Nike owned the news when it recently launched its 30th Anniversary “Just Do It” campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick.

Nike did do it, including a controversial athlete as its spokesperson. And many said it was a moronic move.

Colin Kaepernick is very polarizing, but then again, America is a very polarized nation. 35-40% of Americans support Donald J. Trump and his unconventional approach to making America great again.

No matter what he does or says, they stand by their man.

Others view him as unpresidential, unprepared, unwilling to learn, purposely divisive, petty, narcissistic, and utterly lacking in empathy and compassion.

He surrounded himself “with the very best people” and it has resulted in a record number of resignations, firings, indictments, and convictions.

Trump acts like a strong arm thug, a tyrant. He believes the justice department works for him. He denies science and oversees the destruction of our regulatory apparatus. He villainizes the free press and presents alternate facts as facts. He portends to be a populist while granting corporate tax breaks that balloon the deficit $1.5 trillion (wait for the trickle down, people–– just you WAIT!). He refuses to criticize hate groups. He belittles and antagonizes our allies, befriends our enemies and is an obsequious lapdog in their presence.

Are these actions making America great again?

Trump manages to make everything about him, and when he put Colin Kaepernick in his crosshairs, he struck the divisive gold to turbo-charged his 35-40% base.

He made Kaepernick’s taking a knee during the national anthem about the athlete being unpatriotic. Trump believes CK’s action was an insult to the American flag, the military, the bald eagle, and hot dog apple pie baked by mom.

This view was despite the fact Kaepernick had clearly stated his reason for kneeling was protesting the lack of justice in police interactions with black youths.

Support him or not, the quarterback was making a political statement. The right of every American.

But that didn’t matter, not when you can kick up dust for political showmanship.

Kaepernick became poison in the NFL. Granted, he was not a star QB, but he was better than or as good as 14 starting QBs.

But no team would have him; he was effectively sidelined by the president.

This battle became the juice that drove the Wieden & Kennedy copywriter to pen “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” that appears over a picture of CK’s face in the print and billboard executions of the Nike campaign.

Many marketing armchair quarterbacks said Nike was stupid. Why grab a political third rail and willingly alienate one-third of the country or more that believes in Trump?

Why? Because Nike believes in something, too. Being authentic.

Nike knows being authentic is smart for business, especially today when everyone worries about being politically correct and staying out of the fray.

But people respect authenticity, especially Gen Z. They can agree or disagree, but at least they know where you stand. For decades, Nike supported rising athletes with contracts and used them as spokespeople, which means inevitably tying the swoosh to whatever their actions are–– controversial or not.

So when Nike decided to put the most controversial man in sports, one who is barred from playing in the NFL, front and center, it was a gutsy move. Especially considering Nike has a contract with the NFL until 2028.

Some people were outraged by the Kaepernick campaign and burned their Nike shoes. Others vowed they’d never buy anything with a swoosh ever again.

And I’m sure there were death threats called into Nike HQ.

All this Nike outrage made excellent fodder for the hungry 24-hour news cycle where Tweet chasers need something to mix it up a bit.

What were the repercussions suffered by Nike? Its stock price dipped initially, but when Nike reported sales were up after the campaign launched, stock prices rebounded nicely, and analysts raised their price projections.

The CK Nike campaign generated over $163 million in publicity and a monsoon of social media likes and positive buzz.

And, of course, a ton of animosity and hate. As you may have guessed, Trump was not a fan of the work.

Nike played the same game Trump plays–– they preyed on emotion.

For Trump, it’s about generating fear. Stoking flames of victimhood.

He was the man behind many conspiracy theories: Muslims celebrating on 9-11 as the twin towers fell, Obama’s birth certificate, Obama tapping Trump Tower, Ted Cruz’s dad was involved with the JFK assassination, Joe Scarborough was involved in the death of one of his staff members, the Mueller witch hunt is out to get him, the deep state reporting falsehoods–– you get the drift.

For Nike, it was about standing with an athlete willing to take a knee for what he believed. The Nike brand is built on athletes believing in themselves.

Nike knew the campaign would be controversial, and it was prepared to suffer the consequences.

And it did. All the way to the bank.

The lesson: you do not have to market to everyone, find your tribe and embrace them.

And if you like America under Trump, support him. If you don’t, vote in November against all who would enable him.

Just do it, being a passive citizen could cost you your freedoms.

After spending some time not being in advertising, I’ve found myself still thinking about what the business has become.

What the hell is wrong with me?

Don’t reply.

Anyway, recently, Ken Auletta wrote an incredible and informative essay in The New Yorker entitled “How the Math Men Overthrew the Mad Men” (read it!).

The upshot is that today it’s the numbers that rule marketing and big data translates into more numbers and data points than one can count. Meaning, more ways to market more products and messages to more people individually–– specifically suited to that person’s projected needs and wants based on his or her past actions.

Science, baby, science! Technology ruling humanity.

This way of thinking puts data ahead of humans. It’s the numbers that matter… they just happen to be attached to a pulse. Once those numbers are analyzed, messages can be customized. Messages with proven buzzwords that elicit rich responses.

Extrapolate this way of thinking and pretty soon the result is inevatable–– computers can continually refine and test and measure all messaging. People will be required to analyze the data and perhaps put some spitshine and POV to the results.

Or maybe not.

Maybe the only role of people will be consuming products and services and ideas. The marketing directors of the future will get everything they need from machines.

And machines don’t have bothersome emotions.

As the marketing world continues to drink the Kool-Aid of numbers as its panacea, consider this–– greatness, true greatness that moves people and revolutionizes an industry, rarely comes in incremental improvements.

Humans crave new and excitingly different things. Things that stir the soul and excite imagination and possibility.

Will those big ideas come from computer codes, some formulaic result of previous performance? I doubt it.

Then again, maybe the formula simply needs a special random creative algorithm.

Or, maybe in the future, the secret weapon will be using empathy, creativity, and humanity to divine ideas that spark movements.

Then again, perhaps I’m just a silly romantic, and data can quickly discern how many of us are left and churn marketing messages aimed to lure us into groupthink.

Better set my Adblock to dematerialize.

Almost four decades ago, I entered the ad business as a young buck who could discern between shit and shinola with 50% accuracy.

I became an ad copywriter because I didn’t have the guts to pursue the hard life of striving to make it as a writer-writer.

The notion of being a starving artist until I published my great American novel had little appeal to this young capitalist. I thought advertising would be an easier route. As a kid, I had always loved smart ads from the glory days of the creative revolution, and it looked like a fun way to make a living.

Off I went pursuing an ad career. Man, it was a lot tougher than I thought.

In my first 17-years, I worked 12 different jobs in Youngstown, Akron, Syracuse, Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, Baltimore, and Atlanta. No, I’m not in the witness protection program.

I worked at everything from a three-person agency to the world’s largest shop under one roof. I worked at B2B joints, CPG agencies, creative hot shops, retail specialty agencies — you name it.

There were no digital agencies back then. We were analog, baby.

Early in my career, I even worked as a circus advance man. It was great training, experiences, and memories. The cotton candy wasn’t half-bad, either.

I was fired three times out of my twelve jobs. That’s batting .750! With numbers like that, you think I’d be in the Advertising Hall of Fame, but, no, I get passed over every year.

The thing is rigged.

Pinging across America as an advertising gypsy, I worked for a couple genuine ad legends, and some insecure, egomaniacal, petty people. Along the way, I learned a hell of a lot.

I learned I wasn’t built to work for others because I wasn’t good at office politics. I’m too much the stubborn Irishman–– show me a rock, I’ll pick it up and throw it at the nearest authority figure.

I learned clients can be difficult, but they are not the enemy. The enemy is usually us and our Shakespearean drama of fear and dread.

Difficult clients are usually just frightened people unsure if their agency team understands their problems and daily pressures. For agencies, until you can demonstrate you’re there to help make their lives easier, you are suspect.

Many creative people never understand this, and are doomed to be ‘misunderstood geniuses’ ranting on the peat. “The stupid client rejected my One Show Pencil idea.”

“The chickenshit account team didn’t sell my brilliant work.”

“This agency sucks and doesn’t support great creative.”

These people need an outside hobby–– preferably not gun collecting, marksmanship, and dispensing revenge.

Clients pay us money for something they value. Their trust must be earned. And re-earned. If all they want is an echo chamber, or lapdog licking their face, or a punching bag to pummel, you must decide if that’s the job for you.

Prostitution is always hiring.

It took me a lot of jobs, experiences, and travels to finally find myself (I was hiding very well). And what I found was that maybe I’d be happier as an employer than an employee.

So, after two years heading my own business as a freelance ad writer, I joined forces with a couple smart admen, and we become the guys who sign paychecks and worry about running a business.

On January 4, 1997, we started Ames Scullin O’Haire Advertising. The name was chosen because my partners, John Ames and Tony O’Haire didn’t like the sound of “Scullin & A Couple Hangers-On”.

Picky, picky, picky.

We were three veterans of intergalactic ad agencies, each with our area of expertise–– marketing strategy, creative, and media. We wanted to get back to what we loved: working directly with clients to solve problems and capitalize on marketing opportunities.

This seemed a more gratifying mission than busting ass to earn profits sent to some distant overlord.

Ralph Watson, my friend and one of the purest talent I know, designed our logo, which doubled as our business plan and employee list:

We believed in a balanced approach to creating a successful marketing campaign, it required strategy, creative and media working with the client to make it happen.

Absentee clients and corporate toadies were not our targets. Clients had to be in the circle or it wouldn’t work.

Our philosophy proved to be appealing. Although we started with no accounts, we beat the bushes and were met with skepticism.

Either out of pity or curiosity, we were given small assignments to prove ourselves. And we would.

Shebang–– soon, we’d receive more assignments, until we proved ourselves worthy to handle the whole account.

We earned our trust by showing clients how to succeed by engaging consumers with work they liked and responded to. Our work was based on empathy and creativity, delivered at the right time in the right place to the right audience.

Thankfully, it worked. No one argues a rising sales curve.

We grew. And grew.

Over the years, we worked with many great companies and smart marketers. And we attracted and nurtured serious talent to help us in our mission.

Without those talented ASO people in all disciplines, absolutely nothing was possible.

In the subsequent years, the entire world changed. Google, Facebook, smartphones–– you get the drift. Technology became essential and ingrained in our lives.

People plugged into the matrix, and digital marketing became the new force.

I’ve been railing in this blog about the over-reliance of technology in marketing today, and I’ve made my impassioned pleas for creating humanity in our work.

But the business has changed and is ever-changing, and digital will always be here. It’s a question of how and why it’s done, and I fear we are headed to a world where A.I. will rule and numbers will matter more than emotions.

Maybe I need to pick up the nearest rock and throw it at a damn machine.

Anyway, this old fart adman has decided to hang up his spurs and ride into the sunset.

I’ve enjoyed one hell of a ride, creating things that piqued interest and greased the wheels of capitalism.

But I’m not retiring, I’m getting back to my first love: writing. I’m finally pursuing the dream I had as a young man.

Tony O’Haire and I are selling our equity in ASO Advertising to our partners, Ryan Mikesell and Steve Harding (John retired three years ago). We are confident Ryan and Steve will continue our agency’s legacy of creating fresh, effective work in the brave new world of marketing.

I want to write my own stuff now. Searching for imaginative ways to create worlds from words that engage, amuse, and delight readers.

Filling blank pages without the guidelines of a creative brief.

Like any new adventure, it’s exciting and terrifying. As a grizzled adman, I’ve dealt with rejection on a daily basis. My skin makes a rhino’s skin seem paper thin.

But literary rejection, well, that’s a different story. It’s a new circle of hell, a new level of pain.

I’m trying to find an agent for my first novel called SAWDUST. No, it’s not about lumberjacks (good guess, though). It’s about a young copywriter traveling America promoting a circus while searching for himself. It’s a dark humor coming of age tale, with clowns.

Sound familiar? Write what you know, baby.

I’ve been learning the ropes of the publishing world and so far, I’ve had agents express interest but no contracts.

The rejection has hurt. It’s personal and I take it like a wimp–– collapsing to the canvas, assuming the fetal position, and sobbing puddles of self-pity.

Just like I took rejection in my early advertising days.

I’ll build my strength for literary pursuits, and forge ahead.

I’m appreciative and grateful for all the wonderful people I’ve met and worked with throughout my advertising career–– coworkers, clients, and production people. It’s been a great experience and I have a warehouse of great memories to draw upon.

And the bastards I’ve met along the way, well, they have been safely vaulted away. Memories diffused.

I will continue my blogs, The Lint Screen and Empathetic Adman. I don’t know how often I’ll post, but these have been invaluable valves for my creativity and pontification.

If you like the blogs, please spread the word. Writers need readers!

My sincere thanks to my partners, and especially my wife Donna, who encouraged me to do my own thing way back when, and has stood by me through it all.

And dear readers, happy trails to you, until we meet again. I will be expecting you to buy copies of SAWDUST when it’s published.

Thanks, and may you avoid saddle burns and leather chaps chafe.

Three years ago when I started this blog, I did so because I was tired of the continual stream of bullshit that ad agencies created to explain their processes.

For many agencies, detailing their proprietary process for manufacturing superior marketing campaigns was the most creative work they did.

It’s quite a trick to reverse engineer magic and create a replicable formula one can hawk to potential clients.

ASO Advertising was in the throes of defining our process/reason for being in the age of Simon Sinek’s “The Golden Circle.”

I took stock of a career path that took me from a two-man shop to the world’s largest ad agency under one roof, through hot creative agencies, B2B and retail specialty shops, package goods factories, and my own joint. In all my years around this crazy rodeo, I’ve thought there were only two critical factors that determined success in marketing communications–– empathy and creativity.

Simplistic? Maybe.

Simple to execute? I wish.

Creativity has always been expected and valued in our business. We MUST be creative if we’re going to grab attention and pique the interest of an over-scheduled and over-worked public (not to mention over-dubious and over-cynical about advertising’s claims).

Still, 97% of the work out there sucks (glass-half-full types put the number at 95%).

Apparently, creative is elusive and difficult to deliver.

I believe a lack of empathy is the reason so much creative work sucks. The creators failed to understand human emotions and motivations. They created their work to solve a marketing problem, not a human one.

When I started writing EMPATHETIC ADMAN empathy as a word and a concept were rarely discussed, and almost never as it related to marketing. I thought by taking a role as ‘the philosopher king of empathy’ in an age of increasing reliance on technology to deliver marketing results, ASO Advertising would attract like-minded clients.

Bada bing–– hello, mansions and private jets!

Well, it hasn’t worked as well as I had hoped (but we’ll still gladly accept accounts, especially the big profitable ones). While this blog hasn’t netted us big fish, it has attracted a following of people who believe in the power of empathetic communications.

Thanks, loyal readers–– but would it kill one of you to become the CMO of Anheuser-Busch and dish us a little love?

Today, empathy is a hot topic. You see it everywhere. “Try McDonald’s new Empathy Fries–– they feel how much you savor their deliciousness.”

Political pundits say Trump lacks empathy. Sad.

And a recent article in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC featured a scientific study heralding empathy as the critical factor in determining behavior.

In short, empathy is good. More empathy results in better behavior. Because you’re able to put yourself in another’s shoes, you can feel their pain and have compassion and an open heart.

Contrast that with a lack of empathy.

In the extreme, the absence of empathy creates a psychopath. Because a psychopath finds it impossible to relate to another human, he must fake it (big surprise–– most psychopaths are male). He doesn’t care about others, but he’ll pretend he does if he can get something out of them.

To a psychopath, the world has a population of one–– himself.

I recently heard a podcast where Alan Alda said something I thought was insightful and profound: “The more empathy I have, the less annoying other people are.”

True that.

But perhaps you still don’t know why empathy is so critical to being an excellent adperson/marketer/communicator. Let me connect the dots.

If you don’t understand people and their motivations and how client’s products might satisfy a need or scratch a want, how can you be expected to create something your audience will find interesting and worthwhile?

If you can’t empathize with your clients–– if you don’t understand and appreciate the pressure he or she faces in their organization, then how can you explain why your brilliant idea is brilliant–– besides saying something stupid like, “We think this work will win a lot of awards. I’ve never been to Cannes, but I heard it’s incredible!”

If you can’t empathize with your agency management and realize how the organization makes money, you’re probably more vulnerable than you think.

Empathy is more than a buzzword, it’s an innate ability that can be refined and enhanced for a better life and better marketing communications.

And if you’re a psychopath, faking empathy could be critical to your success.

As Steve Martin said, “The main thing is honesty. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

I’m finally catching up with something that’s occupied about 30% of my DVR space for months — THE VIETNAM WAR, a 17.25-hour film by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick.

It’s tragic to watch as the leaders of our country make so many bad decisions. I watch sorrowfully because I know their pigheaded mistakes were paid with the lives of 58,220 brave Americans.

And those who came home from fighting that awful war did not receive a hero’s welcome. They still haven’t, and many are afflicted with PTSD as souvenirs.

A major factor in the long-running Vietnam catastrophe was the bad decision making and advice given by Robert McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968. At the root of his bogus thinking was numbers.

McNamara was driven by enemy body counts. In his mind, the war was a game of attrition — whichever side had the fewer number of dead bodies would win.

He came from the business world (The Ford Motor Company) and was a master of systems analysis, so he treated war as if planning operational efficiency.

But car parts can’t think, and they don’t have emotions.

McNamara was a slave to metrics and made his decisions solely on quantitative observations, ignoring other factors like the attitudes of the native people, and their unconventional approach to engaging battles.

He held fast to his numbers, and McNamara had Lyndon Johnson believing in his bulletproof thinking.

The Secretary of Defense’s belief in only what can be measured has been named The McNamara Fallacy.

Not to minimize the tragic sorrow of war, but today I see many marketers applying McNamara thinking to their initiatives and campaigns. They let metrics and analytics rule all their decision making.

If it cannot be measured, it doesn’t matter.

These marketers believe in testing, testing, testing–– and the result is the soulless, pedantic crap that floods all media and fuels our desire to avoid and despise advertising.

Are there big ideas out there, ones designed to win hearts and minds?

Precious few.

Instead, we are exposed to an assault of tactics designed to trigger response. Marketers believe if they string together enough battle victories, they’ll win the war.

Maybe, but at what cost?

If your marketing is strictly transactional, I doubt you’ll build much of a brand. You’ll occupy your turf until someone wages a better battle.

Price wars are the quintessential example of this.

Great brands are built with an empathetic understanding of human wants and needs, and an engaging, compelling presentation of why the brand exists and what it can do –– as filtered through the prism of humanity.

These ideas and brands become movements. They capture imaginations, and if the products perform, they instill loyalty and pride in ownership and use.

Weak brands exist in tactical warfare and decisions made solely by the numbers. The spreadsheets are analyzed, and new tactics loaded and deployed.

As Daniel Yankelovich wrote in “Corporate Priorities: A continuing study of the new demands of business” in 1972:

“The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can’t be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can’t be measured easily really isn’t important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can’t be easily measured really doesn’t exist. This is suicide.”

What type of marketing campaigns are you engaging?

Are you bringing your humanity to your job, or are you making decisions by the numbers?

Are you taking any chances, following your instincts, and trusting your gut?

Are you being ruled by rational thought only? Remember, most people buy emotionally and rationalize their purchase later.

When you review creative ideas, do you palms ever sweat? Don’t look for palm antiperspirant — sweating palms are good!

If an idea doesn’t make you nervous, chances are it does not have the potential for greatness.

Be human. Be vulnerable. Be brave.

And if you haven’t seen it, watch THE VIETNAM WAR.

I own over 1,000 vinyl albums and hundreds of CDs.

I subscribe to Spotify Premium, with access to 30 million songs from every imaginable genre– including Ukranian Glam Metal and Swedish Glockenspiel Emo.

But I don’t listen to music very often.

Nope.

I’m a podcast fanatic.

My ears crave information, comedy, political analysis, entertainment, business secrets/wisdom, news, celebrity interviews, personal confessions, history, crime stories, popular culture reviews, and, well, whatever strikes my fancy.

No matter what your interests are, there are podcasts to satisfy them. Select from over 250,000 podcasts available in 100 languages.

And you thought Netflix gave you freedom of choice.

The popularity of podcasts has been growing steadily 10-20% annually.

Last year, 112 million Americans listened to podcasts–– that’s 40% of our population if you’re counting.

86% of those people listened to all or most of their podcast episodes–– a pretty amazing figure considering some pods are over three-hours long.

For example, Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History. It tackles subjects like World War I in six-parts and over 26-riveting-hours. (Spoiler alert: we win!).

The average podcast listener hears five episodes a week.

People, podcasts are not a fad, they’re a growing movement.

Listeners are loyal, affluent, educated, and span all ages (44% are 18-34).

Pod people are 56% are male and 44% female.

And 100% engaged.

Podcasts are a panacea for people bored by the limitations of other media choices.

Why is pod popularity growing, and, I predict, soon to be a major sensation?

Because podcasts are perfect for the digital age, where technology enables people the ability to curate specifically to individual tastes.

You can listen to specific subjects that pique your interests–– hosted by personalities you like, trust, and respect.

For pod broadcasters, it’s crucial to have a strong and unique point-of-view. This medium is not about pleasing the masses; it’s about grabbing and holding attention–– two ears at a time.

Successful podcasts feel intimate, personal, vital.

Comedian Marc Maron was one of the early pioneers of the medium. He began his WTF Podcast 2009 producing over 850 interviews with comics, actors, musicians, writers, and artists. I believe Maron is the best interviewer working in any medium because of his sincere empathy.

How good is he? So good that last year President Obama came to his L.A. garage studio for an interview.

But Maron’s podcast is just an appetizer.

“The Daily” from The New York Times lets you know the feature stories it is reporting and other topics in the news. You decide if it’s fake news or not.

“How I Built This” is interviews with successful entrepreneurs talking about how they did what they did in building their thriving businesses.

“The Way I Heard It with Mike Rowe” has Mr. Dirty Jobs doing something like Paul Harvey’s “The Rest of The Story” pieces. It’s a fun listen and essential for trivia hounds.

“Slate’s Whistlestop” features captivating stories of presidential campaigns throughout American history. If you think politics today are dirty, listen up.

You can also go inside San Quentin Prison with Ear Hustle, and hear what it’s like for the two million people living behind bars. Fortunately, after every episode, you get sprung free.

“S-Town Podcast” is one of the wildest rides you’ll ever take; a fascinating novel-like tale of a singular Alabama man who battles demons and a variety of windmills. This series set a podcast record, securing 10-million downloads in four days.

“The Thread With OZY” manages to connect Lenin with Lennon. Don’t ask, just listen. Fascinating stuff.

And the previously mentioned Dan Carlin hosts two of my favorites, “Hard Core History” that makes the past come to exciting life through context and perspective, and “Dan Carlin’s Common Sense”–– a look at the sorry state of contemporary politics in our two-party system.

I won’t detail all 61 podcasts I currently have on my pod app, Podcruncher. I’ll just tell you my ears and brain love the variety of choices.

Currently, 52% of podcasts are listened to at home and 18% in the car. But that will change fast.

Today 200 car models are equipped with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto so getting pods will be as easy as attracting digital ads on your Facebook feed.

Brands are noticing the podcast boom. Square Space, GE, Slack, Casper Mattresses, Stamps.com, Virgin Atlantic, eBay and more are getting on board with sponsorships. And 65% of podcast listeners say they are more willing to try a brand or service they heard about on a broadcast.

Ad forecasts are projected to grow 25% a year through 2020.

As a marketer, podcasts are an exciting medium. You have narrowcasting by subject matter, with an engaged self-selected audience.

With the incredible popularity of intelligent personal assistants like Siri and Alexa, the ears are the new promised land, and podcasts are an important part of that landscape.

I highly recommend podcasts. They’re perfect for exercising, working, commuting, cooking, and playing.

Maybe I should start a podcast about podcasts.

Then again, maybe not. There’s probably already 600 or 700 of those out there.

Perhaps a Ukranian Glam Metal pod is the ticket.

These are perilous times for marketers.

The media constantly reports that advertising and traditional marketing are dead.

And the same media employs sales reps who’ll passionately tell you how effective advertising with them is.

We keep hearing that consumers are in total control of brands, that they alone decide your fate as judge and jury.

But the same consumers crave information and are starved for reasons to believe and buy.

And in the corporate executive suites, your brand is viewed as an asset able to return dividends on demand. Hence, the CMO gets the marching orders, “To make our quarterly numbers, we need a two-percent bump in sales and a five percent cut in your marketing budget.”

And go, CMO–– your marketing mojo is no match for CFO fiscal knowhow!

Yes, as much as you’d like to dodge the responsibility, ultimately you are responsible for the brand.

Not your marketing agency.

Not the public.

Not your bosses.

You, and you alone.

Gird your loins, and get to it.

Where to start?

In the beginning.

Why should someone buy your product or care for your cause?

WHY?!

Why does your brand exist?

Why does the company that makes it exist?

You get the drift–– until you know who and why you are, it’s hard for anyone to care.

This requires honesty, the brutal kind.

Marketer, know thyself.

Then, be authentic.

Find your voice, be empathetic and sincere, if your brand fills a need, you’ll cultivate your tribe.

And should you need help with your corporate psychoanalysis, I think we have an opening in our schedule next Tuesday.

Call, we’ll work you in.

Thank you.

Which brands are you loyal to? Not just like or prefer, but insist on?

A product that if it’s sold out, you won’t accept a substitute–– you’ll wait until you can get your loved brand.

So, how many loyalty brands do you have?

Damn few, I suspect.

Sadly, we live in an age of parity. Once something new and exciting is introduced and gains popularity, an army of imitators immediately clamors for its market share.

Enter marketers.

We’re hired to bring attention and interest to the brand and create desire. We’re spinmeisters putting our client’s product into the best possible light, even if that product is mediocre. Or worse.

And despite the high horse pontification many agency leaders give, we’ll work for clients whose wares are less than top-notch (as long as their checks cash).

Is that unethical? I don’t think so. Product preference is personal and subjective, like the ad work we create.

Then again, maybe I’m just a master rationalizer.

Which brings us to overselling.

Every product photo shoot is a lie. A stylist slavishly labors over the “hero” product, be it a sandwich, beer pour, cell phone, or pizza cheese pull. It must be perfect for the camera because that’s the image we want burned into the public’s consciousness.

The perfect-looking McDonald’s hamburger has only ever existed at a McDonald’s print or TV shoot. Your actual results may vary.

A lot.

Does that perfect image in our brain serve to enhance the taste experience of our imperfect burger reality?

I’m no shrink, but I suspect so.

I’ve worked on many challenger brands (that’s a nice way of saying they’re not the preferred or leading brand), and I’ve always given my best shot at making my client’s product as appealing as possible.

It may have been an execution portraying humorous overenthusiasm for the brand, or using an insight to demonstrate how the product satisfies a human need/desire, or, simply finding a dramatic and interesting way to make the product desirable. 

Were these ideas overselling? I don’t think so.

Creativity is a weapon. The FTC can’t bust you for that.

Yet.

The best deterrent to overselling is common sense. When people discover your product is much less than advertised, you will have pissed off someone who’ll never trust you or purchase your brand again, and, he’ll spread the word of your product’s crappy performance.

Since every one of us has 12,934 very close Facebook friends, plus many contacts in other social channels (including real life), well, that’s a lot of anger reverberating throughout the land

No wonder Hollywood hates Rotten Tomatoes.

That’s why the best ad people must be empathetic to their audience. It’s our job to be its advocate, even if that means pissing off our clients. We must save clients from themselves.

Otherwise, we’ll get blamed when the overselling ad backfires.

I’d rather get fired now for fighting than fired later for surrendering.

Of course, you could simply turn your brand over to the public and let it decide and control the conversation.

Good luck with that, brave brand–– let social media rule your fate!

Imagine how much easier a marketer’s job would be with a fantastic must-have product.

I dream more companies would subscribe to something Steve Jobs’ said: “The companies forget what it means to make great products. The product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies who have no conception of a good product versus a bad product. They have no conceptions of the craftsmanship that’s required to take a good idea and turn it into a good product. And they really have no feeling in their hearts usually about wanting to really help the consumers.”

Wouldn’t it be great to have such a product to market? Yes indeedy!

Then again, maybe I just want my job to be easier.

I recently read many Millennials don’t care about brands.

They play the field demanding the most for their buck, and they will cheat on your brand if something better comes along. They’re just not into commitments.

But if a company does some societal good, it gets bonus points–– maybe a smidge of their loyalty.

Companies like Warby Parker, Toms, and Casper are crushing it.

And now, there’s a smart new company called Brandless selling a variety of grocery, health and beauty products for $3 each. Three lousy bucks. And all the products are branded “Brandless”. Guess what? This hip “un-brand” is a very hot brand.

That’s brilliant marketing.

There are endless reports that traditional marketing doesn’t work anymore. It’s avoided, mistrusted, disliked, and considered a complete waste of time and money.

So, congratulations, marketing professional–– you’ve chosen an obsolete career!

Then again, maybe not.

For as long as I’ve been in the game, consumers have said marketing doesn’t affect them. Who could blame them?

Do you want to admit a paid message that interrupted you while you were doing something you wanted to do actually influenced your behavior?

Hells no!

We are all the rulers (and heroes) of our lives. That’s human nature.

But everyone in every generation hates ads that are obnoxious, irrelevant or insulting to his or her intelligence.

That’s human nature, too. Who wants to spend time at a party cornered by a blowhard bore?

The news about Millennials demonstrates we’ve reached a saturation point. There are so many media channels, so many technological ways to cyber-stalk and pester people, that if you’re going to make a positive impression, you’d better damn well have a message worth consuming.

And you better be aware that just because you say so doesn’t mean it will be believed. Bullshit detectors are set to 11. Maybe even 12.

Also, know that now more than ever, people rely on the opinions of friends, relatives, and strangers who’ve experienced brands.

Which means they’ll ferret out your bullshit in record time. If others have had bad experiences, you’re screwed.

As Bill Bernbach said long ago, “A great ad campaign will make a bad product fail faster. It will get more people to know it’s bad.”

So, why do we even bother marketing? Because when it’s done well, when it is empathetic, interesting and compelling to its audience, it can do something amazing–– it can intrigue, pique curiosity and interest, form an opinion, and warrant further investigation.

And who knows, perhaps your smart, engaging marketing can even help make a sale.

Yes, while your spin today will be greeted with healthy skepticism, it can still influence behavior–– if it’s authentic, honest, engaging, informative, helpful.

And if your product or service delivers the goods, well, you will build some loyalty, and by and by, build a brand.

It just takes work. Lots of work.

The only certainty in the marketing business is this: none of it gets any damn easier.

I’ll see you at the bar to talk more about the perils of modern marketing.

Another round, Lloyd.

Ours is often a pretty ridiculous business.

Ad agency people obsessively talk about creating “great work.”

Marketers delude themselves that their audiences are eager and hungry for their messages.

Hell, some marketers even think people want to be their “friends” and engage in “conversations.”

Boy howdy–– who doesn’t want to know what a corporate entity believes and thinks? It’s why we get out of bed in the morning.

We’re kooks to believe such thoughts, but sometimes our magical thinking works.

Sometimes people do care about what we say.

And they do think our work is “great.”

Some folks believe us, follow us, and we say what Sally Fields said: “You like me, right now, you like me!”

It’s rare, but it does happen. Not as rare as a unicorn sighting, but… sometimes.

Which brings me to the cliched concept of “great work”–– two words I hate married.

I cringe when I hear someone say, “we’re going to create some great work” or “we create great work.”

Says who?

The problem with “great work” is it’s completely subjective. Your idea of great may not be mine.

It’s like going to an art museum with someone, and you admire a canvas. You love the work; it speaks to you on a profound level… and your companion comes by, views the piece and says, “Ew, what a total turd!”

You’re in for a long day at the museum.

Yet, agencies throw around the term “great work” like it’s confetti.

I’ve never met a creative person who said, “My work is marginal, at best. In fact, I’ve been very lucky to cash paychecks for my mediocrity.”

Never happens.

All creatives have “great work,” and if we don’t, well, it’s because others didn’t want “great work” or sabotaged us in our Herculean efforts in producing “great work.”

Look, Michaelangelo, the work is the work is the work. Your audience will determine its worth.

If your yardstick for measuring “great work” is the awards it wins, fine. Say so, but realize that others still may not like the work as much as the award show judges.

You can say the effectiveness of your work is what makes it “great.” Okay. But again, others may think it’s shite.

I love some infomercials, but most seasoned creative pros couldn’t imagine a more heinous category of work.

Look, Ron Popeil is a god, believe it! But wait, there’s more…

Let your work stand on its own. Tell the story of why you did what you did. Context is everything. Discuss what happened after the work debuted. Give results, KPIs, whatever was your objective in producing the work.

Then let your audience decide if the work is bad, good, great, or, epic!

Your audience is always the judge and jury–– be it a client, a new business prospect, or a consumer.

Forget about creating “great work” and simply do your best keeping it empathetic to its audience, engaging, truthful, and interesting.

That’s plenty hard enough.

Although marketing is a grueling and often delusional business, sometimes unicorns do appear.

And when one does, saddle up and enjoy the ride.