Will Bing be as simple as its name implies?

I’ve just read through some great blog posts and articles on Bing—the name as well as expectations for the upcoming Microsoft “decision engine.” Opinions on the name are all over the map, with (mostly) negative opinions led by naming professionals like those at Snark Hunting and Pollywog. I love the bitter sarcasm over at Snark Hunting, and they make a funny point comparing Bing (“ping” with a “B”) to Zune (“tune” with a “Z”). But one of the earliest lessons I learned about naming (or writing taglines, etc.) is that it’s easy—often too easy—to pick on someone else’s work. Or, to put it more bluntly, to dislike it because it’s not your own.

continue reading…

But who’s actually reading all that stuff on Twitter?

I know, I know. It’s the type of question about Twitter that you’d expect to hear from your parents, or from someone who still gets their news from a newspaper. But it’s a valid question, despite (obnoxious) responses having to do with “ambient  intimacy.” Equally valid in my mind is the question of who reads the articles that are so frequently forwarded as links via Twitter.

I was thinking about this the other day when I came across a post by Bob Hoffman, The Ad Contrarian, entitled “8 Recent Observations About Twitter.” Specifically, I’ve been wondering what percentage of tweets are blindly forwarded links, aimed at making the tweeter look interesting or engaged without actually forcing them to do any work. Hoffman’s relevant points are:

continue reading…

Taking the “paper” out of “newspaper”

A few weeks back I answered a question in the Answers section of LinkedIn. The question was “In your opinion, what should newspapers do to keep pace with the internet?” Clearly, this question has been on the minds of many for quite awhile; some respondents simply stated that it’s too late for newspapers (like my favorite cynical response, “What can the horse do to keep up with the automobile?”).

My response was off-the-cuff, but apparently well-received, as it was chosen as the Best Answer (I got a gold star!). Here it is:

continue reading…

More unnecessary quotation marks

I posted about this nerdy pet peeve of mine awhile back. Here it is rearing its ugly head again, this time accompanied by its friend, Unnecessary Capitalization.

(I haven’t won yet.) This extraneous punctuation got me thinking about people’s natural tendency to over-complicate things like names and logos, not to mention products and product features. Why is it so difficult to make things simple? And is simplicity really what we want, anyway?

When smart marketing gets stupid

Sorry, Nordstrom. I just canceled my subscription to your free email newsletter after receiving yet another “Not Your Daughter’s Jeans” edition. Last I checked, Nordstrom sells men’s clothes, too, but their email subscription doesn’t ask you to input your gender, what type of clothing you’re interested in, or any information whatsoever. This is a massive missed opportunity for targeted marketing, and in my opinion completely fails to take advantage of the point of email subscription lists.

continue reading…

Can B2B be sexy?

I don’t always agree with the folks over at Gyro:HSR, but I just read a post by Milan Martin that makes some strong points. He takes awhile to get to it, but eventually does a nice job of making the case that B2B brands need to be built to resonate with people, not “businesses.” I’ve heard this argued time and again—I even wrote a post on it awhile back—but since many B2B companies’ marketing communications betray the fact that they (or their agencies) haven’t realized it yet, it’s still a point worth making.

continue reading…