So, who’s going to invent the next form of advertising?  [I must acknowledge that I first came across this question from an iTunes podcast of Chris Anderson discussing his new book “Free: The Future of a Radical Price” with “Bloomberg on the Economy” dated 7/13/2009.]  

As I wonder what the new form of advertising will look and feel like, I also wonder whether it will be discovered accidentally or invented purposefully.  I’m guessing, it will probably be a combination of both because: (1) we will always have Inventors and businessmen who are actively looking to discover the next “Pet Rock”; and (2) like viral advertising, which is effective in its own right, it is always unpredictable to know what will take off and what will not. 

Either way, it sure does seem that we are at the point of a generational shift, as Chris Anderson points out.  Yet, I don’t think that means that the upcoming shift will necessarily be driven solely by the younger (demographic) generation, but instead by the newest (or latest lasting) generation of technological advances. But, that’s beside the point. 

Chris Anderson also points out the psychological impact of our recent atypical recession and also how fragmented the consumer’s attention has become, both of which lends itself to a new operating environment.  

There is clearly a renewed need for true trust and ethical sales exchanges.  The recent passing of Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America”, is just another reminder of how different things have become over the last several decades.  That’s one reason why I love what Chris Brogan and Julien Smith are doing to promote their new book “Trust Agents”.  They are exemplifying what they are promoting. Check out their book’s Facebook page which addresses the trust factor in an engaging and interactive way, using audio, video, and text.

Often in technology, we are reminded that the tool/medium is different from the message.  Maybe now not only the medium but also the messages are morphing.  Cycles of different durations are intersecting with each other differently all the time. We may truly be at a new crossroads of medium(s) and message(s).

Yet, while newspapers, magazines, and older forms of print media/advertising are dying out in this internet age, other older advertising models seem to still be surviving quite well.  Personally, I hate long internet sales copy, but people still use it because it works.  Pitch men like the late Billy Mays, “As Seen on TV” products, or late-night infomercials are all still around simply because they work.  When will they stop working?  Will they ever stop working? Will other things eventually work better or be preferred?   When will new ways of advertising be embraced en masse?

Discovering the next big advertising trend may come from a niche market or it may come from a mainstream company.   Seems the trick now is to do what Jim Kukral does: keep doing stuff and see what sticks.  The more things you try, the more chances you have for hitting a success. (Check out the impressive list of Jim’s projects on the bottom of his home page.)

I’m sure there’s a “Pet Rock” (or two) of advertising out there just waiting to be discovered or created.  Who is going to find the next big generationally impacting one?  Whoever you are, please choose wisely and make us proud!

I’ve always known that Ethics can get complicated and many times falls into a big gray area.

And, I personally place honesty and integrity quite high on my list of values. Yet, I’m surprised to be finding more and more people raising arguments to justify why it’s okay to get close to crossing the line on ethics. And, I’m starting to wonder if I might not need to be more flexible in my judgements of people that do flirt with or actually cross that line.

Intentions do make a difference. If someone does something wrong (and, of course, that is all relative, too), but if it is done out of ignorance or out of good intentions, then that should be taken into consideration in our evaluation of that behavior.

When it comes to the law, once guilt is established, the intentions are no longer an excuse, things are either lawful or they aren’t. There are mitigating circumstances and degrees of crimes, but a crime is still generally a crime. Sentencing and punishment then become the gray area.

One friend recently mentioned that we shouldn’t be so harsh to judge people, such as when they might lie to us, especially if we might do the same thing under similar circumstances; as we know, people do make mistakes and these things are going to happen in life. Should we let those things ruin our relationships and sour our views on life? Or are we not better off choosing a more empowering meaning for the situation, learning from it, and making our life and those of others better because of it? That’s one way to look at breaches in trust.

For another perspective and a refreshingly honest discussion on the subject of “Is all Marketing Deceitful and Propaganda?” some interesting points about marketing, propaganda and facts are raised.

As a consumer, I go to the internet to get information so that I can make better decisions. I’ve found that it’s not always easy to determine what is good information vs bad information vs biased half-truths vs hype and empty promises. Social media is now also being infected by marketing practices that can be considered deceitful, thus dulling the entire purpose of sincere user-generated media and genuine word-of-mouth marketing.

The question raised in the above-referenced interview is that: “Is propaganda bad if no one is getting hurt?” And, it is mentioned that it might also depend on “what is at stake”? is it politics and democracy that is at stake or is it just the selling of a product? What is at stake does matter in the sense of the potential damage that can be done. Damage can be financial. But what about the damage that can be done to TRUST and INTEGRITY. Loss of trust and integrity doesn’t only affect the person or company involved, but can affect an entire industry and medium.

My concern is that a practice in one arena sets a standard for what is and what isn’t an acceptable practice in other arenas, too. One will be used to justify the other. What starts off as not being that big a deal soon evolves into a bigger deal as standards are not being set and are actually being lowered and we end up reverting back to the days of caveat emptor or buyer beware. I still hold out hope for the self-policing power of the social media world, especially for those that aren’t in it just to make a living.

This begs the question, “Is it ever ok to cross the line in ethics?” I didn’t expect to find a potentially affirmative answer to that question, but I think I may have found one that comes close. In the interview of Dr. Dan Ariely, of “Predictably Irrational”, by Dave Lakhani, a case is made for: what if you could increase the efficacy of a medical treatment by 10% by “lieing to someone” via the placebo effect? Would that be ethically acceptable? If some of us can feel torn about the ethics of a positive benefit, I wonder why there aren’t more people torn about the ethics of negatively impacting business practices?

A recent newspaper article contained an intriguing combination of words that caught my attention. (See: The Star Ledger, “The Global Monster”, 4/24/08, p10) The phrase was: “a coincidence of interest”. It was used to describe a scenario that arises when an unscrupulous seller is eager to supply whatever a desperate buyer wants to buy.

The context of the article focused on how mobsters or organized crime groups are getting more involved in global markets, immigrant smuggling, and with terrorists, etc. primarily for the purpose of making money in the global marketplace as well as domestically.

My thought is this: what would a “coincidence of interest” look like in the hands of the positively-intentioned world citizens?

It might look a bit like corporate goodwill programs. For example, charitable groups need donations; corporations benefit by showing goodwill in the form of donations or sponsorships. Clearly some detractors believe that corporations are motivated solely or primarily by the financial returns of their goodwill gestures.

Current thought leaders are pointing out that it doesn’t matter if corporations benefit by helping others, regardless of whether receiving those benefits are their sole motivation or not.

Perhaps we can say that as long as those in need do receive a benefit, then a win-win “coincidence of interest” exists. What is wrong with that? This is evidenced in concepts like Bill Gates’ “creative capitalism” and variations on the theme in the example of Product(Red)’s for-profit giving and the environmental equivalent of determining whether greenwashing is occurring or not.

The way that the negative form of “coincidence of interest” is fought, according to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, is “…initially, with intelligence gathering (that) you then use to frustrate it or prosecute it as may be appropriate.”

So, maybe the way to ‘expose’ an albeit positively-intentioned “coincidence of interest” in a way that raises the focus away from personal gain and up to true concern for others, is in a similar way. Use intelligence gathering. Get educated and educate others about: giving back out of an appreciation for the things we are grateful to have in our own lives, and a concern for the type of world and society we want to live in.

Let the solution begin with personal responsibility and let that radiate out to those we encounter in our lives. Watch the movie trailer for an upcoming film entitled, “The Shift“, which demonstrates society’s growing movement in that direction.

So, why not consider a positively-intentioned “coincidence of interest” as a starting place from which to grow new awareness, intentions, and solutions?

In this new “era of social media” (as per PNI), we are being given the opportunity to show up (as per Mari Smith):

• consistently
• transparently
• authentically
• genuinely
• with a win-win attitude
• adding value
• as a thought leader

I pledge allegiance, in my heart and soul, to the concepts of honesty, integrity, and quality in business. I recognize that the cornerstone of success is treating all stakeholders fairly, with compassion, and with a commitment to service. Working from abundance, I recognize that even my competitors can become important allies. I will not tolerate crooked practices in my business, from co-workers, direct or indirect reports, supervisors, managers, suppliers, or anyone else–and if I encounter such practices, I will refuse to go along with them and report them to appropriate authorities within and outside the company. I pledge to support the “triple bottom line” of environmental, social, and financial responsibility. And I pledge to participate in a serious effort to focus the business community on these principles, by sharing this message with at least 100 other business leaders.