A bit late to the game, Buzz is a somewhat simplified way of interacting with those in your social network in short, sporadic messaging bursts.  While Twitter, Facebook and the rest rely on people actively seeking out connections, Buzz instead relies on your Gmail address book to populate your contact list.

Early comments run the gamut from those incensed that Buzz potentially publicly broadcasts contacts better left private, (by using your most frequently used contacts as your base for interaction, Google allows others to know who’s on your address book A-List), to those simply wondering about the timing, value and viability of the service.

As for me, I mostly wonder whatever happened to Google’s pursuit of the cutting edge? What was once of the most exciting online based companies, has instead become a mostly sluggish and somewhat bloated company, that relies on an ever outdated business model of advertising and acquisition.

Buying up smaller tech companies to include under their corporate umbrella has become the chosen Google method of expansion, something once considered unimaginative at best and mostly deplorable when done by Bill Gates in the early days of Microsoft.

When Google does launch something new, as in the case of Buzz, it’s generally a tired or tried and true formula, with Google seeming to make a half hearted attempt at capturing existing market share.

So what about Buzz? An early volley with friends/colleagues last night felt like a somewhat updated chain letter, or the opening credits of the Brady Bunch, where the family goofily looks at each other through their boxed in spaces, trying to find something to say or convey.

Don’t get me wrong.  I think it’s fun to have small updates in my inbox, but I’d love to see Google concentrate more time on perfecting their launches (whatever happened to Wave being the next big thing?) instead of simply giving us slightly updated products that we already have.   In the past few years we’ve already collectively learned a new way to connect online – Buzz doesn’t feel like it brings anything new to the party.

Rachel, who wonders if Buzz is something of a snooze

Like what you’ve read? Need a marketing expert, opinion column, pop culture comment, fun speaker or snappy sound bite? rachelblogs@gmail.com

There was a general hue and cry and threat to boycott Facebook earlier this year when they changed their TOS to include the fact that they basically owned your content, comments and images.  So loud was the backlash that Facebook eventually relented and changed it back.  Yet everyone seems vaguely lulled into accepting Twitter’s ownership of what you say and what you do.

You shouldn’t be that calm – here’s why.  While Facebook had some smarmy schemes for trying to use your images or to drive revenue through advertising, Twitter’s new TOS is a lot more subversive, if not dangerous to your privacy.  The long range potential for you to get screwed out of your ideas or semi-private information should make you even more hesitant to post anything sensitive, timely or proprietary on Twitter- unless you’ve already staked a claim to it.

Crowdsourcing, or the notion of seeking wisdom from the masses is a concept that is at the epicenter of emerging ideas, technology and data mining.  Twitter is likely uninterested in what you ate for breakfast, or the fact that you think Kanye West is an ass driven by the need for publicity.  What interests them more are your ideas, concepts and thoughts on technology, pharma and politics, which are endlessly marketable and potentially monetized (apologies for marketing speak here).  Did you really think the service was free or without a visible business plan because people are in the habit of investing tens of millions of dollars so that you can kill time at work?

I’m not suggesting that you stop using Twitter entirely, but in addition to thinking twice before posting links to pictures of you gone wild, I would suggest that you think long and hard before revealing anything that could potentially sabotage your chances of generating income, while increasing the coffers and brain trust of companies like Twitter.

Rachel, who believes firmly in sharing- but never ever giving away the farm

Like what you’ve read? Need a marketing, pop culture column, fun speaker or snappy sound bite? write to me at rachelblogs@gmail.com

About those advertisers.

Much as we tend to complain about endless ads,  most of us appreciate really great ones. Witness the frenzy around Superbowl ads, or the recent obsession with Mad Men, TV’s love letter to the early days of the industry.

For advertising to really have an effect though, it has to make us look at something in an entirely new way.  By us of course I mean the carefully analyzed and targeted demographic that will then become so enamored with Widget X that they will spend their allowance, pay packet or cash advance on acquiring each and every Widget X available.

In recent weeks though, there’s been controversy about a spate of really poorly thought out ad campaigns.  One featured the analogy of the deaths of those murdered on September 11th as compared to the deaths wrought by the natural disaster, the tsunami of 2004.  The execution (as it were) of the print and TV spots was incredibly insensitive if not abrasive, clearly conceptualized by a thoughtless group of advertising executives so eager to win awards that they set aside any level of empathy, much less accessibility.

Of course now there’s the requisite finger pointing going on between executives at DDB Brasil, the ad agency that created the spots and submitted them for numerous awards,  and the World Wildlife Federation, the client, who denies knowledge or permission for the spot.   Having worked with WWF in the past, I somehow doubt they were unaware of the slant of the campaign- but that’s just one marketer’s opinion.

Over in Germany, who some sixty years after the end of WWII still live in the specter of the Third Reich,  a racy spot comparing sexually transmitted diseases to Adolph Hitler (no, really) is equally offensive to many.  So steamy is the spot, that it can only be shown after 9:00 pm.  In it, a writhing and well muscled young couple seem lost in the throes of passion.  After a moment or two the man’s face is clearly revealed to resemble that of Hitler, mustache and all.  The point being, one imagines that no matter how hot that guy in your bed is, it’s quite possible that he’s carrying something nasty around that can potentially kill you.

The video was released to coincide with World Aids Day 2009, yet offers no actual advice on how to protect oneself from either STDs or evil world domination and poorly groomed dictators.  I can joke about this since as the child of Holocaust survivors/Concentration camp survivors, my humor tends to run a bit darker than most.

You can’t though, and neither should they.  Nor should they trivialize or attempt to monetize genocide.  Seems simple enough, don’t you think?

Am I offended by the ads? Yes. Because they lack creativity and bank on the mass pain of others to make a watered down point.  Because the people who created them are so removed from the events depicted, that they’d rather bank on the sizzle, instead of exhibiting understanding for the ongoing pain of those affected.

Then again, I’m offended that Fashion Week, and a host of other fatuous movies or events open on September 11th, a day that I lost friends, loved ones and the bit of innocence I still had left in believing the world was a not so scary place.

Bad advertising, bad marketing moves and bad TV can all be forgiven.  Bad advertising, bad marketing moves and bad TV created to further one’s own cause at the expense and deep rooted pain of others cannot.

Rachel, who reminds you to hug someone close to you today and every day.

Mad Men

In fact, Mad Men may be credited with nudging the advertising industry as we know it, out of one of the worst slumps in decades.  Promotional partnerships include Clorox (Getting ad guys out of hot water for generations), Banana Republic (fashions inspired by the show along with a chance to win a walk-on part) and glossy advertorials in Vanity Fair and Variety magazines. One musn’t forget all of the events taking place in NYC (on Madison Avenue, where else?), more modern promotional methods including the latest wave to hit Facebook and Twitter accounts- campy cartoon avatars created on the site MadMenYourself.com (illustrated by the brilliant Dyna Moe and presented by Eight O’Clock Coffee) . Oh, and Season 3 will be presented by BMW.

I’m a huge fan of mid-century fashion & design, and a few years ago I immersed myself in the world of the advertising of that era. While researching cosmetic advertising copy and images to include in my book Hello Gorgeous! Beauty Products in America ’40s-’60s (site desperately in need of a makeover), I noticed there were several prevalent and recurring themes:  Promise, hope, youth- better.

After the privation of WWII, people were eager for products and experiences to make them feel happy or at the very least appear to feel happy. Everything was fresh, new and exciting. Cosmetics could make you more beautiful, youthful and engaging. Flip through a magazine and it can be abundantly clear that the more advertising changes- the more it’s remained pretty much the same.

Other shows about the era have come and gone, including cult favorite Homefront (which featured John Slattery as a labor union organizer), but somehow Mad Men seems to have a struck a collective nerve.  I’d like to think it’s because culturally we’re ready to understand, confront and forgive the generations that led to our own. In all likelihood though, it’s probably something to do with our love for playing dress up and marveling at a time when smoking and adultery were accepted, and plastic bags were still considered toys.

Rachel, AKA Ms. Modness

Like what you’ve read? Need retro flavored or timely pop culture commentary, editorial or snappy sound bites? Write to me at rachelblogs@gmail.com

Over four decades ago Volkswagen revolutionized both car making and the advertising industry with their exhortation to Think Small.   This call to action was the polar opposite of the common car ideal of the time which consisted of boat sized vehicles with bells, whistles and most notably- fins.

It isn’t just the car industry that’s going through intense growing pains these days.  Marketing, corporate & small business, B2B & B2C engagement needs to continue to embrace change and evolve to seem fresh, crispy and delicious again.

When considering the next big marketing idea, consider the micro-revolution as part of your overall and long term plan. The beauty is in the immediacy of interaction, feedback, results, revisions and brand evangelism by new converts.  Conversely, the pace has picked up on margin of error as well.

Rushing to Twitter and the 8,000 social networking sites that have popped up like mushrooms since last night seems de rigeur for consumer hungry brands.  It’s more prudent to create the right immediate presence than simply a boring or ill formed one.

I’ll leave you with three micro thoughts for today:

1. Micro-communities, micro-content & one on one engagement are marketing luxuries:  Don’t denigrate or take these new mediums for granted, respect what they offer while taking advantage of these new consumer conduits.
2. Quality is more important than ever: The right presence, followers, brand ideals and excellent customer service still make or break a brand- only now it can be at the speed of a tweet and sometimes in 140 characters or less.
3. Things will change: and when budgets once again become bloated it’s key to remember the micro-ideals that allowed for ongoing consumer engagement during even the toughest times.

Rachel who knows that big things frequently come in small (marketing) packages