by providing answers to questions – which is a nearly infinite resource. It has a lucrative and growing revenue base that allows it to pursue its long-term strategy with Google+. Google+ can focus on solving problems, rather than pushing ads, which has allowed it to become the leader in design and innovative social products since 2011.

Google+ Hangouts, integrated photo editor, Circles, ad-free interface, Instant Upload, and integration with other heavily used products such as Calendar, Gmail, and YouTube are all examples of features that give Google+ an advantage over Facebook. In May, Google+ was able to relaunch a completely new, compelling design that can exist because it isn’t tied to serving in-stream or display ads in the interface.

And yet, despite its growing popularity and hot features such as Hangouts, Google+ still can’t shake its “ghost town” perception among mainstream users.

What Google+ Needs

Google+ may be playing a different game than Facebook and it may have a better product, but it still needs more users – especially active users. It needs to improve engagement and time on site, not just as an end goal, but because user data is what will allow Google+ to improve and become even more useful.

To achieve more engagement, it needs to do what Google has already been doing… only better.

First, Google needs to differentiate Google+ even more from other social networks. Explaining the social layer and universal integration doesn’t work as a sound bite. Google+ has plenty of early adopters and potential evangelists – but it doesn’t have a cohesive sales pitch for those evangelists to give to their friends and family. Until it does, it will keep growing, but will never hit the tipping point to fulfill its potential and will remain “Google’s Facebook” in the eyes of the mainstream user.

Second, Google needs even deeper integration with all of its products, so that people end up using Google+ without even knowing it. For example, part of the reason my sisters started using Google+ was because they love Picasa and Gchat. Those products’ seamless integration into Google+ Photos and Hangouts made them start to use Google+ even more without really making a conscious choice to. Google has a huge range of products that people use every day, like Google Now, which it can use to build Google+ use from without. In particular, YouTube is a huge opportunity here. It is the world’s 2nd largest search engine and the 3rd largest social network. Seamless integration with YouTube could be the tipping point that makes Google+ inescapable.

But what Google+ needs most is for users to actively give it a second look. Find people to circle and interact with. Really give it a go for a week.

Facebook and Twitter aren’t going away anytime soon – but Yahoo! and mySpace haven’t gone away either. The race to tech dominance is a marathon, and even though Facebook got out of the gate with a huge lead – Friendster also had that lead at one time. For the rest of the race, Google+ looks like it’s in a good position.

There comes a time in every brand’s life when it must either adapt to new challenges in the marketplace, or risk fading away altogether. In the digital age, that leaves many brands scrambling to amplify their mobile presence in a last ditch effort to stay relevant. And why wouldn’t they? Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android OS launched both tech giants, respectively, into new stratospheres upon their release, and now Microsoft is hoping to achieve the same success with its up-start Windows phone.

Unfortunately, the smartphone market is about as predictable as a group of kindergarteners on a trampoline – one wrong move and someone’s going to fall flat on their face. Look no further than Blackberry, which recently surrendered its rank as the number three smartphone OS to Microsoft’s Windows platform. If the Windows phone gets the right footing and continues to build momentum, it will be a serious contender for the number two position in the near future. That could go a long way toward reinvigorating the Microsoft brand, which has seen its value sag over the past few years.

The problem is that Androids and iPhones don’t appear to be easing their stranglehold on mobile sales. However, there may be just enough cracks in their respective armors for Microsoft to make a dent.

The Raw Numbers

Together, Android and the iPhone comprised over 90% of all smartphone devices sold worldwide in the first quarter of 2013. Though Google and Apple appear to have cornered the market, the smart phone industry constantly shifts to offer consumers more updates, features and more alternatives. This leaves an opportunity for a challenger to make a dent in the market.

While Android holds its expected 75% of market share, with over 162 million units sold, the iPhone, which is less known for updated features, slipped from 23% to 17.2% of market share in 2012.

Meanwhile, the Windows Phone has already started squeezing its way in. Microsoft, who partnered with Nokia, sold 7 million units in the first quarter of 2013. Latest reports show the Windows Phone holding 3.2% market share, elbowing Blackberry out of the number three spot.

Do I See a Worm in that Apple?

One of Apple’s biggest weaknesses is that they haven’t introduced any significant new hardware or features to the iPhone in years. They’re also the phone’s only manufacturer, so if a buyer wants a better iPhone, their only choice is to wait around for next year’s release. Overall, the iPhone is a relatively expensive option that doesn’t offer much in the way of choices for consumers with varying budgets.

The Windows phone is only available through a handful of manufacturers, but still offers more options than the iPhone. Microsoft also has the advantage of corporate and enterprise appeal, with most businesses using Windows devices.

Apple lacks this edge, appealing mostly to the ‘urban elite’. But the main challenge for Microsoft to overcome will be Apple’s brand loyalty, as the iPhone has proven to be extremely resilient in the market. Though Apple only constitutes 17% of the smartphone market, they own that entire 17% – they don’t have any other manufacturers with whom to share it.

Android Still Running the Block

When it comes to the Android market, Microsoft will remain the underdog unless Samsung suddenly buckles under the weight of its success in the smartphone market (which isn’t likely). Android sales are doing too well to be significantly impacted by the Windows phone. Google also has enough momentum to continue gaining more manufacturers, though it’s entirely possible that with more success, the Windows phone will steal some of them away.

Success in the mobile market climate can be hot one week and freezing cold the next. Realistically, however, it will be at least a decade before Microsoft becomes a real threat to the Android market. There would have to be a serious collapse within the infrastructure of Android for Microsoft to become the next mobile stronghold.

Adapt or Die

Apple was already a successful brand before the launch of the iPhone, but four years after the phone’s release, Apple stock value had nearly tripled. Google has seen a similar increase since the release of the first Android-operated smartphone. Meanwhile, Microsoft hasn’t seen any significant boost in company value since the late 1990s. What was once an undisputed tech giant could be in serious financial trouble.

Even more concerning than Microsoft’s plateaued stock prices, is its waning relevance. Google and Apple are viewed by many as being on the forefront of innovation, while Microsoft is a brand of yester-year. Google and Apple are sleek, intuitive, and powerful. Microsoft is that same familiar Windows logo hovering over a slug-paced progress bar. Microsoft’s challenge is to alter that perception, which is easier said than done.

The Windows phone has the potential to become a tech standard in the business world, but for Microsoft to become truly relevant again, they’ll need to branch out from their outdated brand identity. They need to find a way to speak to a broader audience, to make their phone integrate easily with a variety of other devices – not just PCs, and to appeal to a new generation that views Windows as nothing more than an ancient relic.

If they succeed, the Windows brand could become fresh and exciting in ways that it hasn’t been in over a decade. If not, Microsoft could be the next in the long line of tech has-beens that failed to keep up with the times.

People have been lying to each other for thousands and thousands of years—before we could speak words to each other, even.

But, “A-ooga, a-ooga!” you say.

You really expect me to believe that?

The problem is that lying for kids today is so damn easy, what with all the social media and whatnot. I remember when you used to have to actually look someone in the eyes when you lied to them (uphill both ways!). It used to take serious stones to purposefully deceive someone, especially someone you cared about.

Not anymore! Nowadays it takes a computer savvy fibber about 5 minutes to fabricate an entire online identity, through which they can spew falsehoods toward anyone who will hear them with very little risk of discovery or backlash. It’s become so easy, in fact, to ensnare people in romantic trysts with your online alter ego that it almost seems crazy NOT to.

It’s called Catfishing, and now it’s not just antisocial weirdos who are creating digital personas in an attempt to lure in people who would otherwise never associate with them. Brands and businesses are joining in on the fun.

How? Read on.

Misleading Photos

By now, most of us have seen the ‘fast food ads versus reality’ galleries. It’s common knowledge that items you order in restaurants rarely, if ever, look like they do in professionally staged and re-touched photographs. But I’m willing to give restaurants a pass because, honestly, who cares as long as it tastes good?

We all understand that there’s a line between advertising and real life. No one actually buys beer because they think it will make beautiful women want to talk to them, no matter what Budweiser says. That’s what puppies are for. Obviously.

The bigger problem occurs when businesses post purposefully misleading pictures of their products or establishments online. If I’m looking at pictures of a venue or non-food product, I think it’s reasonable to expect the real thing to at least resemble what I saw. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. Just take a look at this gallery of resort photos.

Here’s an example: I was looking at apartments last year, and came across a listing for a complex in an area I really liked. The prices were some of the best I had seen, and the main photo was a bright, colorful shot of the leasing office, gorgeously framed by a bush adorned with fully bloomed pink flowers.

When I saw the place in person, I realized that behind that lovely bush (which was about two feet high and completely bare, IRL) was a muddy landscape littered with rusty children’s toys, spare tires, and wrappers from places like El Pollo Loco, whatever that is. Unfortunately, the rest of the complex followed suit. It was filthy and run down, but you’d have never guessed it by the selection of online photos.

Fake Reviews

It’s pretty rare these days that I go anywhere other than a chain store without at least glancing at online reviews. It’s strange to think that you used to have to just blindly try restaurants without knowing if they were going to be good. There was even a time when you couldn’t look at the menu until you got there. HOW DID WE LIVE?!

It’s no surprise, then, that restaurants, hotels, cleaning services, and other businesses place a high value on positive customer reviews. What IS a little surprising is how many companies are willing to pay money for fake positive reviews on sites like Yelp, TripAdvisor, or even Google 

Yelp conducted an internal sting last year and outted 8 companies that attempted to buy fake reviews over the internet in order to boost their ratings. Many claimed they were forced to do so in order to keep up with competitors, who were also paying for reviews. 

It’s always a little off-putting when you have a terrible experience with a business, only to find it has a stellar track record according to online reviews. Was it just bad luck, or was it cheating? Hmm…

Exaggerated Copy & False Claims

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and the quality of your ad copy can have a huge impact on business goals. In my opinion, it’s not very often that exceptional writing is a bad thing, but it can be when the products or services it describes can’t cash the check that the writing has made out.

Resorts might describe a cramped hot tub as a “luxurious spa area”, or an auto mechanic might describe a tile floor waiting room with a handful of desk chairs and a coffee maker from 2003 as “our VIP suite.” Those aren’t blatant lies, but they are certainly misleading. (Still waiting on that bottle service I ordered last time I had my oil changed.)

Still, questionable word choice is one thing, but a particularly disturbing new trend among brands is ‘greenwashing’, which is the practice of using false PR or marketing initiatives that suggest your brand is more environmentally friendly than it really is. Green sells, and if you can’t help save the environment, I guess you can at least lie about it.

Disposable diaper manufacturers have come under fire recently for failure to disclose the full details of their “disposability”, leading many to question the accuracy of the claims. They’re not the only ones (not by a long shot) to face such questions.

Why It’s Not Worth It

Businesses have no shortage of ways to deceive consumers online. A one-star brand can look like a five-star if they’re willing to put in enough time and money. But is it worth it?

Uh, no.

Have you noticed it’s never, say, Coke, or Apple, trying to deceive their customers? It’s usually bottom of the barrel nobodies like Joe’s Carpet Shack or Joe’s Moving Company (I just don’t trust that Joe character). The lesson here is that if you want to play ball with the big boys, the time and energy you’ve been spending misleading people would be much better spent on actually improving your business! It sounds crazy, but hear me out.

Say your business sucks, but you cobble together a few cleverly angled photographs, a few fake user reviews, and some well-written web copy, and you convince a couple hundred website viewers to come take a look around in your store. What’s probably going to happen is, when they see your cluttered shelves, stained ceiling panels, and aloof cashiers, they’re going to realize they’ve been duped. They might go ahead and give you their money that day, because they’re already there, but they won’t be coming back any time soon.

Then what happens is they go home and write a scathing review of your establishment on Yelp, thus cancelling out the last paid review you posted. Now you have to buy more paid reviews to get your rating back up, and you have to hope this angry customer doesn’t have enough influence in his or her social circles to submarine your reputation any further.

Meanwhile, how much does a mop cost? Ten dollars? How much does a fresh coat of paint cost? How hard is it to prevent employees from shooting looks of disdain at customers?

Look, you want to show your brand or business at its very best. No one expects you to post pictures online of your building’s cracked pipes or sketchy loiterers. But there’s a fine line between putting on some extra makeup for the camera and sending out pictures of Kate Upton and pretending she’s you.

If you don’t like how the pictures of your establishment turned out, maybe don’t blame the photographer. If you don’t like the reviews you see online, maybe tell your people to stop being rude to customers. If people think your food isn’t very good, maybe stop describing it with phrases like “melt in your mouth” and “heavenly goodness.”

It’s pretty simple, really, and catfishing isn’t the answer. If you want to do better, be better.

Photographer Irving Penn had heard that his friend, mentor and father figure, Alexey Brodovitch, was on his deathbed. Years of drinking and chain smoking had caught up with the Russian aristocrat, and everyone believed he was down to his last days. However, when Penn arrived at the hospital for one last visit, he was met with another surprise.

“Thanks for sending me a copy of your book, but, frankly, I must tell you its terrible,” said Brodovitch from his hospital bed. Penn was startled. Would these really be the last words he would ever hear from Brodovitch? Would this be how he would remember the man who influenced and transformed his work, who made him the photographer he is today? Then it hit him. If the man was still filled with this much acid, he was surely going to be ok.

You see, Alexey Brodovitch, one of the greatest and most influential art directors of the 20th century, wasn’t known for his tenderness. He wasn’t known for being supportive. He wasn’t known for being a happy man.

Brodovitch was known for introducing America to European modernism and revolutionizing magazine design. He was known for exposing us to new talents such as Salvadore Dali and Herbert Bayer, and teaching great photographers such as Frank Roberts and Richard Avedon. He was known as the father of modern art direction, using unconventional and experimental designs that are common practice today. He was known for a lack of sympathy, decisive action, chain-smoking, and for being a drunk and a bit of a hard ass.

And the worlds of design, illustration, photography and art direction are better for it.

The work, inspiring. The man, frustrating. 

 

“Astonish me.”

This was Alexey Brodovitch’s infamous catchphrase. He would direct this statement to not only his students, but to the legion of master photographers, designers and illustrators at his beck and call during his 24 years as the Art Director of Harper’s Bazaar.

And, after their receiving their masterpieces, he would take his scissors, cut up their work like a little girl making paper dolls, loosely tape the cropped Photostats to a page layout and leave it for someone else to clean up.

However, what Brodovitch lacked in charm and sobriety, his successor at Harper’s Bazaar, Henry Wolf, recounted that his colleague more than made up for in his skills. “He was great at communicating an idea, a mood, a criticism. In that he was precise and masterful.”

Brodovitch revolutionized American magazine design by introducing European modernism. Instead of adopting the conventional static layouts used in most magazines in the 1930s, Brodovitch broke the rules. He created double page layouts where text and imagery flowed like elegant poetry. Everything worked together to create visual storytelling that enhanced both the page and its contents. Each issue flowed like a musical composition, using changes in size, complexity, values and color to provide the viewer with a sequence of experiences, evoking energy and movement on the printed page.

His influence on the printed page can still be seen in today’s magazine layouts that, while no longer challenging convention, make use of different devices to tell their stories.

He congregated with starving artists. Then he stepped over Picasso on his way to the top.

 

After serving in the Russian Army during World War I and in the Russian Civil War, Brodovitch was exiled to Paris. An aristocrat, he found himself having to work for the first time in his life. He decided that if he had to work he’d follow his passion and become an artist. Albeit, a starving one.

Brodovitch soon found himself living in a cheap apartment in the Montparnasse neighborhood of Paris, an area teaming with some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Here, he was exposed to a number of different styles, including Dadaism, Suprematism, Constructivism, Bauhaus and many more. Through these influences, Brodovitch found his beginnings as a designer.

His big break came when he entered a poster contest for the Le Bal Banal, a charity ball for artists in the area. Many of France’s best and brightest entered; however, Brodovitch’s poster was proclaimed the winner, with a well-known artist by the name of Pablo Picasso coming in second.

With his poster featured on walls throughout the city, Brodovitch was soon in great demand, working for some of the biggest businesses in Paris at the time.

He used so much white space it was racist. Or at least a bit more refined.

 

Though extensive use of white space may seem like an Apple trademark, the team in Cupertino is actually taking inspiration from Alexey Brodovitch.

Before Brodovitch, art directors were infamous for crowding pages with text and imagery, then shading any areas of negative space. In stark contrast, Brodovitch used so much white space people joked that it was racist. Along with photos and text, white space was considered one of the primary elements of his design. By using more white space, he was able to create a greater sense of elegance and value. Clothes were no longer just clothes, but communicated a lifestyle, an experience and a brand.

Today, the use of white space is a best practice of design. His influence has since permeated magazines, advertisements, packaging and web design.

He contradicted himself a lot. But he always had a point.

Photographer and filmmaker, Jerry Schatzberg, fondly remembers taking a class with Brodovitch at the New School.

“He taught me something that I’ve always remembered: After we did the initial assignment, he contradicted what he said the first week, and I said, ‘Okay’. The next week, he contradicted what he said the second week. We went through 10 weeks of contradicting and I thought maybe he was drunk. At the end, he said, ‘You may think I’ve contradicted myself, but there’s no one way to do anything.’”

Though this statement reeks of arrogance and flakiness, Brodovitch’s career and design aesthetic back him up.

Brodovitch was a big proponent of experimentation and using different styles and influences. His experimental nature is what got him the job as the Art Director for Harper’s Bazaar and helped him transform the struggling magazine. Under his guidance Harper’s Bazaar was not only able to compete with its rival, Vogue, but define the New York fashion scene and post World War II photography in the US.

He was like your favorite teacher. You loved him and hated him in the same breath.

When Irving Penn and Alexey Brodovitch met for the last time it wasn’t in a hospital, but a small restaurant in Greenwich Village. Penn spoke of some long-range private experiments he was working on while Brodovitch, sick and on his way back to France, listened intently. His comprehension slipping, he told his friend, protégé and the man who was like a son to him, “I don’t understand what you are saying, Penn, but I believe in it.”

Brodovitch was like your favorite teacher, the one you loved to hate. It’s only later that you learn to appreciate how his lessons helped shape the person you have become. The lessons that Brodovitch shared through his own work and by teaching others have transformed and improved the worlds of photography, design, illustration and visual storytelling.

As Irving Penn put it, “All designers, all photographers, all art directors, whether they know it or not, are students of Alexey Brodovitch.”

There is no bigger difference than the difference between being good and being great. It’s easy to go from being mediocre to being good, but going from good to great? That’s a huge jump.

It’s easy enough to be good at your job. A strong work ethic and dedication will get you pretty far in life; but to be great is something special.

I’ve been fortunate to meet many people who are great at their jobs. Luckier still, I get the chance to work with people every single day who are truly great digital marketers. I’ve often tried to put my finger on just what it is that makes these people great, and of course, it’s impossible. If greatness could be boiled down to a few characteristics and copied, everyone would be great, and we all know that is not the case. However, while there is always an undeniable “X Factor” that can’t be duplicated, great digital marketers do have many of the same traits in common.

Empathy

Good digital marketers know who the target audience is. Great digital marketers understand what they love, what they hate, what makes them scared and what motivates them.

Passion

Good digital marketers enjoy their jobs. Great digital marketers eat, sleep and breathe them. They wake up thinking about how to make campaigns better, and they go to sleep thinking about what else they can learn tomorrow.

A Creative + Analytical Mindset

Good digital marketers are creative. Great digital marketers understand that creativity is only the first step in a successful campaign. Every successful campaign is a combination of great inspiration backed by real data and insights.

Fearlessness

Good digital marketers try out new tactics. Great digital marketers create the new tactics. It’s hard to be fearless. Being comfortable is easy, but you will never become great by being comfortable. Great digital marketers disrupt.

Leadership

Good digital marketers are liked by their team. Great digital marketers are trusted and respected. If you are going to be fearless with your plans, you better have a team who believes in you. Great digital marketers have the unique ability to excite, motivate and rally a team. Even the greatest digital marketers are made better with a team.

Flexibility

Good digital marketers create amazing campaign plans. Great digital marketers know that nothing ever goes according to plan. They are able to roll with the punches and make smart decisions on the fly without affecting campaign performance.

Follow-Through

Good digital marketers can create an amazing strategy but often pass it off to a team to execute the details. Great digital marketers know they aren’t above anything. No matter if they’re a Specialist or a Director, great digital marketers know that it takes a village to launch a successful campaign. If someone on their team is overwhelmed, they step in to help. They back up their promises, and they get it done.

Vision

Good marketers can tell a story. Great marketers know why the story matters. They ask why. They understand the problems they are trying to solve and have the vision to create a plan to solve them.

When it comes down to it, being great isn’t easy. However, people aren’t born great; they become great with a lot of work. If you feel like you are good at what you do but not great, think about where you could improve. Be confident, work hard, think before you act, and always worry more about the why rather than the what.

Everyone wants to know what’s next for the ever-divisive Tim Tebow, who is now a free-agent after a disappointing and drama-filled season with the New York Jets. It seems like just yesterday that Tebow was launching an overtime touchdown pass to Demaryius Thomas to beat the Steelers in the 2011 Wild Card playoff game. Now the poor guy can’t buy a roster spot.

Some say he’ll be scooped up by an NFL team before training camp. Others expect him to take a job in the CFL or Arena League or leave football behind all together and pursue a career with the church. As of this writing, Tebow remains in limbo while media around the country speculate as to whether their local teams should sign him. 

Those poor, poor Jaguars fans. It just never ends down there.

For the record, I don’t think there’s much speculation inside team front offices about Tebow. No one seems to want him. But the media debate persists, and what’s interesting about it is that it’s not a debate founded in Xs and Os. The question isn’t how much Tebow will help a football team (he won’t), it’s whether teams are going to be willing to adopt the hoards of crazed Tebow-maniacs in exchange for some extra publicity and a potential boost in ticket and jersey sales.

Is He Worth It?

At the beginning of the 2012 season after signing with the Jets, Tim Tebow skyrocketed to the top of the jersey sales charts. When it became apparent that he would not win the starting quarterback job in New York and would serve as a glorified clipboard carrier, his sales plummeted… all the way to number 8 (only 3 spots behind the all-mighty Tom Brady).

That has to be a record for a personal punt protector slash backup quarterback.

So, whether you think he’s a saint, con man, role model or an attention whore, the guy has fans. No question about it. And every team in the league could use a player with that kind of star power. So, signing him is a no-brainer, right?

Not so fast.

Here’s what most people don’t realize – merchandising revenue in the NFL is split evenly among the 32 teams. A Forbes article from this past winter noted that Tebow jersey sales would need to have grossed over $131 million in order to justify his Jets salary in 2012. (He sure as heck didn’t justify it with his play on the field.)

So sure, Tebow has legions of fans, but signing him means counting on a boost in ticket sales alone to justify the expense and inevitable negative PR.

It’s possible that he could help a team sell tickets, but that’s not a lasting strategy (most teams located outside of Florida and California don’t need help selling tickets anyway). Tebow fans won’t shell out money over the course of a season to see him ride the bench. If a team wants the ticket sales boost to last, they’d have to play him. And playing Tim Tebow isn’t much of a lasting strategy either. Not for GMs who want to keep their jobs.

So, here’s the real question. Would I want my team, the Ravens, to sign him?

No. No way. I think he’s a good guy, and that he has been a victim of his own hype to an extent, but that doesn’t matter. He can’t help the Ravens on the field so I don’t want him on the team. It’s as simple as that.

Would he help put a small market team like the Ravens in the national spotlight? Sure he would, especially when QB Joe Flacco has a bad game and hot-headed fans and analysts start calling for a change at the position. But I feel confident in speaking for Ravens fans everywhere when I say that it is not the kind of attention we want or need.

The Lesson

Short-term PR wins aren’t something you want. That’s why the bottom dwellers in sports (and business for that matter) are the bottom dwellers. They make short-sighted moves, shell out top dollar for big names, and generally prioritize ticket sales and PR over winning. The best franchises in the league tend to be the ones that win the most games and the most titles (shocking, I know). And that starts by putting a great product on the field for the fans. Not generating buzz.

It all ties back, as always, to adhering to a smart marketing philosophy. Tim Tebow is the NFL version of link building. Sure, he could boost a team’s “Page Rank” in the short-term, but what would they really be gaining? A bunch of bandwagon fans that will only stick around to see Tebow get in the game?

Long-term brand success comes from putting out a great product, building loyalty, and bringing in the right audience – not just the largest.

Our advice to brands? Leave the Tebows of the world alone – you’re better off without them.

1 billion people. 240 billion photos. 1 trillion connections.

Facebook helps us stay connected to the people, places and things we love. However, the social network is pushing us to open up our world and do more. It wants us to not only connect to our friends, but to use our personal stories and experiences to help us answer life’s most pressing questions, like:

Where can I find a vegan restaurant in Mobile, Alabama?

Facebook’s new Graph Search will help us do just that by using our friends’ likes and interests to personalize search results. Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you’ve probably heard of Graph Search but, unless you’re one of the lucky few who made it into the product’s beta testing, you probably haven’t used it.

We’ve created a breakdown to outline how Graph Search works based on information we received from Facebook Project Manager, Loren Cheng, along with some recent developments we’ve learned about since the product launched early this year.

What It’s About 

Facebook considers itself to have three pillars:

• Newsfeed – The page we visit to see what our friends and the brands we follow are saying and sharing.
• Timeline – Our homebase on Facebook, where we curate our own experiences, pictures, check-ins and photos to share with others
• Graph Search – ???

So, how does Graph Search fit into all this? Basically, it is a new way to search using all the information you and your friends have shared including photos, images, check-ins, likes and more. While other services index primarily public information, Facebook is able to answer the questions that others can’t by indexing things people share to help other users make decisions.

How is this different (or better) than searching on Google or Bing? It all boils down to reach and relevance. We benefit from the vast reach of Google and Bing, but have to sift through information to uncover relevance. However, Graph Search breaks this tradeoff by combining the two. We get to learn about restaurants, books and other things of interest in our area, while also getting the inside scoop from the experiences of those closest to us – helping us to determine whether something is a “yay” or a “nay.”

How It Works

Let’s say after finding that vegan restaurant, I need to see a dentist because I chipped a tooth on some overcooked tempeh. I could conduct a Google or Bing search to find a list of dentists in the area, then do my due diligence to identify the best options. Or, I could use Graph Search to find dentists my friends in Alabama like. Graph Search currently allows you to search by the following criteria:

• People – Our friends, friends of friends and people we follow
• Photos – Check-ins, captions and comments
• Places – Places we’ve checked into
• Pages – Pages we’ve liked
• Interests – Interests we’ve liked

Using natural language, we can type our query into graph search asking:

• Dentists liked by my friends
• Which dentists in Alabama are liked by my friends and have pictures
• Dentists in Alabama liked by my friends who like Mad Men 

Now, let’s say we don’t trust some of our friend’s judgment. Graph search lets us further define our results to exclude certain information.

Natural Language

In stark contrast to Google, Facebook Graph Search encourages the use of super long-tail search queries, emphasizing phrases and not keywords. This is because Facebook Graph Search responds to natural language. The developers felt that understanding semantics was key to making Graph Search work. By utilizing natural language patterns, Graph Search provides users the ability to ask almost anything. This also required a certain amount of re-education. We are trained by Google and other search engines to enter certain keywords and short, general queries. However, Graph Search works better if the query is more specific and complex. A sort of “anti-autocomplete,” Graph Search teases users with a “type-ahead” mechanism, which is used to encourage longer queries.

Results

Results aren’t a list, but specific “answers,”. Results are ranked based upon a number of factors, including:

• Page
• Engagement
• Check-ins
• And of course, friends

Results are tailored to exactly what we’re looking for. So, if Facebook thinks we’ve submitted a recruiting query, it will present facts about each candidate’s work history. If it thinks we’re looking for a hookup, we will see relationship status and location information. For now, Graph Search only allows you to search based upon people, photos, interests and pages. However, once it moves out of beta, people should be able to search based upon posts and language. In addition, it will be available in Open Graph and on mobile devices.

What It Means for Marketers

The big question for Graph Search is how companies will be able to use it to sell and market products.

Advertising

Graph Search originally allowed brands to purchase sponsored results in the drop down menu. However, Facebook is currently testing ads to a select group of users in beta. These ads aren’t based upon search queries, but are simply an extension of Facebook Exchange and Marketplace ads.

The first Graph Search ads are really just a new placement of their current ads. Facebook has put a premium on user experience, so at this time they’re probably skeptical about rolling out ads based on search queries.

Research Tool

While paid results may not be an actuality at this point, Graph Search could potentially serve as a tool for marketers to research their target audiences and their competitors, allowing them to created highly targeted campaigns. However, since results are personalized, brands and agencies will have to be careful with the information they gather.

Guilty by Association

Another thing marketers should be aware of is that they won’t be able to disassociate themselves from fans. For example, both the Air Force and McDonald’s come up when you search for employers of people who like “racism”. At this time, there are no plans for a disavow tool and no advice from Facebook to combat bad results. This opens the program up to Google Bombing type activities.

Going Local

Local businesses have the most to gain from Graph Search. Since people will be searching within their own social circles, results will primarily be based around their local area. For local businesses that are used to competing with large brands on Google, Facebook Graph presents an outstanding opportunity to engage with consumers and get discovered. This puts a premium on optimizing for local Facebook pages and Facebook’s search partner, Bing. Further, large brands with franchises will need to refocus their efforts to creating pages for individual locations instead of the main brand page. On another note, this presents a challenge to Yelp, Foursquare and other local social media networks. With so much information at it’s fingertips, it wouldn’t take much for Facebook to implement its own version of these networks.

Optimization

Optimizing Facebook Graph Search presents some unique opportunities and some not so unique challenges to marketers. Though Graph Search seems like some big, scary thing, many of the mechanics to be successful are inherent to most SEO best practices.

The Basics

Here are a few of the basic things every brand should have completed by now, no matter your business model. If you haven’t done it yet, we have to age our finger at you.

• Create a Facebook Page with all applicable profile information included.
• Create a page url that is direct, natural and relevant to your business.
• Include your business address and phone number in your profile.
• Invite Friends and customers to like your page.
• Include a link to your Facebook on your main website.

Content

We’ve all heard the cliché that content is king, and it is still very true for Facebook. Post photos, videos and other content regularly to your profile – stuff relevant to your business that people can will find valuable.

Engagement

If you want to increase your rankings on Graph Search, you’re going to have to do more than just have a page and post content occasionally. You’re going to have to regularly engage with your audience in relevant ways. Competitions and quizzes are just a few ways to do this. Find out what works for your business.

A Few Things to Note

Privacy

Online privacy is always a concern, especially on Facebook, which is the poster child for everything bad about online sharing, the same way McDonald’s is for the horrors of fast food. Because of past issues with privacy, Facebook has taken a very proactive stance with Graph Search. Facebook claims that every piece of content on Graph Search is under the same privacy guidelines on Facebook. Most content isn’t public. Anything you don’t want to share or include won’t be. Every piece of content has its own specific audience. Further, we can look forward to easier-to-use privacy settings. However, until more users are able to access Graph Search, the third pillar will continue to be scary and confusing.

Spam

Facebook Graph Search doesn’t have a separate spam control team. However, the algorithm was developed with spam protection in place. We can only hope the protections in place will be enough.

API

Currently Graph Search does not have an API. But it might be coming.

The Future of Search

Facebook claims it isn’t aiming to own a segment of search, but instead, to become part of the “search fabric.” You don’t like books on Facebook, you go to Goodreads.com to see what people are reading. You visit Yelp to learn more about a restaurant from customer reviews. Though this sounds all well and good, this statement still feels pretty dubious. It’s mostly likely just a continuation of Facebook and Google’s said / unsaid secret war for eyeballs and user interest.

What isn’t a secret is that the next frontier of search will be based around social and local, which is the type of information Facebook has in abundance. People have been wondering for years when Facebook would take advantage of its search potential, with tons of information that no one else can access and Google sitting in fear of the inevitable. However, is Graph Search ultimately much ado about nothing?

Obviously, Facebook is really banking on this product being a game changer, listing it as one of its core pillars. How successful Facebook will be remains to be seen. In the meantime, we’ll be working on finding out how ridiculously complex we can make our search queries.