Google "closes the loop" with Doubleclick acquisition

Lots of press about Google's acquisition of Doubleclick. I agree with Steve Rubel's assessment that this means that Google owns the end-to-end marketing relationship, from branding through to search. But also remember Google Checkout, which allows Google to close the loop on not only search but also display ads all the way through to transactions. There are privacy concerns, but if advertisers and publishers agree to this -- and they will because they will each benefit from the synergies created -- it won't be a problem.

(Updated: see below for some thoughts on user privacy)

In my mind, this is the reason why Google was willing to pay the price they did -- I frankly think they would have paid even more in order to make sure they could buy their way into this market. Otherwise, it would have taken YEARS for them to develop a presence in display/brand advertising.

Having locked up the online space, it also means that they can now focus on other areas of advertising -- like their nacent video, radio, and print ad networks.

Updated: Please also see the blog post by my colleague, Shar VanBoskirk on the deal.

Also, a clarification on user privacy. Google has a strong and clear privacy policy, and has taken steps to make clear its intentions on how it will use and store user data. There's been rational points made from some voices in the privacy advocacy community -- namely Lauren Weinstein from the California Initiative For Internet Privacy -- that Google would refrain from creating detailed user profiles, especially to stay in the good graces of its users. My point above is that Google can create user profiles only with the permission of the publishers and advertisers that it serves -- and can benefit from them only if those same parties participate. It's unlikely that anyone in that value chain will want to risk violating user privacy, so only minimal data -- if any -- will be passed between parties.

And as Shar puts so well in our blog post, users in the end are in control. If Google and its partners act inappropriately with our data, we'll take our business elsewhere. Google may be powerful, but there are still many other players and alternatives on the Internet.

DuPont's viral video pitch

by Josh Bernoff

Dan Buczaczer of Denuo (a Publicis unit) and his client, DuPont had a problem. How do you take a corporate brand with a 200-year history and remind consumers what it stands for?

DuPont is responsible for brands like Teflon, Kevlar, Tyvek and, as you can see in this clip, Nomex, which helps prevent firefighters from overcooking. These are ingredient brands -- you don't buy them, you buy stuff that incorporates them. And these brands already have decent name recognition, but DuPont has a lot less. You could do a bunch of TV ads like GE and BASF do, but that's expensive. And if you remember DuPont at all -- if you're over 45 like I am -- you may remember "Better Things For Better Living Through Chemistry," a tagline that has developed some unfortunate resonances in the last half-decade.

DuPont's solution, which I like, was to hire Amanda Congdon (ex of RocketBoom) and a bunch of indie film types and make some mini-documentaries they call "DuPoint Science Stories." I don't even know what to call these things -- they're not quite ads, not infomercials, hell, you can shoot me but maybe brandumentaries? (Ick.) Anyway, they're entertaining enough to watch for a few minutes, especially with the bits of retro footage they unearthed from the lab.

The key from here is, they were smart enough not to take the astroturf route and pretend this stuff was homegrown. Instead, they're actually paying for ad space on blogs like Boing-Boing. But these fun little bits will doubtless get picked up by other blogs (like this one), cross-posted on YouTube, and develop a second little life beyond the site where they live, stories.dupont.com. This only works if they get spread around.

Now like the Chevy Tahoe folks, DuPont is going to be in for some spoofs -- there's plenty of parody potential here. But the next step is when Ad Age or the Wall St. Journal starts writing about the strategy behind the idea. Which will get people looking at and spreading the videos. Which will boost DuPont's association with these "miracles of science." Which is what they were looking for in the first place . . . without spending $10 million for ad avails on CBS or Fox. Nice work.

Tags: DuPont, brandumentary, DuPont Science Storiesonline video, Denuo, bernoff, Forrester Research, Groundswell

Add to del.icio.us

Can social networking sell more beer?

by Josh Bernoff

We got briefed yesterday by Anheuser Busch and BlueLithium, the creator of the minglenow social network, on their new alliance.

Here's the deal:

Minglenow is a social network dedicated to nightlife -- partying, bars, and restaurants. It  has 300,000 members and is aiming to get well into the millions. While I don't drink (and some people would say I'm no fun at all), I can understand the appeal -- people form friendships and networks around nightlife, and this is a way to extend the connection, especially around photos of the people you were hanging out with having a good time. And hey, if you drank so much you didn't remember much, those photos could help remind you who it was you had your arm around last night and why his red, monogrammed hankie was left in the backseat of your car.

Now, imagine you are Anheuser Busch. You own the beer market -- your market share is around 45%. The real competition is wine and cocktails -- hence the "Here's To Beer" campaign which celebrates beer and doesn't mention any brands at all. You've already committed $30 million to create bud.tv, an extensive online video site about your brands. Why not spend (and we're guessing here) another million or so to try out social networking?

So "Here's To Beer" is sponsoring the "Clink" portion of minglenow, where people post photos of themselves clinking glasses. The branding on the site is subtle -- as Tom Shipley of Anheuser-Busch told us, "Beer doesn't have a name recognition problem." More interesting is this: A-B has tapped its 600 distributors and 300 other non A-B beer distributors to get kits out bars and other locations to generate interest in this activity.

OK, so let's assume after all this effort that minglenow takes off. Let's assume that people in bars all across America want to take pictures of themselves and upload them and become part of a "nightlife community." This might get people to go out more. It might get them to drink more beer, but I don't see how. I agree that an Anehuser-Busch "Budweiser" community probably doesn't make sense -- what do Budweiser drinkers have to talk to each other about? But what's the point of all this activity?

On the other hand, maybe I am thinking to much like a media analyst. Once you have a few million partyers in a social network, what would you do with them? Maybe this will all pay off down the line somewhere. Given Anheuser-Busch's market share and ad spend, why shouldn't they find out?

Tags: beer, minglenow.com, Anheuser-Busch, social marketing, bernoff, Forrester Research, Groundswell

Add to del.icio.us

Why I love the new Gmail ads

by Josh Bernoff

While reading the Wall St. Journal online I was irresistably attracted to something unusual on the side of the screen -- an ad for Gmail in the form of a YouTube widget. This had to get clicked on for several reasons:

• I've hardly ever seen a YouTube widget as an ad on a regular media site.
• It looked like it would be really silly.

And clicking paid off -- it was really silly. But in its own Google fashion, it told the story -- some nice features that Gmail has. And it also told another story, since it appears to have been made by a bunch of engineers with a video camera and leftover office supplies -- that there are real people working at Gmail and they're trying to make a good product.

In his book "All Marketers Are Liars" Seth Godin talks about how marketers need to tell an authentic story that stands out. Bingo. Google marshalled all its assets -- YouTube, authenticity, actual product features -- to tell a compelling story. Microsoft couldn't tell this story -- it wouldn't seem authentic. Apple would never let its engineers look this amateurish. Way to go, Google, on embracing your own image to sell your product.

Tags: YouTube, Gmail, Google, bernoff, Forrester Research, Groundswell

Add to del.icio.us

Dissecting Yahoo's reorg

The anticipated Yahoo! reorg hit tonight -- the press release with all of the details is up on Yahoo!'s site, as well as stories in the WSJ and CNET. Here's a quick summary and my take of the announcement.

Yahoo! will be reorged into three groups:

1) Audience Group, focused on audience building. Note that this is not about content creation, but instead, "focused on building the largest and most valuable audiences and relationships on and off the Yahoo! network". Kudos to Yahoo! for understanding that this is not about creating more and more content destinations a la Yahoo! Food, but creating new experiences, especially with social media. Despite Yahoo!'s acquisitions of Web 2.0 darlings like Flickr and del.icio.us, Yahoo!'s social media initiatives remain mostly isolated, siloed products like Yahoo! Answers. The key to their success: spreading the social media mindset far and wide into all of the dark corners of Yahoo!.

One other key thing to note: Yahoo! recognizes that the audience relationships are key both "on and off the Yahoo! network". I think this is a huge recognition that the world does not revolve around the the yahoo.com domain and is moving into the mobile and devices space. I'm also looking forward to seeing the expansion of Yahoo! Widgets beyond desktop widgets and into more Web-based widgets a la Google Gadgets for Web pages.

Of all the groups, I think this is the one that will make or break Yahoo!'s strategy. In the end, the race is not to be the best search engine technology-wise, or to have the most advertisers. It's about being relevant to your audience, no matter where they go or what they do. This has always been Yahoo!'s core strength and I'm glad to see they are putting it front and center where it belongs. Now, they have this small detail of hiring an executive to lead this group....

2) Advertisers & Publishers Group. In what is being seen as a CEO-grooming move, current Yahoo! CFO Susan Decker will be shifting over to the revenue generating side of the business. A key challenge: regaining momentum lost with the delay in launching the new search advertising platform. But even more important will be the integration of Yahoo!'s leading brand advertising solutions with search -- a potentially powerful and potent advertising offering that ties bridges the consideration gap between brand awareness and purchase.

3) Technology Group. This group centralizes technology development under CTO Farzad Nazem. This means that core platform infrastructure -- like social media, search, communication, and very importantly, profile/identity management will be under one unified roof. In the past, there appeared to be individual product teams developing these core technologies in isolation of each other. The most glaring example is identity. I actually have TWO profiles on Yahoo! -- one that's associated with my Yahoo! account and another that's part of my Yahoo! 360 page. The new centralized technology group will certainly help rationalize such inconsistencies, but a key challenge will be maintaining that consistency while giving enough room to allow developers to innovate broadly -- and quickly.

One last thing of note: the press release contained a coherent mission statement for Yahoo! -- "to connect people to their passions, their communities, and the world's knowledge." I really like this because it puts "people" at the center of Yahoo!'s strategy. Compare this to Google's mission "to organize the world's information" and you get an idea of how each company's battle plan. I have been a long-time Yahoo! user and this past year saw my slow defection from Yahoo! Mail to Gmail and Yahoo! Calendar to Google Calendar. I still use Yahoo! Maps for local searches, but am finding my loyalty shifting there as well to Google Maps simply because of the availability of the Google search box in my browser. It breaks my heart, because I do have this emotional attachment to Yahoo! and would love to give them a chance to win back more of my online experiences.

So kudos to Yahoo! for taking the bold, tough move -- I'm looking forward to seeing what transpires in the next few months. I'd love to hear what you think of the reorg -- and what you think Yahoo!'s biggest challenges going forward will be. How could Yahoo! win *your* loyalty?


Technorati Tags: yahoo, reorg, google

Google + YouTube: What it means

So here’s the next big rumor – that Google will buy YouTube for $1.6 billionM. The WSJ article, the TechCrunch post had some of the early takes, but rather than add to the furor of whether the rumor is true or not, I’m going to focus on why Google and YouTube would be interested in working together.

Here’s my quick take on the rumored acquisition:

Why would Google buy YouTube? To start, 35 million users in the US and 100 million daily video views. But it’s not just the sheer numbers that grabs Google’s attention. YouTube is a gem because it figured out what Google, Yahoo!, MSN, AOL, and all of the other video players in the marketplace couldn’t – that it’s not about the video. It’s really about the community that’s around the video.

Take a look at the screenshot below of the same “Extreme Diet Coke And Mentos Experiment” video on YouTube and Google Video. You’ll notice that YouTube has many things you can do with the video – rate it, save it to favorites, comment on it, share it, see other related videos, and view the user’s playlists, etc. I think you get the idea.

Then take a look at the Google screenshot. Let’s see… you can add a comment (that’s new). There are a few other additional features like browsing related videos or via tags. But clearly, the focus is on the big, dominant video player.

YouTube is winning the hearts of the audience because video search simply doesn’t work. You have to instead rely on the opinions, ratings, and playlist compilations of others to discover good video. 

Why would YouTube want to be bought by Google? My colleagues, Josh Bernoff and Ted Schadler, discussed earlier this week in their blogs that earlier this week that YouTube faces substantial risk with lawsuits coming from music and video copyright holders, and how they could potentially address those concerns – namely by developing technologies to identify copyrighted materials against a body of work provided by the copyright holders. But who is in a better position to develop that technology – 60 burnt out people at YouTube or the legendary technical minds at Google?

Moreover, Josh points out that YouTube faces potential “cease and decease” actions from copyright holders, and risks following in the footsteps of Napster where it could its activities can be seriously compromised. But this morning, Josh and I discussed that a copyright holder would be much more likely to negotiate and partner with Google than a start-up like YouTube. Update: Josh just posted his thoughts on the rumored acquisition as well.

Is YouTube worth $1.6B? You betcha. That’s 4 cents per video stream ($1.6B divided by 100 million daily views * 365 days) and it’s still growing. Another way to think of it is that YouTube has roughly 50 million users (35M in the US according to Nielsen NetRatings, and probably another 15M worldwide) which comes out to $32 per user. It’s high, but it’s also reasonable.

Granted, YouTube is just beginning to monetize its audience, but having access to  Google’s über-ad network gives it a huge leg up. But this is where I hope YouTube stays the course in not cluttering up its unique interface with sponsored text ads, or its video experience with pre- and post-roll video ads.

The real opportunity for YouTube is to create a completely different kind of advertising form, one that is based on community engagement and involvement, rather than the traditional interruptive style of advertising. Take a look at their home page – here’s a screenshot from today. There’s a small text link to a “Follow the Finger” video contest sponsored by Butterfinger (screenshot also included). Advertisers are loathed to develop these special campaigns together – they would much rather slap on existing banners and promotions. But given the size and attractiveness of the YouTube audience, the site can command not only top dollar with exclusiveness, but also demand that advertisers adhere to specific standards that guarantee the best user experience.

If the acquisition goes forward, Google will be pressured to quickly realize a return on its first major investment. My hope is that Google will resist the temptation to turn YouTube into yet another cluttered ad space and allow the company to push advertisers into this new, engaged form of advertising.

Google Checkout Supports Its Core Search Business

Google unveiled its long-awaited wallet service, codenamed “GBuy” and officially called “Google Checkout”. While frequently described as an “eBay killer”, I believe that it’s actually positioned to solve a perplexing and core problem at Google – how to drive more search ad revenues, especially in the retail sector where search spending is plateauing for top keywords.

Here are the basics of Google Checkout:

-          Increase conversions with a better checkout process. The goal is to make it easier for buyers to checkout with retailers. Retailers today often see users abandon their shopping carts, so anything they can do to help potential buyers finish the transaction will increase their conversion rates. Google Checkout stores billing, shipping, and credit card information to enable speedier checkouts. Better conversion rates mean that retailers will be able to spend more money on advertising and marketing – for example, search ads – which is great for Google.

-          Build trust for merchants. AdWords advertisers using Google Checkout will have a “badge” (which looks like a shopping cart) appear in their search ads. Over time, Google hopes that consumers will see this as a signal that the transaction will be safe and secure. Why does it matter? Think about the last time you bought something from a no-name retailer – did you hesitate when it came time to enter your credit card? For many consumers, concern about security and privacy are major reasons why they didn’t buy with a specific retailer. Smaller, less established retailers in particular will benefit from using Google Checkout.

-          Provides a discount for AdWord advertisers. And AdWords advertisers will get some of their transactions processed for free. The standard flat rate for Google Checkout will be 2% of transaction value plus 20 cents per transaction. Compare that to PayPal’s lowest rate of 1.9% plus 30 cents per transaction for monthly payments over $100K and PayPal’s standard rate of 2.9% plus 30 cents per transaction for up to $3k in monthly payments received. So not only will Google’s rate be lower for most retailers, but participating merchants also get 10 times the value of their AdWords spending for free transaction processing. So if you spent $100 last month on AdWords, you’d get $1000 worth of transaction processing (which translates into $20) for free. Do the math, and that’s a 20% effective discount on your AdWords buy. And yes, Google hopes that retailers will plow that savings back into more search spending.

So hopefully you’re beginning to see the virtuous circle that Google is building with Checkout and how it supports the core search business. It’s brilliant – by tying the wallet service to search, Google creates a huge incentive for its retail advertisers to participate. This is what differentiates Google Checkout from other wallet services like Yahoo’s now defunct PayDirect, AOL’s Quick Checkout, or Chase’s I4 Commerce's Bill Me Later.

While smaller merchants are the natural targets for Google Checkout, don’t count the larger retailers out. While some may be reluctant to “turn over” the customer relationship to Google, in the end, I think they will try and stick with anything that will result in better conversions.

What It Means For eBay

Poor eBay – its stock took a beating today on the anticipated news of Checkout's launch. The money on the street is that eBay/PayPal will be the losers in this, but I’m not so sure. PayPal is a payment method which fills a big needs in P2P transactions, especially for auctions. Will some eBay sellers defect and start using Google Checkout instead? Not if they want to remain fully integrated with eBay AND also offer non-credit card options (which Google Checkout currently does not offer). The battle will be with the merchants – PayPal will have to step up its efforts to get retailers to accept PayPal as a payment system along side traditional payments like credit cards – and hope that they can do this before Google launches its own payment system (more on that later). If eBay can convince enough merchants to accept PayPal, those merchants will eventually push Google Checkout to accept PayPal as well.

And I fully expect that the current eBay/Yahoo! partnership will launch a competing product to Google Checkout that mirrors the search advertising tie-in. So this battle is far from over – stay tuned.

One of the side “benefits” of Google Checkout is that consumers will be able to see their full transaction history. This isn’t a problem as long as you’re comfortable having all of that information reside with one player, which I anticipate will be the case. But now we have Google tracking our search history with personalized search, email with Gmail, and online spending with Checkout. At what point do consumers get that squishy feeling in their gut that Google knows too much? Our research shows that while consumers have a great concern about privacy, they aren’t willing to do very much and in many cases, willingly provide personal data as a fair exchange for a valued product or service.

All of this would be honky-dory for Google given its strong brand and trust it's built with consumers. But what happens when the inevitable phishing attacks begin, or payment problems ensue? In the pre-briefing of this announcement, Google did not discuss customer service issues, but clearly, it’s one thing to serve several hundred thousand advertisers paying for their search ads, and quite another to serve potentially millions of consumers.

I suspect that “all things Google” will soon start to wear at the edges, in much the same way that “all things Microsoft” came to be seen as a monopoly of the desktop. But instead of dominating operating systems and software, Google is instead dominating our information. So at what point does Google step over the line and extend its products and services too far?

I’m eager to get reactions to Google Checkout, if you would use it as a consumer and especially, if you take payments, if you’d use it as an alternative checkout solution.

Additional materials:

- Powerpoint presentation with screenshots of Google Checkout Download google_checkout_screenshots.ppt .

- Buyer demo and merchant demo

Update: Google Blog's official post on Checkout is available.

Super Bowl XL: Advertising's Winners and Losers

By Charlene Li

  My colleague, Peter Kim, is an analyst at Forrester covering integrated marketing and word-of-mouth marketing. So it's very appropriate for him to offer up his take on the winners and losers of this year's Super "Advertising" Bowl. So heeeere's Peter!

Raising the question of the ROI of Super Bowl advertising brings you to a place squarely in the crossfire between the left-brain and right-brain halves of the marketing world.  Although no one releases sales results specifically attributed to their in-game ads, I believe that the most successful advertisers deliver spots as part of an integrated campaign.  With that in mind, here’s my take on the top three winners and losers from Super Bowl XL.

The winners - think about The Bus holding up the Lombardi trophy and retiring after winning the biggest game of his career in his hometown.

Champion:  Burger King – Whopperettes

This spot was the culmination of a month-long viral marketing campaign that started with the King and Brooke Burke on a beach, moving into an engagement, and ending with Burke as Burger Queen.  The natural progression would be for a Whopper Jr. ad to be next in the series.

1st runner up:  Dove - Self-Esteem

In v2 of their "Campaign For Real Beauty," Dove launched an emotional and empowering spot.  This next step is a great evolution with a tough-to-remember vanity URL but compelling call to action.  The spot was enhanced by its placement between violent ads for M:I:3 and a new ABC crime drama.

Honorable mention:  GoDaddy - Version 14

Another advertiser using pre-game viral tactics.  Although the controversy was nowhere near last year's censored spots, GoDaddy still achieved maximum exposure - for its domain name, featured prominently in a letterbox-style ad.

The losers - think missed opportunities, like Seattle's dropped passes and missed field goals.

Honorable mention:  The halftime show

At an event that is the pinnacle of pop culture, ABC chooses an act that is fading into irrelevancy and seemingly "safe."  And then edits them twice for potentially offensive lyrics.

1st runner up:  ESPN Mobile- Sports Heaven

Odd that an internet-based service wouldn't include a single URL.  Great special effects though.

The Biggest Loser:  Gillette - Fusion

This 60-second spot was heavy on details and product features and ripe for TV-to-Web integration.  Instead, P&G tried to pack an entire sales pitch and owner's manual into a commercial without a URL in the end cap to boot.

The toss-ups - like Tom Brady performing the coin toss, things that left viewers wondering.

Lost in translation:  Toyota hybrid ad deserves props for ethnic flavor but delivers confusing line about learning English for kid's future.  Borderline offensive.

Recycled creative:  Bud Light and Airtran [local] give nods to Terry Tate; Pizza Hut borrows flying food from Doritos 3D; McDonald's starts to position Ronald like the King.

Guerilla keyword buying:  During the game, keywords like "whopperettes," "dove," and "brown bubbly" were purchased by companies in totally different industries than the ones associated with the terms.  CPC prices for these terms were in the $0.01 - 0.04 range at the beginning of the game.  Hopefully these companies believe in search's ability to brand.

Bottom line:  Although there were some bright spots, overall there wasn't anything that people will be buzzing about for days and weeks to come.  Advertisers should take a look back at great ads for key lessons:  cultural relevance (Apple's "1984"), integration (Mitsubishi's "SeeWhatHappens"), and timing (Monster's "When I Grow Up").

Google pays for Firefox and AdSense

By Charlene Li

Last Friday, Google's AdSense program announced that it will pay publishers if they refer new sign-ups to AdSense through an ad on their sites. Even more interesting, AdSense will also pay publishers if they get users to download Firefox with the Google Toolbar. More information is available at https://www.google.com/adsense/referrals. Referral fees will be $100 per AdSense sign-up and $1 for each instance when a download of Firefox is run for the first time.

What got my attention is that Google is paying for distribution of its Toolbar. This is need for distribution is similar to why Google struck a deal with Sun to distribute Toolbar. It's also a great way for Firefox to increase its distribution base. More from Firefox also has its take on the announcement. 

I was at a meeting on Thursday evening with Mitchell Baker and John Lilly from Mozilla Foundation where they said that Firefox now had 14% share of the US browser market. Firefox has long encouraged its base to include graphics to promote others download Firefox. But Google's AdSense now gives it an opportunity to pay site owners to do this, which will only further encourage the Firefox's marketing and distribution. While it's not officially stated, it's pretty clear that Google is footing the bill.

I expect to see Firefox cut more deals like this in the future -- John Lilly is in charge of business development and his goal is to double the Firefox penetration over the next year.

Free Forrester videos on Social Computing -- and much more

I spoke a few weeks ago at Forrester's Consumer Forum event in NYC about how companies can tap into social computing. I've included the links below to the MP3 and video files (they are FREE!!!), along with several other relevant speeches and Q&A that I thought you'd be interested in. I've included a few summaries as well as the lengths. [Note: the videos aren't quite "videos" (at least, not on my connection), but you'll get the slides that accompany the speeches -- and also a view of me "walking" around the stage!]. Also included are interviews with Paul Tagliabue, Commissioner of the NFL, Greg Joswiak, VP of Worldwide Product Marketing for iPod, Apple Computer Digital Home, and Vyomesh Joshi, EVP of the Imaging and Personal Systems Group at HP.

Charlene Li: "Social Computing -- Bubble or Big Deal?" (29 min. 38 sec.)
Find out how companies can tap into new technologies such as blogs, RSS, viral marketing, and podcasting to develop deeper relationships with consumers — including five rules that companies should follow to successfully grow these new relationships.
http://www.cramereventmedia.com/videoviews/videoView.aspx?videoViewID=88

Chris Charron: "Innovating In A Consumer Driven World" (8 min. 43 sec.)
Companies must tap into the power of consumer-to-consumer communication by adopting a "consumer-focused innovation" approach in which consumers play an active role in products, services, experience design, and marketing.
http://www.cramereventmedia.com/videoviews/videoView.aspx?videoViewID=86

Christine Overby: "The Essentials Of Consumer-Driven Innovation" (20 min. 11 sec.)
To turn consumer insights into profits, companies must master "consumer-focused innovation" — in which consumers play an active role in products, services, experience design, and marketing.
http://www.cramereventmedia.com/videoviews/videoView.aspx?videoViewID=87

Paul Tagliabue (NFL): Q&A with George Colony Part 1 of 2 (5 min. 12 sec.)
Tagliabue provides his perspective on emerging content distribution channels like video on-demand, streaming and downloading, and wireless video. He emphasizes the need to experiment broadly, create new product for every channel, and target the offering . . .
http://www.cramereventmedia.com/videoviews/videoView.aspx?videoViewID=89

Paul Tagliabue (NFL) : Q&A with George Colony Part 2 of 2 (4 min 7 sec)
Commenting on the marketing lessons he has learned at the NFL, Tagliabue discusses the need to monitor consumers carefully and regularly — to uncover invisible changes beneath the surface of macro consumer trends — as well as the need to form multiple . . .
http://www.cramereventmedia.com/videoviews/videoView.aspx?videoViewID=90

Greg Joswiak (Apple): Q&A with Josh Bernoff (22 min. 0 sec.)
Joswiak explains how Apple changes the rules of the game. He includes a special emphasis on how Apple taps into customer feedback online and in its stores and then combines those insights with its own technology vision.
http://www.cramereventmedia.com/videoviews/videoView.aspx?videoViewID=91

Vyomesh Joshi, Exec. VP, Imaging and Personal Systems Group, Hewlett-Packard (3 min. 10 sec.)
Hewlett-Packard's Vyomesh Joshi dismisses "convergence" as an unhelpful word and describes HP's four-pronged strategy for what consumers want in their digital home: content, search, personalization, and community.
http://www.cramereventmedia.com/videoviews/videoView.aspx?videoViewID=96