a digital product firm

The ‘agencies’ Category

Living With Variable Pricing – Day 1

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

Yesterday we launched our variable rate pricing. The purpose of the program is to create a public indicator of how busy we are in such a way that allows clients with potential projects can take that into account. If we’re not busy, our rate will reflect that and hopefully encourage people to start new work with us, or get into a deeper engagement without increasing their costs. On the other hand, if we’re very busy, we can signal that by an increase in our rate.

We wanted to have a way of varying this rate that was as objective as possible, so we’re basing changes in our rate on how “utilized” we are. Based on our histories working for various agencies, we set our sights somewhat arbitrarily on an ideal utilization of 80%, and decided that anything plus or minus ten percentage points was probably what we could consider “optimal”.

So, if we’re working within this target, our rate stays the same. If we fall below, our rate falls, and if we shoot over the top, our rate rises ($1 a day in either case). We’re also upping our rate $1 for every serious inquiry we get for new work. Simple as that.

So what has this meant for us so far?

First, deciding what is, and is not, “utilized”. Now that we have established a range of utilization that we want to be within, we need to decide what actually counts as being utilized. So far, this has been fairly straightforward: work on billable projects is clearly utilized; work on getting a billable project defined, signed, and running also seems utilized; business development work for our business development guy (@verymickey, contact him if you’re interested in doing business with us ;) is utilized; internal administration is not utilized; and writing for the blog, looking at our analytics, and most biz dev work for everyone but Mickey seems like non-utilized. There are some grey areas, like do we count it as utilized if Justin goes to a meeting with Mickey to talk to a potential client. We’re going with our gut on these (it does count), and so far they seem easy enough to resolve.

Second, a strong incentive to fill out timesheets. We’re pulling our utilization numbers daily based on our timesheets (we use Harvest, in case you’re interested). Since the rate that we charge is directly affected by this, it becomes a pretty good motivator (especially for those of us who struggle to get our time in). Also, since someone is looking at this data every day and taking action based on it, it adds meaning to the task as well. The upshot of all of this is even more detailed reporting on projects in the future.

Third, an evaluation of whether or not 80% utilized is actually optimal. A question that’s starting to surface is whether, given our definitions of what is and is not considered “utilized”, is 80% the right number. We may find out that we do a lot of non-utilized work and that if we also did 80% utilized work, we’d struggle to keep up. We may also find that 70% is not enough or 90% is too much. This may mean that we have to look at changing the target range to more accurately reflect reality. It’s too soon to tell yet, but we’re certainly paying a lot more attention to this.

Fourth, some questions, and some directional answers. We received a few questions about the program pretty much right away (in fact, we got more than a few questions even before we launched). This is great, of course. It’s an experiment for us, and we welcome questions, opinions, and advice. We launched this experiment to see what we could learn from it, so we’re doing a lot of “yeah, that’s a good question” right now. Sorry for that. Hopefully as we get farther into this, we’ll have more definitive answers to share.

Welcome Razorfish!

Saturday, July 31st, 2010

Fight welcomes the new kids on the block:

(Yes, we fixed the “Z” after this photo ;)

Here’s a movie of this going up:

GitR 3: The Big Idea

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Here’s another entry in the info-snacking firing line that we call “Get in the Ring”.  The topic that I had 3 minutes to cover (without any prep) was: The Big Idea.

For the uninitiated, the Big Idea is what advertising companies (and, increasingly, all marketing companies) sell: The OMG moment, captured in a 30 second commercial, magazine spread, web site, or banner ad.

We’re big fans of the Big Idea, as a rule.  The problem is that it is typically the end of the conversation about reaching an audience, where as we believe that it’s really just the beginning.

Anyway, here’s me taking a shot at this unexpectedly after I drew it from the 60-odd other topics that we had to blindly draw from.

Ad Age AdReview Columnist Bob Garfield Jumps Ship

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

Bob Garfield, the venerable ad critic, who has written the AdReview column for Ad Age for 25 years, is hanging up his hatchet spurs. He signed off here – Garfield Says Adieu AdReview. He will be missed.

Meanwhile he did a tongue-in-cheek farewell interview with the New York Times David Carr for the Decoder blog. Here’s an extract:

Decoder: “The Chaos Scenario.” Got it. Nothing like repetition to goose the brand. Give me the IM version of what the book is about.

Garfield: Mass media implodes due to the digital revolution. For several reasons, advertising doesn’t work in a digital/micromedia world. That decoupling ends the most delicious 350-year accident of history: Mass advertising underwriting high-production-value mass media, including journalism, broadcast television, etc. The book lays out the problem, then talks about what happens next, not just for media and marketing, but all institutions operating in a suddenly no-longer-top-down world.

Decoder: Gee, I work for an ad-supported business, should I be worried?

Garfield: You should be very worried, very, very, very worried. The New York Times has a pretty good chance of being one of the survivors, but not likely in anything close to its current robust form, which itself is a shadow of its 1990 self.

Decoder: I wish you hadn’t typed “very” worried three times.

And from Bob’s Ad Age adieu

The most repugnant advertisers of my tenure? [Edit] – General Motors, for 1) jumping on the gruesome tragedy of 9/11 to sell Chevys and Pontiacs with its perverse “Keep America Rolling” 3,000-dead sale-a-bration (2001), and 2) having the gall on Earth Day, after decades of lobbying against emissions and mileage standards, to celebrate “environmental progress” (1990).

This, I said, was akin to “John Wayne Gacy celebrating the International Year of the Child.” The AdReview staff was proud of that one.

And what’s Garfield doing next? “Naked greed. From this point forward, my brain is for rent. I will be forming partnerships with three or four organizations for the purpose of selling to marketers what I’ve been dispensing gratis for decades. This possibly will bring me money, which is good for buying things.”

An Update on The 30 Coffees Project

Friday, March 5th, 2010

You may or may not know that in February, Fight kicked off its 30 Coffees project. 30 coffees is an idea conjured up by Fight partner, Rob Shields, and at its heart it’s a simple social web exercise. As Rob said at the beginning – “Fight has an awesome community of supporters, so we thought: Who better to turn to to help us make a good thing better? We believe that Fight is a different kind of company from other marketing strategy firms, and we’d like to get some practice talking about ourselves to people in the business, marketing, and agency worlds so that when we talk to potential clients we can really shine.”

I have already met with 16 people since we started, and along the way the concept became elastic enough to include meetings I have had with some of the heads of Portland’s advertising and marketing agencies. It’s been a fascinating discussion, and I stress the word discussion as this was never intended to be an opportunity to pitch people, it is intended to help Fight form its own internal and external narrative. The feedback from the talks has been extremely useful. And more importantly, by the end of the project [it looks like it may run over a bit because of scheduling plus my speaking engagement at SXSW,] I am certain we will have honed our story along with our elevator pitch, and have them nailed down. 14 more to go and then I will be writing up the whole endeavor very soon…

I wish to say thanks to the first set of participants. I’ve included their Twitter accounts where possible, so if you use Twitter I encourage you to follow these good people:

Erik Johnson
David Burn @davidburn
Brandon Schoessler @transport_1
Denny Mcentire @dfatouchi
Dian Crawford @diancrawford
Aaron Day
Jennifer Day-Burget @portlandwater
Jennie Fitzhugh @sasquatcha
Stephen Landau @stlandau
Ed Borasky @znmeb
Bryan Rhoads @bryanrhoads
Jay Cosnett @jaycosnett
Amanda Bernard
Jim Woolfrey @informative
Charlie Quirk @CharlieQuirk
Emanuel Brown @emanuelbrown

And honorable mentions to the following for being involved, somewhat unwittingly!

Ashly Stewart @AshlyStewart
David Ewald @motorcoatdave
Justin Yeun @jyuen
Rebecca Armstrong @rebeccamary
Arve Overland @ArveOverland
Jerry Ketel @JerryKetel
Dennis Hahn

Fight, Iterative Marketing and 30 Coffees

Saturday, February 13th, 2010

Iterative Marketing Fight Portland

In the early stages of the 30 Coffees in 30 Days rollout, AdPulp’s David Burn joined the fray and the result was a well-rounded discussion of how Fight approaches Iterative Marketing. David wrote up his thoughts afterwards and posted them to AdPulp. Here’s an extract:

“Dave Allen, a partner in Fight–the strategic marketing firm he launched last year with Justin Spohn and Rob Shields–is holding court. He asked me to join him in order to practice his agency’s pitch. I said yes because I like Dave, he promised me beer(s) and I’m curious about Fight’s strategy-is-all business model.
Allen says he, and his partners, are frustrated by traditional advertising, and undue reliance on the big idea. “Fight is a right idea company,” he says. Allen adds that the big idea is a Hail Mary, every time.
Fight’s response to the rise of the Internet and the profound impact it has had on not only marketing, but culture, is something called “iterative marketing.” Iterative means “steps.” Thus, an iterative marketing strategy is built on many little steps, versus one big idea.”

Read the whole article here.

Related post by Fight partner Rob Shields

Fight at Webtrends Engage 2010 Conference in New Orleans

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

Fight Portland Engage 2010 Digital Strategy

The Big Idea vs The Right Idea

“The future does not fit in the containers of the past.”Rishad Tobaccowala

We here at Fight are very pleased to say that we have been invited by Webtrends to both attend their Engage 2010 Conference in New Orleans, as well as make a presentation while we are there. We are very grateful to Webtrends for giving us the chance to discuss how we work with our clients by helping them to understand the digital marketing landscape, while reducing risk and maximizing their project goals and achieving real ROI.

Engage 2010 is now sold out, but for those of you in attendance you will hear from speakers such as Rives, the co-host of Bravo channel’s show Ironic Iconic America and a TED regular, as well as, Stephen Baker, senior writer covering technology for Business Week, True/Slant founder Lewis Dvorkin, and the Huffington Post‘s Paul Berry and many more.

At 3PM, on Tuesday, February 2nd, Fight co-founder, Justin Spohn, presents The Evolution Revolution: An Introduction To Iterative Marketing.

Overview:

The digital landscape is one of continual change and has been for more than a decade. Yet, contemporary digital marketing still employs the methods and process of the past. This means that the traditional approach of heavy up front research, long development cycles, and post-launch optimization is no longer sufficient to guarantee success. What’s needed is a method of improving your marketing strategy as you build it.

Taking key elements from extreme programming, iterative marketing is a fairly radical departure from this traditional approach. It is based on an understanding of the nature of the medium, and the opportunities that it provides. Combining it with modern analytics and traditional discovery and research, iterative marketing breaks down the “big idea” approach to marketing into small steps done with a specific purpose, evaluates the results, adapts change to inform the next step, always building, and always learning, with the goal of maximizing business goals.

In this talk, we’ll discuss what iterative marketing is, how it works, and how it’s able to reduce risk while maximizing project goals with an emphasis on real, and measurable, ROI.

Justin and I look forward to meeting you at the event. You can follow us on Twitter here – Justin @adognamedpants and Dave @DaveAtFight. You can also follow Engage 2010 @wtengage and the official hashtag for the event is #wtengage

Rishad Tobaccowala – Future Moves

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

Late last year I had the distinct pleasure of hearing Rishad Tobaccowala and Simon Mainwaring give a talk to some of Deb Morrison‘s students at the University of Oregon’s White Stag building in Portland, Or. Rishad has a way of explaining himself so thoroughly and incisively that he left me feeling like I was in 3rd grade..

This weekend, I came across an article, Future Moves, that he had written for the Economic Times of India. As usual he has some interesting insights into what we might call our digital future and how it will align with our analog existence. Here’s a couple of his thoughts below. Read the whole article here. I also recommend checking out Denuology.

REAL TIME SOCIAL PLATFORMS

SMS which is still the world’s most used communication medium is a social platform. But with 350 million Facebook users, tens of millions Twitter users and a range of local and international innovations (Google real time search) that combine real time and social we are going to see an explosion in the impact of both word of mouth and real time information . For instance in many ways the best way to keep abreast of the 11/9 terror in Mumbai was twitter and real time live streams. Expect every media company and consumer brand to invest in real time listening and response in 2010.

THE RISE OF THE POST DIGITAL WORLD

The world is going increasingly digital but a) the majority of media and marketing is analog and b) people are analog. Thus it is wrong to become overly hysterical even in advanced digital penetration countries by screaming about “digital at the core” ! What is important is people and their needs and passions at the core and most of us combine the real and virtual worlds in ways that allow us to connect, save money and time and pursue our passions. We use mobile tools to have real world meetings and we enhance real world occasions with digital augmentation. Just like Walmart stores are paying a lot of attention to digital capabilities one can expect digital companies like Amazon to have analog or real world presence . Today besides Kindle you will see Amazon stores and maybe even book stores just like Apple has its online store and its real stores.

Shooting Ourselves in the “Engagment” Face

Friday, January 8th, 2010

It all started Thursday morning when I saw this tweet. Describing himself as “In the zone”, the author proceeds to spend three minutes railing against the concept of ROI in web based marketing, claiming that ROI is the tool of the fearful and that key to effective marketing is…something else. This type of proud and boastful ignorance is so common in marketing, it’s almost not worth even responding to, but for some reason, Meerman really got under my skin.

This line of “logic” typically centers around two basic concepts:
1) You can’t measure the ROI of T.V. or Billboards, or any number of other marketing efforts, so why are we worried about it for the web?
2) ROI is outmoded, and what we should be looking at is some “brand new” RO_ fill in the blank. The current favorite is something called “Return on Engagement”. Ugh.

Now, this topic is a big part of why I helped found Fight, so maybe I’m a little more sensitive than others, but this is something that has affected every agency I’ve worked for, and every agency every one of my friends has worked for. My feeling is that as long as we, as an industry, wave our hands at this, we’re just going to keep fighting the battles with our clients that we always have. Until we embrace our role, and benefit, to the business of our clients, we’ll always be the ones with the shrinking budgets, forced to justify everything we do in some sort of aesthetic argument with people who may or may not have any understanding of what we do. Instead of looking at ROI as a limit to creative freedom, we should be embracing it as our single best path forward in expanding that freedom.

Looking at point 1) Can one measure the ROI of a billboard or a T.V. spot? Possibly. I would say probably. But lets say for the sake of argument that we can’t. What does that have to do with anything? Shouldn’t we be measuring the value of our work where ever we can? And besides, the web stands to be possibly the most important marketing tool available precisely because it can be so well measured. I have no idea why we’d ignore such a powerful aspect to this medium.

As for point 2) The fact of the matter is this: Every single thing our clients “invest” (or, for clarification, pay us) in, has some sort of “return”. The fact that aspects of this return may be hard to measure doesn’t mean it’s not there. Without knowing what to measure, and how to measure it though, we’re left just guessing if our work has any value. Worse, we can’t prove its value to our clients. The real problem here arises when agencies fail to ask questions of their clients at the start of projects. Is increased sales the reason your client came to you? Then you better be sure you design a program to increase sales, and then measure your results. Is “engagement” the most important thing to them? Then the return on their investment is a demonstration of increased engagement. Find out how to measure that.

Continuing to ignore the role of ROI in marketing, or worse, couching it in some sort of pseudo-science, is not just a sign of systemic laziness in our industry, it’s keeping us in the backseat when it comes to our role in business when we should helping to lead the way.

NOTE: This was originally posted on thisisviolence.net

Dear Marketers – The Web Is Not A TV Channel

Monday, January 4th, 2010

On David Foster Wallace, the Social Web and How We Watch Now

Most Photographed Barn in America
The Most Photographed Barn In America – Credit: Jeff Clow/Flickr

This essay was inspired by David Foster Wallace’s own essay, E Unibus Plurum; Television and U.S. Fiction [1993,] on how television is an incredible gauge of the generic and how [at the time] that affected new fiction writing. It appears in his collection ‘A Supposedly Fun Thing I Will Never Do Again.’ Wallace also discusses, rather neatly, another influence of mine – Don Delillo’s novel White Noise, written 25 years ago. From Wikipedia – “White Noise explores several themes that emerged during the mid-to-late twentieth century, e.g., rampant consumerism, media saturation, novelty intellectualism, underground conspiracies, the disintegration and re-integration of the family, and the potentially positive virtues of human violence. The title “white noise” may be a metaphor pointing to the confluence of all of those aforementioned symptoms.”

Cheap Holidays In Other People’s Misery

In the past two decades TV viewers in the U.S. stepped up to another level of armchair voyeurism – glueing themselves to the screen as they voraciously gobbled up untold amounts of reality TV garbage. [The Sex Pistols had a great song back in 1977 called Holidays In The Sun which included the lyric - 'Cheap Holidays In Other People's Misery.' I mention it here, as it seems rather fitting.]

As we begin a new decade, 17 years since Wallace wrote that essay, how we “watch” has now changed forever. We view the social web through a TV-shaped monitor but the similarities end right there. 17 years ago, as much as any outgoing, wildly exhibitionist young person would have loved to expose themselves [literally and figuratively] on a reality TV show, they couldn’t. That was because of the walled garden approach those TV show’s producers took – you had to be invited, you had to audition. Now, the simple act of opening your browser means you are unequivocally participating in the social web – a wholly different technology and distribution platform – so hey kids, be our guest, go crazy! And they do.

I am not attempting to make a preemptive strike against TV watching here, nor do I wish to foment a TV versus social web debate – I’m far more interested in exploring the distinct differences in these mediums. The same year that Wallace wrote his essay, saw the debut of the NCSA Mosaic web browser. Marc Andreessen, who led that development team, went on to start Netscape, a company that brought us the browser of the same name, which became enormously popular and accounted for 90% of all web use at its peak. [Source: Wikipedia]

Much has unfolded since, as browser development moved through various iterative stages, yet 17 years later, many brands and their agencies still struggle to fully comprehend the difference between TV advertising and the strategic approach that is required to utilize the social web.

The history of the web is short, and as a modern phenomenon it has a shorter history than TV, although its initial take up rate was almost identical – 10 years to get to 80 million users. [The chart referenced in that link presumes the Internet became public in 1989 so it covers the decade through 1999.] Let’s also remember that before TV, radio was the media of choice for receiving information, so the Internet take up rate in the decade ‘89 – ‘99 is impressive, as it was competing against a modern, built-out version of TV networks and a larger modern radio spectrum, for attention.

The Social Web

If Wallace were still alive today, he would have had an awful lot to say about the explosion of people using the Social Web. Especially when you take into consideration how in his essay, he noted that people held a lot of disdain for TV, yet they were unable to not watch it. He would surely have noted that the rapid rise of social networking was an ironic parallel of being unable to not watch TV, as “Wallace used many forms of irony, focusing on individuals’ continued longing for earnest, unself-conscious experience, and communication in a media-saturated society.”

Wallace wrote almost as if he were writing for the web, especially with his use of extensive footnotes – On the Charlie Rose show in 1997, Wallace claimed that the notes were used to disrupt the linearity of the narrative, to reflect his perception of reality without jumbling the entire structure. He suggested that he could have instead jumbled up the sentences, “but then no one would read it.” [Source: Wikipedia.]

As we now know, the web is anything but linear. What Wallace was attempting to achieve with his literature, the web provides immediately. Vannevar Bush considered this promise, along with an explosion in knowledge, in 1945 when he wrote As We May Think.

The Web Is Just One Application on The Internet

One thing is also certain – the web and TV are two entirely different platform technologies. It feels odd to have to write that sentence, yet here we are on the cusp of 2010 and we still see badly executed brand campaigns online; where those inside the agencies who conceived of their client’s online campaign, appear to be convinced that web users surf the web just as they surf TV channels. They seem to forget, as Wired Editor-In-Chief, Chris Anderson, reminds us, “that the Internet is the once-a-century invention. The Web is just one application upon it. There are, and will be, others.”

Application, medium, platform, there is much that is constantly shifting on the current application medium, the web. And as Marshal McLuhan said – “The medium is an environment that produces effects.” He suggests in a TV medium, that it’s the television circuits, screen etc. that are the ad coaxing us to buy. In 2009 that means it’s the bits, bytes and code that are tantalizing us online…that may be as close to TV as the web gets.

Here’s an extract from an academic paper titled Internet Users and TV Audiences:

“What needs to be considered is how users conceive and use the medium. Because the decision to adopt a medium is dependent on users, not on the functions in the medium, therefore, we need to focus on perceptions and actual uses of it.

Before embarking on any online effort, clients should be in a position to ask hard questions of their advertising or marketing agency, because what’s being said here, is that strategy should be based on actual user experience, not on presumed or expected use. There is no “build it and they will come” on the web.

We need someone with Wallace’s insightful genius to write E Unibus Plurum; Advertising, Marketing and the Social Web.

(more…)