Now apart from the fact that Facebook and Twitter have robbed me off my privacy (ok, so I opted to give it to them) and also my ability to think of anything else to do with my time (inevitably I simply log on and wait for something to happen), Facebook has recently robbed me of something else. My personality.

Well, sort of. They’ve robbed me of my interests. The labels of things I want to be associated with, the tags that say who I am without delving into my inner psyche.

It all started with a stupid little pop up.

“Mark, please link your profile to a load of crap based on some dubious contextual analysis.”

Um, no thanks Facebook, if it’s all the same to you I’m a bit busy and just want to crack on.

“Well, that’s  not a problem Mr Fletcher, but in that case we’ll have to delete all your interests”.

Um, if it’s all the same to you I’d rather you didn’t do that please Facebook, they are my interests after all.

“Well link to these lovely suggested ‘activities’, ‘interests’ and ‘likes’ then please. Look ‘five a side’, you like that don’t you?”.

Er, well yeah I do, but then it looks like I’m linking to some global community of five a side lovers and weirdos that I’ve not even joined, and I’m quite alright for meeting any more weirdos thanks. I’ll just hit the back button…

[FACEBOOK ERROR SCREEN]: Contact form submission error…blah blah blah…

Bollocks. [TYPES: www.facebo....CLICKS: http://www.facebook.com/...]

Cue blank Facebook profile of a poor monkey with no hobbies or interests

So now I feel like a fool for shouting “I’m not bloody linking to all this crap”. This bloomin’ pop up seemed intent on making me sign up to these global communities or sacrifice my identity! Through sheer ignorance I’ve avoided selling my soul, but for my sins I’ve now ended up a culturally impotent sloth (according to my empty Facebook page anyway) with nothing to do with my long, pointless days then whittle them away thinking up not-very-witty status updates on my social spaces.

Their are no prisoners in Zuckerberg’s quest to take over the world with Facebook, only losers like me who are left identity-less.

Probably the biggest irony of my day-job is that in the course of booking digital media I am routinely left to resort to technologies that have long since been improved upon.

Whilst I’m sure the traditional fax machine has played its part in share-shattering business deals (not to mention being one of the best ways for film and TV cop dramas to reveal the identify of the killer) I tend to look down on the humble facsimile with a little disdain, because, surely, in this day and age, there’s a better way of doing things.

In my experience of booking digital media I’ve only come across a handful of companies that don’t require a faxed document to make a booking. It won’t surprise you that one of them is Google, who of course, digital acolytes that they are, decided that making multiple physical copies of a paper document (including reams and reams of rainforest destroying Ts & Cs) was a little on the silly side given the available technology. The world leader in online problem solving instead opted for a check box and a nifty piece of HTML verification. Simples.

I guess the odd fax now and then doesn’t really pose me too many problems. It’s a nice illustration though of how digital is still not being used to its full potential. It’s still an add on for many people: support for TV ads or a funny little distribution channel that brings in money at the expense of bricks and mortar stores.

Digital is far from either of those things – it’s a revolution in the 4Ps of marketing (or the 7Ps if your a more recent graduate of Jobber et al). Digital is fundamentally driven by technology that makes thing s easy and enhances communication. Fax machines do not belong in the digital world as much as digital isn’t a way to whack a TV or press ad online.

The technology is there to used folks, so use it. It’s not exactly rocket science is it.

Like Photobox.com…

When you empty your basket, they want to keep you on the site. They want to counter the reason you emptied your basket. They want you to find what you’re looking for. They want you to be happy avoid your day being unfulfilled.

They, like all retailers, don’t want you to go home empty handed.

Which, in a nutshell, is what marketing is all about.

Reducing conversion drop off: When you clear your basket of items at the checkout stage Photobox serve this clever little screen to tempt you to stay on the site and purchase

I can’t help but feel sorry for all the people who think that Carlsberg’s latest football related advert is one of their best adverts yet. Perhaps I’m being a bit quick to judge, but all the people who say they like it aren’t what I’d call ‘real’ football fans.

Carlsberg’s ad campaign tries desperately to recreate the epic pre-match team talk – those team talks that in reality rarely exist, but that everyone wants to hear about. And let’s not beat around the bush…it starts very well.

During the first viewing I nearly forgave Carlsberg all sins based on their inclusion of Jackie Charlton on the ad. But then Clive Woodward, Ian Botham and Phil ‘the Power’ Taylor turn up, and suddenly the once fashionable Danish beer brand has gone from credible football sponsor to bandwagon-sleaze-artist in one fell swoop. “Let’s throw as many celebrities into a 3 minute commerical as possible and cross our fingers for multi-national $$$ sales”, says their “I’m a listener marketing manager”. Fuck you, non-listener.

The trouble is, that Carlsberg actually have a great heritage  of *good* football ads. Their ‘pub team’ success of 2006 is amongst one of the best football ads ever aired – even if that is largely reliant on the inclusion of Bobby Robson and a good script.

Unfortunately Carlsberg’s recent ads are nothing short of alienating for the real fan. If their business/marketing objectives are met, then fair enough. But I for one, want more from Carlsberg given their advertising heritage.

Bar the Carlsberg ‘Old Lions’ ads only Nike have come close to engaging with football fans on a one to one basis, and each time that is through real footballing passion rather than fake Nationalistic bandwagon-ism. Between Parklife, Airport and Battleship, Nike have made ads that not only appeal to the British psyche but will remained engrained for generations.

The new lump-in-your-throat John Lewis advert has captured the imagination of the nation, sending Fyfe Dangerfield’s easily likeable cover of an old Billy Joel record almost to the top of the UK popular music charts and causing the more sentimental amongst us to rush to the phone to touch base with our loved ones.

Beautiful as the ad is it serves only to cast a melancholy shadow on my day. As it comes to its conclusion the dominating thoughts in my head are not that John Lewis is a quality retailer and a friend throughout my life who’ll always be there catering for my every materialistic whim and need, but of my inevitable slide into old age and eventual demise. That is, if I’m lucky to get through enough of life to get that far (and if I do God-knows what I’ll do with all the useless things I purchased over the years after watching persuasive heart-strong tugging adverts).

The advert is beautiful art for the masses; without requiring any thought it taps into emotions that we hold dearest. The combination of Mr Dangerfield’s soothing voice, the attractive young student celebrating the best years of her live and the loving mother doting on her families every need creates a perfect picture of middle England bliss that everyone should aspire too.

A fantastic collection of moving images and sound? An interesting piece of brand communication? A great and true reflection of live in Britain? Not if certain newspapers are to be believed, do you not read the Daily Mail folks?!

My favourite comment on this advert comes from a post on John Lewis’s YouTube channel from sanjuro4, who casts a fantastic social viewpoint on proceedings:
“Poundland should make their own version where the woman spends most her life alone living in a rathole of? [sic] a bedsit, eating potnoodles and watching daytime TV”
And there’s also much discussion in the national press, where it’s pointed out that the ad has more than a few similarities to other adverts and films.

LinkedIn are conducting an election poll and the results seem to confirm a few assumptions I’d already made about the electorate:

• Creative types are more liberal and idealistic (and I think this applies to social media and digital geeks too)
• Business leaders have lost confidence in New Labour and will turn to David Cameron
• The lower down the food chain the worker is the higher the propensity to vote for Labour

There’s a few things that the poll suggests which seem to make sense in the current economic climate:

• Small and very large businesses are more likely to vote Tory

And there’s one major factor that I think may have already decided the outcome of the 2010 General Election this year, and that’s is:

• Age!

Younger people have the power to keep David Cameron out of power – but have they all registered to vote?

Labour’s anti-Cameron PPC (plus #UKelection display ads by Conservatives and the Google Chrome party)

Lots has been said and written about the impact of social media on politics. Barack Obama surged to power on the back of a Facebook campaign; Stephen Fry brought the strife of Iranian voters to the attention of millions; whilst Westminster has been opened up with tools such as Tweetminster , They Work For You and Vote For Policies.

Tweetminster has helped bring Westminster to the online community (or vice versa?!)

The 2010 UK general election may be the first time the political scene in Britain has been able to fully immerse itself in online communications on a grand scale (although some would argue it’s been a missed opportunity). YouGov polls are making way for blogging polls (I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve ‘voted’ already on various different websites). David Cameron became the most defaced man in Britain as the Tories offline media buy turned viral via a quickly fashioned spoof website. Unlike his Tory counterpart Gordon Brown has avoided sending personal emails to voters, opting instead to focus on the viral effect of accusing people of bigotry, whilst Nick Clegg has been expertly backed up in the live TV debates by the Liberal Democrats twitter feed, who posted Lib Dem policies in real-time as they were discussed on the telly.

Countless blogs and articles will no doubt analyse the social media prowess of the political parties (we shouldn’t forget that the Green Party have also made great use of Twitter and even the BNP have embraced 140-character updates). But it’s not all glamourous activities such as tweets, viral and status updates…

More traditional forms of offline and online media have also deployed and the success of will be equally as difficult to measure as social media. It also seems that the main parties preferences have been to pay for offline media whilst utilise ‘free’ (although time consuming) online channels. You haven’t left the house in the last month if you’ve not seen Gordon Brown or David Cameron’s face on 92.6% of billboards in urban areas, but I’ve not seen a single leaderboard or skyscraper placement for either leader.

Labour however haven’t been avoiding paid online media. The incumbent majority have been quietly plugging their anti-Cameron campaign with good old fashioned search marketing. And to top it off they’ve been using the Google Content Network. Here’s an advertiser who really does benefit from those free contextual impressions, every one potentially another slither of doubt in floating voters minds.

Don't Risk The Tories: Labour's contextual PPC campaign the day before the UK general election

It all seems a bit underhand compared to integrated social media feeds and interactive manifestos. But it’s (potentially) a very cost effective way to add to the overall effect of electioneering.  I’d be interested to know if they have a negative keyword/site exclusion strategy. It’s a subtle approach and clever, but will it really do much more than create a few headlines on a handful of geeky blogs?

And as I type some news just in: I’ve just heard that the Conservatives have block booked YouTube tomorrow (polling day). The homepage placement (I’m told reliably by Google) is only available on a daily takeover basis and what a day to select! Potentially impeccable timing from the Tory marketing machine. OPn top of that this week has seen my inbox littered with personalised emails from a variety of Tory MPs which mean there’s no hope of avoiding the fact it’s election week (I’d love to know how they got my email address too, care to explain Mr Cameron?). On the face of it, their strategy looks much more influential than Labour’s adoption of content ads. I guess time will tell.

In case you missed it there...!

Funny how two buses come at once. In the process of writing about Labour’s use of paid search I stumbled across Google Chrome following Ann Summers onto the election bandwagon. Piggybacking politics is a bit of a minefield but both brands have done a decent job here. Probably better than the politicians have…

Ogilvy Rolls Royce ad

Back at university I applied for a placement at Ogilvy in London. I still have the reply*, the famous logo adorning the top of the letter head, printed on expensive red-backed paper. It felt like a letter from somewhere important, a firm with authority and class. Since then I’ve finished reading David Ogilvy’s books, scoured huge and heavy Phaidon’s for examples of classic campaigns and become addicted to Mad Men, in some desire to play out my advertising agency fantasy.

I understand the irony of driving home from work singing along the Koka Kola by The Clash, but hell, some of Ogilvy’s campaigns are as much art as they are advertising. Ogilvy’s name is synonymous with advertising, synonymous with great campaigns: campaigns that not only shifted metal and made cash registers ring but – along with DDB, W&K, Y&R and co. – took advertising to place of cultural reverence alongside music and film.

Ogilvy’s latest campaign is an example of a company confident in it’s past and it’s prowess and prepared to wield both with little care for it’s competitors. “World’s Greatest Salesperson” is Ogilvy’s own recruitment drive, a campaign to find the budding agency staff of the future. This isn’t an attempt to find talented art directors or account managers. It’s a campaign to find Donald Draper’s – people with the instinctive skill of selling an idea.

And it’s not some shoddy poster or jump-on-the-band-wagon social media exercise, this is a proper direct response campaign with tweetability. It’s perfect for the target audience, from the styling and camera work to the cast including actors with TV drama heritage (can you spot the FBI chief from the Sopranos?)

Not only are the calls to action compelling, but the response is. Candidates are asked to upload a video of how they would sell a common red brick in a pitch, thus adding a huge viral potential.

The ads that precede the call to action haven’t been given a huge media budget, there’s no sophisticated targeting or expensive spot buying. The money has been spent on creative execution, which is uber-professional and well acted. They rely on viral spread, a quirky call to action, no doubt appealing in many ways to students and the Apprentice generation.

Whether you hit the homepage of the YouTube channel or view the videos individually, the campaign stands on its own feet enough for you to seek out the related videos and put the pieces together yourself. Unfortunately none of the ads match the run away winner, the video of the young lad convincing his mother of the benefits of owning an Xbox. Of course you know where it’s going from the word go, but it’s brilliantly executed and despite good efforts from other ads, it gets the point across in the funniest and most memorable way.

In my opinion Ogilvy already have the greatest sales person in the world working for them. It’s the person who convinced the rest of the team that they didn’t need a call to action on each individual video.

*It was a ‘please apply next year’ rather than a rejection (so I keep telling myself) as I’d missed that years intake.

So, you’ve launched your brand with a mammoth (largely daytime) TV investment featuring a catchy swing jingle that gets people clicking their fingers and humming along, plus a good looking girl (and guy) who make friends with a chirpy plasticine character that personifies your brand. Your URL is plastered on as much of the screen as possible and the youthful voice-over repeats that brand name at every opportunity.

Within a short space of time you’re already one of the major players in a swelling marketplace, but you can’t sit back because there’s a new competitor every week and it’s only a matter of time before the supermarkets jump on the bandwagon.

So how do you cement yourself as one of the experts, ensure your brand stays fresh and keep your name on top of people’s minds.

You call Paul Daniels and Debbie McGee, ply them with some cheesy lines and a magical piece of brand name word play, and hey presto, the marketplace is now your monopoly.

Or something like that.

What’s the music in the Mazuma television advert – if you’re wondering what that jolly little tune is in the background of the background of these ads it’s Easy Bean Swing by Paul Mottram

Driving to work yesterday I came across this ad on the back of the 51 service, tootling down Elland Road without a care in the world.

Distasteful or tongue in cheek?

Surely the person who dreamt this ad up was having a laugh? Surely the guy who printed the ad was scratching his head in disbelief?

Distasteful? Vulgar? Wong audience and wrong message?

Or just a bit tongue-in-cheek?

A number of things got me wondering about who the target audience for the ad are the targeting captures drivers, stuck behind the bus, the humour is a bit risque and lowest common denominator. Is this ad for the end users or someone else buying on their behalf?