Putting the passion back in your brand.

My sister Sharon, who knows I’ve recently been doing product naming work for a high-end chocolate brand (more on that when it’s public),  sent me a link she said I needed to see. You can watch the embedded YouTube vid below. It’s an absolutely brilliant short film / advertorial by a Hamilton, Ontario student filmmaker Gemma Holdway.  Watch for my favourite line in the ad: “It’s just chocolate!”

Watch this before reading further:

What I love about this

1) It’s clearly an ad, but it’s a heck of a lot of fun. Like the best viral ads you’ll see on Superbowl Sunday or in a Facebook link, it manages that tricky balance: it’s obviously designed to sell something – in this case chocolate – while at the same time keeping the content fresh and fun with great performances and a great little set-up.

2) It’s clearly targeted, but inclusive. It’s no secret that women are easily the richest target demographic for chocolate advertising. So this ad, and the contest that inspired it, are for, and all about, women. But yet, this ad also manages to be fresh and funny to everyone. Even me. And I’m the Russian judge.

3) It tells a great brand story. The narrative is what elevates this above “just chocolate” advertising. By casting the brand as the hero of a compelling, emotion-laden story, this effort soars above 98.65% (roughly) of product-focused chocolate advertising.

4) It’s not heavy-handed. Divine Chocolate makes no secret that it’s fair-trade and farmer-owned. And the tag line “Heavenly Chocolate with a heart” certainly implies this. But unlike a lot of green or “cause” brands, it doesn’t seem to take itself too seriously. And this video is nicely in that vein. I might quibble that the “fair trade” idea could have been subtly worked into the script (sweatshop kiss booths perhaps?) but maybe it’s better without it.

5) It Differs. A lazier agency dealing with the name “Divine Chocolate” would have gone with a more obvious angle – like a chocolate version of the ongoing Philly Cream Cheese “Little taste of Heaven” campaign (by Canada’s J. Walter Thompson). But since the name already says “Divine”, it works better to play on other aspects of the brand.

And how many hunky angels and simpering women characters does the world need? Really.

"Is this heaven?" "No lady, it's Philadelphia."

What? Nice things about change?!?

Settle down. Yes, the Differ screams louder than anyone when we think Twitter is screwing something up – like ReTweets for example. We’ve even resorted to plagiarism and forced rhyme (sorry again Dr. Zeuss). Love is like that. But this time, we’re willing to put the Crit aside, because while it ain’t perfect. The new Twitter.com interface is really really good.

In case you haven’t see it. Before I get to the 10 reasons to like the new Twitter, you probably don’t see it yet. Here’s the word from Twitter on why, and how you can get into the New Twitter cool kids as well. For now, you need to download and use their new iPhone or Android app – which is how I got in. But if that’s not for you, here’s a good summary.

1. Classy new icons.

I’m starting with the most superficial-seeming change not because I think it matters, but because it actually does matter. The new top bar icons are lovely and they just make sense.

Okay, not just that. They make sense and they are playfully different – particularly the whimsical little bird house and the little feather they inserted into the Compose New Tweet button. A clear signal that the bird is back.

They main ones are also left aligned, as opposed to having an empty “Search” box at the left. This means the home button is actually where you expect a home button to be – as well as doing what average users expect it to. But more on that later.

2. It’s not for me.

I don’t mean that I don’t like it – I’ve already said that I do. I mean that new Twitter is not designed for power users like me or Gizmodo, it’s designed for those ordinary people who sign up for an account, and their first few Tweets look like this:

“Trying out this Twitter thing!” “Not getting the hype.” “Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?”

Seriously, you remember your first time? Unless you already had a tribe of active Twitter friends, the experience was pretty cold and dark. The new interface means that a couple of exploratory clicks will reward even the most green Tweeter with real, rich content. This is bound to improve the all important new user retention factor by giving people a reason to stick around.

3. Main section 1: Home

Once you click on that little birdhouse, this page has all the same stuff as the old “Home” button but the big change is that, as with all the new pages, the left navigation makes the whole thing make more sense as a home page.

4. Main section 2: Connect

The best part of this is the ability to distinguish between “Mentions” – who’s using your @ handle – and “Interactions” – the mentions plus all the followed / retweeted stuff that has recently been clogging all of our timelines. Love the ability to opt in or out of these.

The worst part is that DM Messages don’t appear here, which is what you’d expect. Instead they’re under the profile icon on the right hand side.

A better way to organize this would be to have the Connect page have Mentions as the default (since that’s what most people open our Twitter pages to see), then allow people to add or remove Interactions and Messages from the left hand navigation. Three options with Simple Check boxes should do it.

5. Main section 3: Discover

This is the main net-new section of the new twitter, and it is BRILLIANT. On the right you’ll see the different elements it brings together. All of which were in odd, non-intuitive places in the old interface. But now they’re grouped as one place to dig into Twitter beyond your own current followers, follows, and streams.

The stickiest part for me right now is Stories – which contains clips of media news items and blog posts that are selected for me based on my interests and how much discussion they’re generating.

But I also instantly found more value in the Activity, Who to Follow, and Find Friends sections.

6. Left hand navigation.

This will make many hard core Twitter faithful angry. But remember, this change not for us. Me, I swallowed my initial urge to Tweet about a massive user interface “FAIL”, and I suggest you do too. It only took a couple of clicks to get used to the new arrangement, and before I knew it, I was no longer looking for things. The one sure sign of Web design success.

7. In-line media.

Pictures basically pictures and movies can now appear right within a Tweet – and this is important – if you want them to. Twitter has been tinkering with this for years, but now it’s here in spades. And best of all, seamlessly in context (see the embedded Tweet in point number 10 below).

8. Brand pages.

I liked ‘em on Facebook, they’re growing on me in Facebook, and I love what I see on the pages of the 21 lucky uber brands that got in on the ground floor.

No, it’s not because I’m a branding and marketing guy, it’s because brand pages help me distinguish between ordinary mortals like this guy and brands like Coke or Pepsi (and yes, they’re both there competing again for your taste-test).

For brands, it gives them a bigger incentive to invest time, staff energy, and money in their Twitter presence, which means they’ll need to keep humanizing themselves – because that’s what works  for the community.

9. Revenue.

The best news for Twitter fans is that they finally seem to have figured out how to make money at this game without annoying users. The new brand pages, sponsored Tweets, and better multimedia will all add up to a more sustainable free app. Which is good.

It also signals Twitter’s bigger ambitions to become a major corporate player. Interesting that NYSE Euronext is one of the 21 chosen brands and not NASDAQ… Hmm. IPO in the air?

10. Embedding Tweets and buttons.

Not for the average user, but for bloggers like me, it means I can more easily share Twitter content. For example, check out this page to create custom buttons and widgets, like this one for an Ottawa holiday party next week:

Tweet #SOHOHO

Or, you can embed a Tweet like the one below, and it’s real live content with intact links and context, and not a screen grab. This means tweets are even easier to share, discuss, and publish across platforms. Like this:

@DenVan working on a #newtwitter blog post now.May I make this my first embedded tweet?

— Tonia Ries (@tonia_ries) December9, 2011

Learning from Punk without being a punk

Two weeks ago, the Differ’s guest post Punk It Loud! Why Social Media Needs More Punk appeared on a new blog Punk Views on Social Media - along with the thoughts of a bunch of other punks he respects and hangs out with online. And of course, it generated *much* more traffic and many more comments than Beg to Differ ever gets (insert humility).  Here are some follow-up thoughts.

Creative Commons License: photo by Christian Holmér

Confessions of a coward

In that post, I “came out” as a poseur punk. I was never actually a punk by the standard social definitions of the times, even though I hung out with punks, listened to the music, danced and generally snarled a lot.  And my life today at 42 certainly doesn’t scream “punk”. But as the comments made very clear: 1) I wasn’t alone, and 2) it didn’t matter. It was the *idea* of capital P Punk that a lot of us poseurs carried with us as we grew older.

One of the commenters, Kyle Judkins responded to this line in my post:

But I was a coward, way too straight-laced to get a weird haircut, body piercings, or any superficial paraphernalia that defined punk at the time.

He thanked me for tagging the safety pins / hairdos etc. as “superficial paraphernalia” because he had originally been worried that we “Punk Views” writers were talking about that stuff. The *fad* of punk. Which would be kind of like a man in his fifties pretending he’s still a 1980′s era breakdancer - as in a TEDx Ottawa talk I saw a few weeks ago. Good heart. Great message. But… um… culturally awkward.

My thought back to Kyle was:

The external trappings of Punk were never actually very punk were they? And I guess the same goes for any revolutionary movement – whether Occupy <fill in the blank> , the Tea Party, or the French revolution, as soon as a movement gains an internal orthodoxy and pecking order it loses its edge. That’s why I like punk as a *verb* rather than a noun.

So yeah, don’t go pulling out your old punk gear in some sad search for your forgotten youth. Punk was never a uniform. It’s a verb.

And as you read these 5 “lessons” that formed the core of that post, feel free to insert the words “brand” “business” “charity” “government” or whatever where it says “social media” or “heavy metal / opera / jazz / whatever” where it says “punk”.

Or don’t. You’re punk. Find your own way!

5 reasons social media (or whatever) needs more Punk (or whatever)

1. Punk doesn’t take itself too seriously. What most people didn’t get about punk was that it was a joke. I don’t mean that it wasn’t important. I mean that at its core, punk was parody, a joke played on the rest of the world. You all dress one way? Fine, we’ll do the opposite. You value top-forty disco? Fine, how about this aural assault? Like the jester at the banquet, the punk is the one who sees through the poses and the pomp, and sees where to poke the holes. On social media, I’m finding the most valuable people are those who take their ideas seriously, but notthemselves.
2. Punk is about playing (loud). The punk attitude is about playing – playing a part, playing with ideas and roles, and playing out different possibilities. Taking them apart. Turning them inside out. Cranking up the volume. This constant state of play is what allows people with a punk attitude to keep evolving, changing, growing new brain cells. And in social media, it’s the attitude that drives creative connections and brilliant moments of serendipity. It’s also why nobody can ever script or template success in social media (beware the “proprietary systems”). You’ve just got to get in there and play it out.
3. Punk says anybody can do it. Punk was the ultimate DIY movement. You didn’t need to be a classically trained musician to play punk, and you didn’t get your clothes – or your ideas – from Woolco. This was the ethic that made punk like early social media: chaotic, confusing, but ultimately a flat playing field where anyone could play. That’s why I feel like I have a right to put my content alongside anyone else’s. Because, actually, I do. Not because I’m special, but because anybody can. As Martin Luther King Jr. never (ever) said: “Don’t judge me by the colour of my Klout score, but by the character of my content.”
4. Punk sneers at popularity. Sorry popular kids. Punks are iconoclasts by definition. We learned in high school that popularity doesn’t equal substance. We learned not to idolize airheaded jocks and bitchy prom queens just because we were expected to.  So in social media, the more popular you are, the higher your follower count, blog ranking, or Klout score, the more the punks will challenge and dissect the work you do. Fair is fair, so we won’t disrespect you as people. But we will demand more of you. To question your ideas and hold you accountable for the very influence you seek.
5. Punk begs to differ. The idea of punk is to try out alternatives. To put a little twist on normal and see it from the other side. I named my own humble blog (warning: link-pimpage ahead) Beg to Differ because I’m obsessed with difference – and from a marketing and branding standpoint, differentiation. How do people and products stand out and get noticed?  And that’s really the point of this exercise too. The key question is: how do we keep social media fresh, democratic, and open to anyone with real value to share?

Cities like Ottawa need to cultivate weirdness. Not weed it out!

A story in yesterday’s Ottawa Citizen got the Differ really angry. Angry enough to.. wait for it… start a Facebook page! Seems an Ottawa bus driver named Yves Roy has made himself into a minor cult celebrity around town by singing behind the wheel. And it seems that after years of at worst allowing, and at best praising Roy for his singing, the management at OC Transpo have decided to “play it safe”. We Beg to Differ.

“Boring” is the weed. Weird is the fruit.

When I used to travel the world as a brand evangelist in the software industry, I got a chance to see a lot of cities. And among them, I had to see way too much of the big three Texas cities. Sorry Texas. But Dallas/Forth Worth, Houston, and San Antonio are not my favourite places to visit. At all. They’re big. They’re nice-ish. I met nice people. But they never made me say “wow”. And what’s worse, they never gave me a story to tell.

Which is why it was so refreshing  to find a little weirdo sitting in the middle of all of them: Austin. It’s a city of about 800,000 – roughly the same size as my home town of Ottawa – and like Ottawa, it’s a capital city, so lots of government workers and bureaucentrism. But what’s nice is that the folks in Austin are fiercely proud of its weirdness – even going so far as to brand a movement to “Keep Austin Weird“.

And I’ll tell you, all around the world, the cities that are the most impressive, the most memorable, and the most energetic, are also the weirdest ones. Great cities throw you into weird, quirky, even unsettling situations, but they always give you a story to tell.

Which brings us back to the singing bus driver

Yves Roy.

The bureaucratic smack-down of the singing bus driver came in the same week that OC Transpo is dealing with nasty public reaction to YouTube videos of a bus driver apparently shouting obscenities at a handicapped passenger and talking on a cellphone on the highway.

And yes, there are complaints. Weirdness always causes complaints. And sure, it can be annoying. As David Reevely writes:

I’ve been on Roy’s bus, in a sour mood after a bad day, and I dearly wished he would shutupshutupSHUTUP! so I could have a moment’s peace while I stared out the window and tried not to think about anything. And I’ve been on Roy’s bus in a better frame of mind and loved every bar, and also loving that I lived in a city that could produce this guy. Both attitudes are reasonable: it’s not fair to force passengers to listen to music they don’t want to hear, and yet at the same time Yves Roy is awesome.

He ends his article by concluding that asking him to stop “is definitely the safe thing to do.” Yup. Safe it is. Smart? Not if you want to build a city that people want to tell stories about.

So here’s my suggestion to the mayor

Yes that means you Jim Watson. Turn this into a positive story of city-building weirdness.

1. Pass a motion in council to create an “Ottawa Super Awesomeness Award” (or whatever you want to call it).
2. Create a policy with OC Transpo that bus drivers are not permitted to sing unless they have been given the aforementioned award.
3. Give Yves Roy the award and make a big deal about celebrating Ottawa’s famous (and only) Singing Bus Driver.
4. Get him to sing the national anthem in Council, and try to arrange having him sing at a Senators game, the National Capital Marathon, or other big events.

Voila. Problem solved. Yves Roy is celebrated as the quirky stand-out he is. OC Transpo gets a policy to make sure not every bus driver with a tin ear decides to do the same.

And Ottawa gets one more weirdo icon to call its own.

Oh, and one more thing Mr. Mayor. Please do “LIKE” the Facebook page while you’re here. Every bit helps.

Can’t we all get along? Nope. Here’s why.

Last week we chronicled a Twitter “cage match” between Social Media gurus Dan Zarrella and Jason Falls - two guys in the same industry who speak at the same conferences, and even hang out together. On the surface, not that different. But yet, they found a reason to have a public and at times personal, argument over what might seem to be a small semantic point: the definition of “science”. And apparently that made one of them mad enough to want to punch a professional Mixed Martial Arts fighter…  An aberration? Nope. It’s just human.

Baptists on a bridge

It reminded me of the classic “Baptist Joke” by the brilliant – and definitely different – Emo Phillips.

While you’re watching it, focus on three things: 1) The story he tells. It’s hilarious, but why? More on that later. 2) Emo’s style of delivery – how he plays with the comedy conventions and finds his own oddball path, and 3) How and where the audience reacts. I’ve linked to a longer “horse-face” version of the joke so you can see how he builds on it.

I’ll give you a minute to stop laughing. There. Done?

A bridge too far.

It’s especially funny to me because I come from a similarly schismatic tradition. The Dutch Calvinist / reformed tradition I grew up in has splintered over the years into dozens of tiny denominations – many of which are still busy splitting into still smaller groups.

How bad are we Dutch Calvinists? The scene: it’s late 1944, during the fury of the final Allied push through the Netherlands. The Scheldt campaign is underway and the disastrous “Bridge Too Far” battle fails to capture the bridge at Arnhem. The Nazis have cut off food supplies and 18,000 people are dying of starvation, with millions eating (no joke) tulip bulbs to survive. Harder, more dangerous times than I’ve ever experienced.

But yet, my spiritual ancestors are bickering with each  in a church basement. And that fight turns into a massive, church-splitting battle among themselves over… again, this is not a joke…. whether or not to sing hymns in church!

Seeing the bridges for the girders.

The problem is, like them, we often lose sight of the 95% of things we have in common, and have bloody battles over the teeny tiny 5% extra that separates us. Silly? Yes! Tragic? Definitely! But skipping over the “sames” and going straight to the “differs” is just how our brain works. And it can be a good thing too.

After all, it’s the same instinct that a wine connoisseur uses to tell you with one sip which year, region, and side of an Italian hill a wine comes from.

It’s the same instinct that lets a brand manager build a family of related products for customers (or confuse the heck out of them with meaningless differentiators).

But yes, it also leads people to slaughter their neighbours for looking a bit different, or worshiping a different god.

Which is why the world needs bridges – and jokes

In a divine irony, that “differ” impulse is also what makes a joke like Emo’s funny to us.  Humour relies on a twist in our expectations. As you listened to Phillips, he led you to *think* you knew where he was going. Two guys with a lot in common, find that in the end they really have something to live for, right?

Wrong. The unexpected violence of the ending rips apart the pattern and shows us where a real human flaw lies. And that’s why you laugh. Because Emo used your brain to fool you into seeing the truth.

I’ll wrap up with a  quote from Emo Phillips about jokes in the Guardian when he learned the Baptist joke had been voted The Best God Joke Ever:

Jokes are our safety-release mechanism. Sure they can sometimes be offensive. So can burps. But if you ban them even worse results happen. And believe me, if someone tells a joke that truly offends, he or she will be punished for it. That’s one area for sure where the government can take it easy and relax.

Can I get an “Amen” for brother Phillips?!?

The big A-lister cage match on Twitter

So this afternoon, a fascinating debate happened on Twitter. And the topic? Well, Twitter. Or more specifically, how data and tests about Twitter behaviour are packaged. Can we call the use of those stats “science”? Dan Zarrella makes a living saying yes. Jason Falls begs to differ. The results? Entertaining for the rest of us.

Enjoy the show!

Below, I provide an exhaustive blow-by-blow of their conversation. First, note: I respect both these guys. But I admit a bit of bias. Though Dan Zarrella has lots of interesting insights about how we behave on social media, I’ve always been curious about his characterization of himself as a “Social Media Scientist”. Clever positioning. But is what he does really “science”? You decide.

Background reading if you’re not familiar with the combatants:

• Jason Falls very uncritically promoting Zarrella’s “scientific analysis” (his words).
• Dan Zarrella critiquing the “Unicorns and Rainbows” and arguing for a more scientific approach.

Please let me know what you think in the comments: who won? Does it matter?

You should see the story above. No? Click here for the whole match.

(Images from Flickr used under Creative Commons licenses: Dan Zarrella – by Technosailor. Jason Falls by jdlasica)

For a national icon, a “toothy tyrant” beats a frozen bear.

Last week, Canadian Conservative senator Nicole Eaton suggested Canada abandon the beaver as our national emblem and adopt the polar bear instead. Um. Seriously? We Beg to Differ.

Let’s be clear: polar bears are awesome

I have nothing against polar bears! I know they are threatened by global warming, and we need to care about them now more than ever. I also have no argument with senator Eaton when she says that polar bears are…

“Canada’s most majestic and splendid mammal” but also a “powerful figure in the material, spiritual and cultural life” of Canada’s Inuit. (Calgary Herald)

All true. Seriously, I’d be the last person on earth to disrespect a polar bear – particularly in person. They are fearsome, powerful creatures, and yes, they are iconic symbols of the Canadian wilderness along with a small pantheon (Cantheon?) of other animals like the moose, the Canada goose, and the loon, that are thought of as quintessentially Canadian.

But it’s one thing to say that a creature is *an* icon, and quite another to say it is *the* symbol of your country.
Just like any symbol or brand icon, the national animal needs to balance two things: 1) the real – that is, it has to fit the perceived character of the country as it is today, and 2) the ideal – it has to imply a realistic, but positive, set of characteristics we aspire to as a country.

10 reasons the beaver should remain Canada’s national animal:

1. Historic. Beaver pelts were deeply valued by natives, and even more by the Europeans who came looking for them to build top hats. They were our first major export, and for centuries, Canada was explored, developed, and fought over mainly for our little bucktoothed friends. Polar bears? Not so much. 
   
2. Widely used. From Canada’s earliest days, the beaver has appeared on our national “marketing materials” as a symbol of Canada (see the postcard below). It also appears on the nickel, many official coats of arms and the Hudson’s Bay Company, as well as lending its name and image to the Canadian Pacific Railway, Roots Canada, Beaver Canoe, and to the iconic bush plane the de Havilland Beaver. The polar bear is used on our two dollar coin. And… that’s pretty much it.
   
3. They’re cute (but edgy). It’s hard not to like a pudgy, buck-toothed beaver. But not in a cuddly sentimental way like a helpless baby seal -something polar bears love by the way. Basically, they’re cute but not cute enough to be a toilet paper mascot. Just like Canadians!
4. They’re humble. Let’s face it, a giant carnivorous, seal-crunching, ice-smashing powerhouse of an animal doesn’t exactly seem like the Canada I know – or the one I’d want to live in. We’re a second-tier power, and not known for being ruthless or nasty.
5. But not apologetic about it. Here’s where a beaver can take standard perceptions of Canadian-ness in a new direction. They’re not violent, but they’re not shy either. As a matter of fact, as anyone who has ever tangled with one will tell you, they’re dammed assertive little critters. In aboriginal totems, beavers represent these qualities: “determined, strong-willed, builder, overseer, and protector.”
6. They build and change things. Beavers are the most ambitious builders on earth next to humans. No other animal can change their landscape as much, or with such positive results, as a beaver. But unlike people, beavers always create as many new habitats as they destroy – an example Canadians could stand to take more seriously.
7. Adaptable and resilient. Water, land, wilderness, or city, beavers are there. There’s a beaver who lives two blocks from my house near downtown Ottawa. I’ve never yet seen a polar bear around here. But I’ll let you know if that changes.
8. Warm weather animals. Canada has an undeserved reputation as a frozen place – a land of snow, ice, and igloos. And while Canada does get cold in the winter and a big part of Canada is indeed in the frozen north where the polar bears dwell, our national symbol should highlight the fact that 9/10 Canadians live most of our lives in hot summers and glorious long spring and autumn seasons – much more like a beaver than a polar bear.
9. A unifier. There is only one symbol that is universally Canadian enough to be used as a heraldic symbol by Montreal, Toronto, 3 Western provinces, and the Hudson’s Bay Company. I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t a polar bear…
10. Beavers are ours. Here’s the big one for Beg to Differ. Beavers are our symbol. No other place in the world is, or even wants to be, represented by a beaver. It’s a powerful Canadian differentiator

Let Russia, Chicago, and Boston have their bears. Let the Americans, Mexicans, and Germans have their eagles. The queen can keep her lion and unicorn – and one day, when we finally dump the British royalty, Canada can finally replace them in our national coat of arms with a majestic pair of iconic Canadian animals.

Okay, maybe then we could agree to have a beaver on one side and a polar bear on the other. But until then, I say let’s leave it to the beaver. How about you?

Okay, I admit it. I checked my Klout score. And so did you.

It was hard to resist every now and then. Just a little peek. How bad could that be? We’re human, and we love to check our box scores for anything we do.

Well, guess what? After Klout’s sudden and arbitrary-seeming “re-alignment” of all of our scores today (explained by Klout CEO Joe Fernandez here), the angry snit it inspired among the Klouterati, and the inevitable backlash to the backlash, it became painfully obvious that the “standard measure” has never exactly been as scientific as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in ¹⁄_299,792,458 of a second – if you get my meaning.

As a matter of fact, those dice are – and have always been – downright fuzzy. So I give you a fancy new infographic to explain the key questions we now face in social media after the storm…

Oh, and for the record, I lost 14 imaginary points myself. But who’s counting? Apparently not Klout.

Last week, the Ottawa Senators kicked off a minor media sweat-storm when they unveiled what they called their new “heritage jersey” – which obviously had the retro styling of a classic hockey sweater. Then, even the office of  Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada (who still hasn’t written that hockey book) weighed in with a terse “PM says jersey”.

We Beg to Differ.

There. That was easy, wasn’t it?

Let’s be honest, this piece of modern hockey gear is really not summed up by either how we commonly use the word “sweater” OR the word “jersey”.  But here’s why we think Canadians should be pretty stubborn about sticking to their knitting on this one.

• The term “sweater” was invented to describe an athletic garment that you sweat in. Ever smell a hockey bag? That ain’t “jers” you’re smelling.
• “Sweater” implies something that keeps you warm in winter – and hockey in its purest form is still played outdoors.
• “Jersey” is what generic – mostly American – sports marketers want you to call it. Let basketball, football, and baseball have their “jerseys”.
• Seriously, you’re going to take this guy‘s word for it ?
• Or are you going to take this guy‘s word for it?

Author of “The Hockey Sweater” Roch Carrier “Jersey, I understood, was some stuff to do dresses for ladies. That was the ladies business. Mine was to rush to the skating rink in my hockey sweater . ”

Enjoy!

Spoiler: Cheech & Chong smoke the Ragu sauce

In my inbox today, two different bloggers slammed two big food brands for recent “edgy” social media campaigns. First, C. C.Chapman Ragu Hates Dads. Then, Dale Buss on Brandchannel What Was General Mills Smoking to OK Cheech and Chong Magic Brownie Campaign? On both, I beg to differ. But for different reasons.

The bad: Ragu’s lame attempt.

The Facebook page they’re pimping.

Now here’s C.C. Chapman’s take on it:

As the person in my household who does all of the shopping and all of the cooking I took offense to this video. Implying that dads can only cook the simple things and Ragu is somehow going to help make that easier. Give me a break!

Meh. Now, as the guy in our house who also does all of the above, I get his complaint. But I didn’t take offense so much as just  shake my head. What should have been a light, fun, and playful poke at the kind of guy who doesn’t help in the kitchen – and yes, they’re out there, and they totally deserve lampooning – instead comes across as an unfocused, whiney, un-entertaining, bitch fest.

The problem is not that it’s edgy, highly mom-specific, or even offensive. The big problem is that it’s BAD. Badly produced, awkwardly executed, and absolutely unlikely to get anybody to buy the freaking Spaghetti Sauce, much less laugh or pass this to their friends!

The good: General Mills hilarious Cheech & Chong trailer

The Web page – also brilliant – with more funny outtakes.

Here’s Dale Buss’s bitchy screed:

Oh, to have been a fly on that wall at that pitch meeting. What were General Mills marketers (and agency, Publicis) thinking when this viral promotion moved from sideline conference-room chatter to the thing in the middle of the table, and then to production, and then to actual placement on the brand’s Facebook page, YouTube channel and a campaign microsite earlier this month?

I don’t know what they were thinking either, but it worked. For guys over 40 like me who grew up being shocked by Cheech and Chong’s in-your-face counter-culture humour (and secretly loving it) I think this campaign nails the tone, humour, and most importantly, the product pitch in this one. So while many will find it equally “offensive” to the Ragu campaign, this one will actually find an audience who will pass this on.

I think Chapman was wrong because he picked on the wrong issue in the Ragu campaign. I think Buss is just wrong.

How about you? Does the Magic Brownie thing go too far? Does Ragu actually hit the mark? Am I full of flaming spaghetti sauce?

Please: Beg to Differ. I do.