



The latest Pixar film, Wall-E is amusing, if a bit long. A controversy seems to be developing about whether the almost
subliminal Apple references is good or bad.
Most famously, Wall-E has a start-up sound of the current Mac operating system, and watches old movies on an iPod, Eve,
the futuristic love interest looks like it came out of the Apple design labs (and in fact a chief Apple designer consulted on her
looks. White, seamless, no visible screws - sound familiar?
Less obvious is her own start-up sound (older Macs), a Mac keyboard in Wall-E's treasure troves, and Auto the Pilot
speaking in a Mac software voice.
So what is the big deal? None, really - compared to the blatant product placement you often see, Wall-E is almost a series of
inside jokes for Apple fans.
More importantly is the recognition of Apple's tremendous design influence. How many brands could be identified without
logos? A robot looks like an Apple product from a company that has built no robots?
The fact is that Apple's DNA is immediately identified with new and great design by the average person, and it stimulates a
positive, creative emotional feeling (as proven by recent studies). An amazing marketing achievement. Ad Age point out that
30% of Hollywood films features Apple computers in 2007. In 2008 the number is 50% so far!
Besides, what does Apple really have to do with Eve, anyway?
45 years ago, advertising pioneer David Ogilvy wrote, "How to Build Great Campaigns".
Ad Age reports that most of Ogilvey's axioms still hold true, decades later. Here are some
of the best:
What You Say Is More Important Than How You Say it. Beautiful, impressive promotions
mean nothing if what they are talking about is not worth the print or flash technology.
You Cannot Bore People Into Buying. Marketers often become enamored with their own
stories, believing that if they tell their story long and often enough, the world will come around
to their way of thinking. It won't.
Never Write An Advertisement Which You Wouldn't Want Your on Family To Read. Concern
about lack of eyeballs and attention span is causing some marketers to go over the edge in
taste, hoping to gain attention via shock value. In the end, strange commercials are
remembered, but their message tends to be forgotten. Also, underestimating the intelligence
of your audience, contrary to popular belief, is not in the product's best interest.



Will smog masks become a fashion accessory? It does not sound likely. But
Advertising Age reports that images of Olympic athletes wearing the black masks
seems to have resonated with some observers.
Apparently models have begun appearing on runways wearing them, in a
multitude of colors.
Some claim that the masks raise visibility about world air quality. More likely, it is
just one of those unpredictable visually resonances that seem to light up
people's imaginations (bad taste or not)

Would you pay more for milk at your door? If you live in Manhattan, you can
find that out, with Manhattenmilk. This company produces organic milk from
Amish country in Pennsylvania and delivers it to downtown NYC, just like
the old days.
The minimum order is $15, with a $5 delivery charge. That's why they're
doing this in Manhattan, not Milwaukee.
Will this retro approach appeal to convenience, quality, or nostalgia? Maybe
all three.
If successful, we may be looking forward to ice and seltzer delivery and
elevators operators. (Actually, I remember seltzer and pretzel deliveries in
my neighborhood - you could not beat soda waters from a heavy glass
bottle with a real high powered syphon. Wonder who I could call for that?

Google has an iPhone app that works by voice. While that is a great
free feature, what is more amazing is the way they garnered publicity.
Tech blogs have been buzzing about it a week before availability,
dutifully reprinting Google's sample image (as I have also done).
Even the New York Times featured a large article touting the pending
availability of Google voice search.
As Google rolls out Android software on (no doubt) dozens of new
phones, they have managed to grab the eyes and ears of Apple's
iPhone users at the same time.
The bottom line is that Google knows that the money is in the users -
they don't want to make phones, they want people carry Google apps
(and ads and supplying user data) in their pockets.
In the long run, it's worth more than the hardware and the software put
together.
The U.S. auto industry is in self-destruct mode. Too many brands, too
many dealers, too many cars people do not want. Seth Godin has
suggested that allowing the suppliers to go bankrupt and come back as
many diverse manufacturers is a good idea, and I certainly agree. He points
out that 100 years ago there were 1,000 car manufacturers!
Bankruptcy would also allow a re-alignment of the dealership business. Do
we really need car retailers that offer only one or two brands of new cars?
Why not shop for cars the same way you shop for used cars? Why should
they offer every model the brands make?
When you buy a TV or toaster the retailer offers what they believe to be a
good assortment of offerings, including several brands and select models.
Why not with cars?
Repairs expertise is not a problem either, any competent repair shop can
work on any vehicle, why can't dealerships?
For that matter, why can't you buy a car from a warehouse club? Maybe they
offer just one or two models each month, and a local dealer services the
purchase? The easier you make it for people to buy something...well, you
know what I mean.

The music business is in decline, bookshops are in trouble. But some
businesses thrive. The apple App Store for the iPhone and latest iPods has
only been in existence since July 2008.
Although many applications are free (and most others are under $10),
analysts project that the sales volume for Apple in 2009 will be about $800
million dollars. This is fabulously profitable for Apple, who keeps a third of the
retail.
But for many of the 10,000 application creators, this store has been a major
business creator. Music service Pandora is running at 15,000 free downloads
a day, helping the ad-supported model.
Many free games have click-on ads, or upgrades at low prices. One or two
dollar applications can quickly pay the bills for software developers who no
longer need to worry about costly packages and distribution systems.
The amazing thing is that no one else has really challenged this method of
distribution for the many other platforms out there, including other mobile
phones.
But there is no doubt in my mind that enterprise will thrive when the right
model is applied, and you make it easier for people to purchase what you
offer in services, music, or publications.



I am reading Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. It is a book about how apparently irrational
behaviour becomes predictable buying patterns for consumers. It talks a lot about the science of
emotional decision-making, and is a very interesting subject.
In one of the chapters Dan touches on the fact that the US savings rate is among the lowest of
developed nations, and that the acceptance of household debt was a potentially dangerous
phenomenon. (Observations recently borne out).
He observes the trend in consumerism with the design of closets (to hold our goods). A hundred
years ago, houses had virtually no closet space. There were several reasons for this, including
practical construction, wardrobe furniture, and tastes. But the primary reason is probably that
people just did not own a lot of clothing (or a lot of anything).
By the 1940's closets began to grow a little, but were still cramped. In the 1970's they were large
enough to hold clothing and some extra gear.
But only in recent decades has the concept of 'walk-in' closets taken hold, allowing us to fill these
spaces with lots of things that we do not use every day.

Ford's market share in the US has increased four months in a row. According
to Advertising Age, this has not happed for nearly 15 years.
Now why should ford be benefiting in this difficult economic environment? They
are not giving away large rebates, like other manufacturers, in fact, most of their
promotions are going towards their brand.
It seems that a whopping 93% of Americans are aware that Ford has not
accepted any government bail-out money. And 95% of our citizens know that GM
and Chrysler have.
Could it be that even in this socialist day and age Americans really respect
companies and individuals who take personal responsibility to get the job done,
and accept the consequences of their actions..?