Not to pile on, but Heineken recently launched a new campaign entitled, Share the Good which asks consumers to visit the microsite and upload photos and opinions of the brand’s new premium light beer product. I’m not the first to post some thoughts on this new campaign – apparently the website wasn’t functioning at the time the media launched, which of course resulted in driving consumers to a dead end URL, and gave the blogoshpere something to shout about…

My observations are less about coordinating the logistics of a multi-channel, integrated campaign – which is no easy task – but rather about the strategy itself.

I am continually amazed by the number of brand-building campaigns that seem to rely on two severely overdone techniques: the microsite and consumer generated content. Enough already. Here’s the thing – and I’m certainly not the first to say this – but brands and advertisers have to understand that the days of building it and the consumer will come have long since passed. Fishing where the fish are is the key to consumer engagement – you can no longer expect to incite a movement (the site touts, ‘Join the Movement’) by creating a slick microsite, supported with considerable media dollars and expecting the average consumer to care enough to investigate, let alone participate. Heineken claims a ‘million new friends’ have shared their experiences – I find this number very difficult to believe.

So what’s the result? The site is littered with photos of people posing, drinking beer and random comments about the beverage…”notable, extraordinary, smooth, etc… Now that’s content!

The point is, marketers and advertisers alike must recognize that the Internet has effectively aggregated consumers into large, reachable groups who then segment themselves based on their interests and preferences. Why would consumers go to sharethegood.com to post their pictures when they’re already doing this at Flickr and Facebook? As the Internet matures, consumers are limiting where they spend their time – they may be spending more time online, but they’re doing so at fewer sites. Bring the brand experience to the consumer, don’t make the consumer find you.

The key is utility or entertainment, and hopefully they’re not mutually exclusive: give the consumer something useful or entertaining – and deliver these where they already are – and they will reward you with interest, engagement and participation.

Advertising Age ran an article today detailing a new P&G Oil of Olay program designed to “enhance real-world Wal-Mart shopping with web tools.” Based on the performance of the brand’s Olay for You online product recommendation program, P&G decided to pilot the interactive model in Wal-Mart stores. The site’s metrics are impressive: over one million unique visitors since January with an 80% survey completion rate and an average of 8 minutes per user, per visit.

The article goes onto to state:

“Wal-Mart Stores has begun testing an in-store version of Olay for You via kiosks in stores, marking the latest of several efforts in which offline retailers are looking to tap the convenience and functionality of online tools, such as search and recommendation engines, to improve the often-annoying offline shopping experience.”

Is this a watershed moment in digital marketing? I’m clearly overreacting to the statement above, but I was surprised to see offline shopping positioned as ‘often-annoying’ as I thought that reference was reserved for the online shopping experience… but are we now entering a new phase in commerce where the lessons, tools and interactivity honed from the best online experiences are now finding their way into our physical commerce experiences? It makes sense. Search and customer recommendations – physically inline – are much more likely to lead consumers to the products they need and want.

In-store kiosks are not a new idea of course, but as consumers become more and more comfortable – and reliant – on technologies that make decision-making easier, marketers will have to continue to blend virtual and physical experiences that seamlessly connects the brand to the consumer on her terms.

Just a quick post to both announce the launch of the Blum Blog Gadgets and to thank Joseph Piro for creating them. You can get versions for your Windows Vista Sidebar, webpage or Google Toolbar by clicking here or on the “widgets and gadgets” link on the lower right-hand side of the page and then follow the download and installation instructions. Enjoy, and thanks again Joseph!

Although it was met with minimal fanfare or excitement from both analysts and the market in general, Blockbuster’s recent bid for consumer electronic giant Circuit City piqued my interest. The USA Today ran a short piece on the front page of their Money section today outlining the deal and the initial reaction to it which claims that Blockbuster has offered more than $1B for the struggling retail chain.

Whether or not this deal goes through is less interesting than the strategy itself. Companies are wrestling with how to create 360-degree experiences in an effort to keep up with growing consumer demand for integrated services and products that are unified under a single branded entity. It’s become all about immediate gratification, anticipating the needs of consumers and identifying synergistic relationships that enhance the overall experience with a brand. Given this context, I can imagine much stranger marriages.

On the surface, the potential union between Blockbuster and Circuit City may not appear intuitive, but when you examine the core competencies of each company – digital entertainment – you start to see the synergies and possibilities. Although clearly biased, Blockbuster’s CEO, Jim Keyes makes an interesting and accurate observation about the changing landscape and the requirement companies now have to deliver connected experiences to their customers: The magic in the Apple Store is bringing hardware, software and service all together…they make it easy for the consumer.”

Keyes reasoning underscores the direction the marketplace is moving towards – confluences, intersections and connected branded experiences that move seamlessly between rational, virtual and physical worlds. This merger may not go through, but you can expect deals like these in the future…the near future.

Before I launch into my next rant, thanks to each of you who either responded to my first post or who sent me a private note supporting my new adventure… The issue of behavioral targeting and consumer privacy is heating up in a big way… Given that I was recently appointed to the Government Relations Committee for the AAAAs to advise on the subject, I thought I’d open it for discussion via my blog. Last week, Harris Interactive released a survey citing that the “a majority of U.S. adults are skeptical about the practice of websites using information about a person’s online activity to customize website content.” 59% of those polled are either ‘not at all comfortable’ or ‘not very comfortable’ with companies using personal information or a user’s web surfing activities to serve targeted marketing and advertising messages. The survey was also quick to point out that with greater privacy protection and security policies in place, consumers “become somewhat more comfortable” with their personal information being applied for marketing purposes. The Harris Interactive Study references the web’s largest players – MSN, Yahoo! and Google – as examples of the kinds of sites that are currently leading the behavioral targeting movement.

While these findings – at first glance – might suggest that consumers are growing wary about how marketers are using personal information to target customers, it’s important to distinguish between the different kinds of ‘behavioral targeting’ strategies that are currently being applied by marketers: While the anonymous behavioral tracking strategies and tactics applied by MSN, Google and Yahoo! have established the initial benchmark for collecting online behaviors, the real issue behind consumer’s fears and discomfort with these practices is the lack of transparency and the inability for user’s to opt out of such monitoring. This is an issue to watch carefully as legislators and lawmakers wrestle with how to regulate – or not regulate – marketers in this new digital landscape. A few weeks ago Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, the sponsor of a New York bill to limit how companies collect data on computer users, put forth legislation that would fundamentally change the current paradigm. While the issue of anonymous behavioral tracking is a very real concern for both consumers and marketers alike – an issue that is very much in its infancy – I’m fearful that other types of behavioral-targeting methods are being unjustifiably included. I’m speaking specifically of user-recommendations (think Amazon.com) and social-networking referrals (think Facebook, but not the first iteration of Beacon). To be clear, what I’m referring to here is not typically considered ‘behavioral-targeting’ but if you consider Amazon’s recommendation engine – factoring in your historical purchases with those of consumer’s who have purchased the same or similar products to offer you relevant suggestions – the model is similar to those of the large portals, but the difference is that it’s only happening within a closed-system… The social-networking commerce model is also in its infancy and Facebook’s disastrous launch of Beacon underscores how little marketers understand how to exploit this growing phenomenon. Beacon’s failure to clearly notify users of the service – and what it does – coupled with its hidden opt-out controls, effectively replicated the model of the big portals which of course erupted into a public relations nightmare and alienated an untold number of loyal Facebook members. Facebook’s failed Beacon strategy aside, the more interesting dynamic is the fundamental shift in user behavior that social networking has produced: social networking sites have helped to shape the Me-Economy and with it, a new generation (and some from older generations too) have flocked to these online destinations to publish, promote and otherwise bring attention to themselves. The fundamental shift that has occurred is that consumers are now defining and segmenting themselves into specific groups and categories – now overlaid with hyper-detailed pieces of personal information – that allows marketers to reach these consumers with targeted, relevant marketing content. My contention – essentially – is that participation in social networks and/or the use of other free, web-based services are intentionally constructed to enable behavioral or targeted marketing. There are of course trade-offs, and if consumers expect to access free online services, they should expect these services to come with a cost – however, the costs shouldn’t be an unwanted or uncontrollable intrusion of the user’s privacy. The issue of behavioral tracking and the role of marketers in the digital age is complex, ever-changing and, at times, highly emotional. This post is not attempt to wrangle the issue to its knees, but rather, to expand the context around the topic of behavioral targeting in general, and the growing concerns about online privacy specifically. Let me know what you think.