Comments on: Decency is the new ad

By: Robert Wogrin

Robert Wogrin — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:49:09 +0000

This all begs the question – when everyone is using great customer service, the bar is raised and great customer service no longer stands out. What happens then?

By: PaperG « Business Media

PaperG « Business Media — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:01:11 +0000

[...] Decency is the new ad (buzzmachine.com) [...]

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:04:27 +0000

The customers’, in the end.

By: elizabeth braid

elizabeth braid — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:18:06 +0000

Morality based on whose morals?

By: Remix09: Wenn einer (sich) auszieht, hat er was zu erzählen « markenbildung

Remix09: Wenn einer (sich) auszieht, hat er was zu erzählen « markenbildung — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:48:32 +0000

[...] Rozek zusammen. Dies ist nur ein Platzhalter, der Artikel kommt später. Er legt los mit einem Zitat von Jeff Jarvis – Werbung sei letztlich überflüssig, wenn das Produkt so beschaffen ist, dass es von selbst [...]

By: Reports of the death of advertising are exaggerated « Burst Media Company Blog

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:19:58 +0000

[...] of the death of advertising are exaggerated Over at Buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis has been speculating on the decline of advertising in a one-to-one world linking consumers with marketers. Google [...]

By: Vince Kamp

Vince Kamp — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:18:25 +0000

Great post, and something that we have been wholeheatedly practising for many years. We design and manufacture scientific instruments. Scientists all know each other, they all read each others published research in their specific fields of interest. If you piss off one scientist with bad customer service, news will spread in the scientific community like wildfire. Likewise, if you sell the right scientist a great product and back it up with more than decent service, everyone will hear about it. They will even publish what equipment they use, talk about it in their seminars and happily provide you with an application note for further marketing.
Sell to the right scientist and you never have to advertise again.

By: Hoe lank moet ‘n haas wees? | Johan Swarts se bl0g

Hoe lank moet ‘n haas wees? | Johan Swarts se bl0g — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:02:14 +0000

[...] Jeff Jarvis en Seth Godin het ook lankal aangetoon hoe dit belangriker is om jouself te bemoei met wat jou kliënte wil hê eerder as om hulle te oortuig dat jou advertensieveldtog in die kol [...]

By: Vad NU! » Blog Archive » The right kind of competition

Vad NU! » Blog Archive » The right kind of competition — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 06:21:54 +0000

[...] (Inspired by Jeff Jarvis) [...]

By: John Banfill

John Banfill — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:34:18 +0000

Great post, Jeff.

A couple of points. How much has Google spent on advertising itself? How much has Facebook or MySpace spent?

You say advertising indicates failure. Does money also indicate failure?

By: Donica Mensing

Donica Mensing — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:45:11 +0000

One problem with decoupling advertising from media is the messiness of large scale relationship building between thousands of products and millions of consumers. The model doesn’t scale much beyond where we are right now. I can take the social marketing through my Facebook and Twitter accounts today because it’s manageable. But it’s only a fraction of the market. If more companies jump in, there’s no way I can keep up.

So even if a company is decent and one that I want to support, I can’t possibly relate to all the companies that want to relate to me. I don’t want to be that findable. That means we still have a huge need for aggregation. Only now the aggregators don’t have to be media. They can be epinions.com, Amazon, or a RL store, such as Whole Foods. I trust Whole Foods to do all the research to find the sustainable, ethical, ecological products I want to support and then — without having to do my own extensive research — shop freely (mostly) within the aggregation of a single store.

There’s no reason more media companies can’t be critical, central aggregators to help match products, services and consumers. The matching just needs to be far more intelligent, guided, and integrated than brute force display advertising. Or a random Google search.

By: Cindy Gallop

Cindy Gallop — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:53:58 +0000

I couldn’t agree more. As someone who’s spent 24 years working in brandbuilding, marketing and advertising, I believe the advertising of the future is not about saying, but doing; not about telling, but being – ‘You are what you do.’ Brands and businesses will be judged by their actions as much as people are. This idea of ‘action branding’ for both individuals and companies lies at the heart of the venture I’m working on launching, IfWeRanTheWorld:

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/03/yes-we-plan-how/

By: David Chen

David Chen — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:30:06 +0000

If that were the case, toothpaste would only have one price point.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:10:35 +0000

As much as commodity – one cleaner v another; they just clean.

By: Darren Herman

Darren Herman — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:05:26 +0000

curious to hear more as well.

By: An excercise in futility? « 4TH ST8

An excercise in futility? « 4TH ST8 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:54:37 +0000

[...] another blog posting Jarvis describes how his arguments have painted himself in a corner. He concludes: “Advertising ends up having nothing to do with media. They become decoupled. [...]

By: David Chen

David Chen — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:20:39 +0000

If P&G sold commodity products, they wouldn’t have to advertise in the first place.

By: Renaud

Renaud — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:24:46 +0000

I Agree. Work on the fundamentals (something that is worth talking about) and chances of success are higher.

By: Gianni

Gianni — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:23:55 +0000

As a PR man, I agree – the distinction between PR and Advertising is blurring; however, I think there are new concept in PR (such as contextual-aware conversations or relevance indexed pitch rankings) that can PR more applicable.
The one skill PR people have when they’re good is their obsession with “content” i.e. finding the story that’s right for the target.

It is not necessarily “listening”, but pretty close…

By: Jeff Jarvis: Decency is the new ad - My First New Blog

Jeff Jarvis: Decency is the new ad - My First New Blog — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:54:05 +0000

[...] When I posted this on my blog, discussion ensued about the unsustainability of Green Mountain’s K cups, the millions of [...]

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:31:37 +0000

tell more.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:31:04 +0000

Except I don’t think it’s PR either. The company and its people must build their own relationships. Can’t outsource that to an agency. In my book, I suggest that the role of the outsider becomes consultative and that consultants, if they’re good, eventually leave.

By: Vasily Gatov

Vasily Gatov — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 05:09:19 +0000

Absolutely loved this
Thanks, Jeff – very important story.

By: Daniel Lathrop

Daniel Lathrop — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:38:23 +0000

Jeff, taking your point as a given … then doesn’t support not for “media” but for high quality news and/or art become a virtue differentiator? Call this this “Hallmark Hall of Fame” effect for commercial and noncommercial media. Certainly, Mutual of America gains a lot of understood virtue when Bill Moyers calls them “our sole corporate funder” every week. Maybe that’s our future.

By: Renaud

Renaud — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:27:59 +0000

Good post. Reminds me of what Ries wrote in “The fall of advertising and the rise of PR” a few years ago:
– PR builds brands. All that’s needed is a remarkable product/service. Then the media will help out and spread the word.
– Advertising has a role: it is to sustain the image consumers have of the brand (once it has had some success and the media are tired of pushing it). But Ads have no credibility, so they can’t build the brand.
In the internet age, social media are reinforcing the role of PR. Advertising is not a failure, so much as a tool that should be used in precise circumstances.