Comments on: “bernbach was wrong”

By: Broadband and Me

Broadband and Me — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:17:45 +0000

The value of the content?

From the MediaGuardian.co.uk |-Opinion section, commenting on the rise in video content on the web. Its an interesting leader on the whys and wherefores of charging for content. Whereas in the past (i.e. last week ), the model seemed…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:39:08 +0000

I'm asking myself: How can it be that I've never ran through your site before? It's a great one!

By: Basic Juice

Basic Juice — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:10:23 +0000

On Blog Ethics

Dr. V’s comment to me in the recent post explaining how I review wine sparked a few thoughts. The root of the matter seems to be this:If a wine blogger accepts advertising or press samples, this my lead to the

By: Dig Tank

Dig Tank — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 01:16:24 +0000

Web Diggings — November 12, 2005

Building a Daily Habit of Innovation — “Think of daily innovation as the heat and pressure required to created diamonds…

By: Olivier Blanchard

Olivier Blanchard — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:19:42 +0000

Booyah! Right-on.
It all goes back to the idea driving the business. Word of mouth without something relevant to discuss is pointless. Advertising without something worth selling is at best entertainment. (At best.)
Too bad Starbucks still charges for wifi, though. If Panera and Atlanta Bread Company can offer it for free (with great coffee AND great pastries), Starbucks ought to be able to respond.
It was never about the coffee.

By: David Burn

David Burn — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 02:53:46 +0000

Christopher, Do you read Romenesko's Starbucks Gossip? http://starbucksgossip.typepad.com/

By: Christopher Coulter

Christopher Coulter — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:23:52 +0000

Oh brother, Starbucks is trendy, big city, social and hip. That’s what made it. It doesn’t play in rural America however. Only geeks, (or the rare overworked biz exec) care about WiFi. Marketing is a PACKAGE, good coffee, good setting, market-bearing prices, trendy people, good customer service, unique items. You can FOCUS on one area, but you need all to succeed. Why do people pay too much for Starbucks coffee? It’s good, it’s unique and varied and not something you can get elsewhere. Varies by region, but a real good cup of Coffee from a Truckstoppy Diner, and it’s hard to go back to the oversweet-syrupy candy coffee of Starbucks, but that’s just me.
WiFi? Limited audience at best, don’t people do demographics anymore? Geeesh. Man, keep this guy away from the Advertising Budget.
And why do people always cite Starbucks? And not some manufacturing tech company? Easy, it’s the only thing in their limited nose-level view. I am tired of the Planet Hollywood fast-growth Neo-Boomer Yuppieifed Techhead Starbucks case-studies. Gawd. They used to say that about Krispy Kreme before all the fraud, embezzlement and other troubles. Heh. And another thing that has me confused, Starbucks co-opted the ‘CoffeeHouse spirit of the 60s’ to become a big corporate mindless churn-machine. And yet all the peace, love and understanding Tech Hippies still welcome it with open arms? Figures. Always was a hollow movement, from faux save-the-world protesting to Beemers and 10+ WiFi’ed gadgets. Die Yuppie Scum Die.

By: Tim Clague

Tim Clague — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:58:37 +0000

I remember a long time ago you said something along the lines of “An idea doesn’t have to be big, it just has to change the world” and see a similarity here. This has stuck with me and it was why I started 365films.com — an idea to change how we access films

By: Nan

Nan — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 05:35:40 +0000

Brilliant post, you made my day!
I more than agree, disrupting the market, is the best way to get attention and it is soo refreshing for all of us, the customers!

By: teeveedubya

teeveedubya — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 03:50:26 +0000

hugh is right. and interestingly, some of Bill Bernbach’s biggest successes (the VW beetle, avis) were merely a reflection of market disrupting ideas.

By: Brooks Moses

Brooks Moses — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:55:46 +0000

David, I think you’re mostly right about Bernbach, but there’s a key distinction that needs to be made, and his statement got the distinction backwards.
It is true that the best advertising is word of mouth.
However, it is not always true that word of mouth is the best advertising.
Why? These are categories, not single things. Some word of mouth “advertising” is, in fact, the best possible advertising. A lot of it isn’t. And thus it’s false to assume that getting the best advertising is simply a matter of getting word-of-mouth — one also has to get people talking about your product in ways that actually help your market, and that’s a lot harder than just getting them to talk.
Where Hugh’s comment comes in is that disrupting the market — in a way that benefits the customer, mind you! — is a thing that gets lots of word-of-mouth in ways that are very good for advertising.

By: David Burn

David Burn — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:32:37 +0000

I know I’m one to get hung up on the meaning of words, but I digress.
“Market disruption” is not advertising. It’s marketing maybe, more likely it’s good old-fashioned product development and innovation.
Bernbach was correct. WOM is the best advertising. However, I doubt the legendary ad man could have imagined the lengths we’d go today to buy/manufacture that buzz. When Bernbach said what he said, I believe he meant the best advertising can’t be bought.

By: james torio

james torio — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:45:33 +0000

Brilliant post Hugh, I think were most advertising fails is that it only attempts to bring attention to something, were as today relationships need to be built. I am a big believer in

By: pheloxi

pheloxi — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:03:27 +0000

makes me wonder if blog are not word of mouth: next generation!
just look at your own “english cut”!

By: john

john — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:44:45 +0000

You’re both right (sort of) — knowledge of disruptions are spread by word of mouth because they’re dependent upon changing worldviews.
In the same vein see the piece on branding blogs in today’s NYT