In a nutshell, which is incidentally where Bohr spent most of his winters, it’s a forced reconciliation between classical and quantum mechanics.

I say “forced” because it was decreed, rather than proven.

And so physicists have spent much of the past 90 years attempting—without success—to fully explain the disparate behavior of microscopic and macroscopic systems. What hope is there, then, for marketers, who’ve spent cumulatively about a day and a half?

Yet this is our ultimate charge as marketing professionals: to reconcile observations of individuals with observations of mass markets in a grand, unified theory.

How are we doing? In a word: Drinkability.

I’m further reminded of our collective failure by the recent success story from the CERN facility in Geneva, where scientists have broken the record for high-energy subatomic particle collisions, and potentially recreated the universe’s initial mechanics following the Big Bang.

Now there was some risk involved. It cost billions of dollars, and there was a slight possibility of miniature black holes devouring the universe (I’d love to see the crisis communications plan CERN’s PR team put together for this contingency). But the point is, they’re making progress.

We marketers, on the other hand, are using EEG scans to determine whether individual consumers prefer penguins or giraffes.

We’re using the same, tired focus groups to test vague product attributes—in search of safe, broad consensus. We’re, quite literally, asking whether it’s important to be able to drink a beverage. And we’re building multi-million dollar campaigns around these “insights.”

In short, we’re still looking for easy answers in a complex world.

Quantum theory isn’t simple. It’s tremendously intricate—a disciplined, patient examination of concealed reality.

The marketing community’s response: crowdsourcing.

Nothing gets by my vigilant scrutiny.

Well, except maybe for the current financial crisis, the war in Iraq, global warming, the rise of Hitler, and the Bolshevik Revolution.

But the point is, when it comes to TV commercials, I’m focused like a laser beam.

So you can imagine my disbelief when I saw the exact same mediocre fish stick commercial airing twice, each time for a different brand.

The identical commercial, mind you: one with a Van de Kamps product shot, another with a Mrs. Paul’s.

Look, it’s like if Coke and Pepsi started airing the same TV spots. Actually it’s worse. Because the venomous rancor in the frozen fish stick industry is arguably the world’s most venomous (and rancorous).

(Little-known fact: Mrs. Paul travels to Amsterdam every summer to personally spit on the grave of Ulysses R. Van de Kamp.)

Anyway, I did some digging, and it turns out both companies are owned by the same parent conglomerate, Pinnacle Food Group, LLC.

So they must have thought: hey, we’ve already got one incredible commercial (which is actually pretty insipid), why bother to produce another one?

Why, you ask? Who cares? Capitalism cares.

See, if companies start doing this, the whole illusion of brand differentiation is going to evaporate.

Sure, it’s the same product sold by both companies.

It’s probably made in the same factory from the same ingredients by the same underpaid workers.

But do we really have to emphasize that fact by running the same freaking commercial?

It’s either the boldest move in corporate history, or the most cynical.

10 bucks says it’s haddock.

Or, to put it another way, reduction.

In an optimal marketing equation, everything is reducible, everything is simple.

Take for example, the brain.

Now you might reflexively say that the brain is anything but simple. Yet when you look at a single neuron, a single synapse, it’s a rather rudimentary circuit. The complication comes when you multiply these base components by the billions. Suddenly, through nothing more than volume, simplicity gives way to complexity.

IBM knows it.

They’ve been able to replicate simple brain sequences. So they thought, why not put those sequences in a powerful cortical simulator and generate a full, working model of a mammalian brain.

Trouble is, even though the simulation works, they can’t seem to figure out how.

Upon reaching a certain level of complexity, the model becomes just as abstruse as the genuine article. And it doesn’t just happen with cognitive science.

McDonalds tests everything. Every burger, every secret sauce. They test single-blind, double-blind, focus groups, massive regional trials. A sandwich is simple. But a billion sandwiches are inexplicably complex.

Which is why despite all that testing, you still see phenomenal product failures like the Arch Deluxe.

And this is our fate in the modern world. From Adam and Eve to the most chaotic, unpredictable system in the universe.

But enough about D.C. traffic patterns.

Here’s to a safer — and simpler — new year.

I love keeping up with cutting edge technologies and industry trends because you never know when a fresh idea can enhance a campaign or brand image. Even though a new technology may be all the range and innovative, every business and industry shouldn’t rush out and attempt to quickly insert it into a new media approach just because everyone else is doing it. But if a trend is able to align with given business goals and audiences, experimental technology and strategy can sometimes brilliantly go hand-in-hand. There are a few good marketing examples of experimenting and adopting AR technology that achieves these objectives.

BMW and the USPS have not only used AR to create something viral that helps drive consumer buzz, but it also serves as a strategic application that flaunts products/services. In BMW’s Z4 campaign, a virtual car displays the car’s features and creates an interactive game by allowing the user to mark up his or her desk while controlling though the computer keyboard.  USPS’ new AR application allows consumers to simulate priority shipping options when making a decision on packing size differences.

New Android mobile devices have just released an app called Layar, and the iPhone is now developing Twitter 360, which will become some of the first augmented reality browsers on mobile. The apps will create real-world GPS compasses and visualize twitter friends in real-time through a phone’s camera screen.

Even print publications have gotten in the mix. Esquire Magazine just released an experimental AR December issue that features an introduction on the cover by Robert Downy Jr., three dimensional celebrity interviews, and interactive fashion features through your webcam. While development of the issue cost a great deal of time and money, the magazine is still constantly attempting to progress.

Many believe augmented reality is the future of advertising. This new technology already has the ability to create amazing interactions between digital and print. In a quickly evolving mobile world, augmented reality just might give new relevancy to future print usage if tactics continue to evolve. Any Smartphone could have the potential to turn an ad into an interactive 3D masterpiece. As long as it continues to be used strategically and not just as a gimmick, future possibilities for AR marketing are endless.

“I’d hate to think what they do to their lesser employees,” was the obvious rejoinder. And it got us thinking: If there’s one thing the Internet is good for, it’s preserving humiliating mistakes for the world to laugh at again and again for all eternity.

So with that said, here’s our three favorites:

www.mofo.com
(Alleged law firm Morrison & Foerster allegedly uses this alleged domain as a marketing tool. Memorable, to say the least. Allegedly that is. Please don’t sue.)

www.whorepresents.com
(I came across this site while shopping for a gift for my… friend. Turns out it’s a listing of celebrity agents and publicists. Talk about false advertising. Or… maybe not…)

www.penisland.net
(Ah, the world famous Pen Island Pen Company. Not to be confused with www.penisland.com which is… pretty much what you think.)

• Elton John
• Battleship
• Star Wars
• Jimi Hendrix
• Personal computer
• Aerosmith
• Charlie’s Angels
• Robert Redford AND Clint Eastwood!

You also didn’t have to be there to be happy the 70’s are behind us:

• Waterbeds
• Polyester
• Beatle’s breakup
• The Exorcist (personal opinion)
• Woody Allen (personal opinion)

You may or may not agree with my list arrangements but one thing is indisputable, there has been a definite progression from the 1970’s to today in all sorts of trends and industries. Advertising is no exception.

Some companies may say “we’ve been doing the same thing for XX years, why do we need some ‘expert’ to come in and tell us how to deliver our message differently?” Well, keeping progression in mind, do you think that as big as the three brands below are, could they sell thier products today with these same ads they used in the 1970s?

The Gap, 1978

The tone in the Gap ad is idealistic and full of promise, a message which was very important during this peace and answer-seeking era.

Herbal Essences, 1975

This Herbal Essences advertisement acknowledges the “new” awareness of the environment that occurred in the 1970’s.

Jordache, 1979

Thanks to the 1960s “free love” spirit and the advent of feminism, advertisers in the 1970’s were not shy about using images of full or partially nude men and women, as well as images of people sharing sexual embraces. This is not the most brash of examples, but it was what I thought most appropriate for this blog.

As you can see, advertising in the 1970’s really reflected what was happening to society in that day. All of these brands still see success and recognition today, but not without changing with the times. We all need to embrace progression if for no other reason than because it will give us something to learn from and even laugh at almost 40 years later…

But in any case, I just happened to catch the ad campaign for Verizon’s new iPhone killer, the Motorola Droid, and I found myself asking: What were they thinking? From a branding perspective, this new product name is about as inspirational as hemorrhoid cream.

What’s in a product name? Everything. When I hear the word “droid,” it doesn’t make me feel happy, content, inspired, fun, or anything remotely related to personal or workplace productivity.

The brand persona initiated by the “droid” name is the exact opposite of what Verizon needs when competing against Apple’s brand of user-friendliness, easy navigation, clean design, and personable identity.

With “Droid,” it sounds like Verizon should have used Preparation-H for their naming scheme. Moreover, the whole notion that they can take a bite out of Apple by highlighting features—like full keyboard, simultaneous apps, and open development—just reinforces Verizon’s lack of  understanding about what makes the iPhone so popular.

It’s the brand persona, stupid.

Sorry, Verizon. Love your service, but your product naming needs help.

Here’s what I think: Metrics are trying to destroy advertising with their gosh-darn holy grail promises of career indemnity. And it’s breeding an industry of cowards, who’d rather cover their behinds than cover their sales quotas.

So instead of time-tested advertising techniques that have worked for the past 60 years, companies are running to embrace a host of shaky, digital solutions. Again, not because they’re more effective. Because they’re easier to measure.

Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of this? Should we cease the space program simply because it’s hard to quantify the value of interstellar exploration in terms of EBITDA?

Data is a means to an end.

It’s not an end in itself. Never was, never will be. Not to mention that it’s the most easily manipulated substance on the planet.

So let’s evaluate tools on their actual merits, not on how easily they can populate impressive-looking charts.

I think we know all this, instinctively. Sometimes we just need a swift kick in the groin.

Sidewiki is a relatively new tool that allows any user with a Google login to post comments (positive or negative, benign or mischievous) about any webpage that will appear in a sidebar frame of the browser for any other user to see. Furthermore, the owners of the website have no power to remove said comments (Google reserves sole moderation rights). Imagine if you will, the din of a flame war going on directly adjacent to your homepage for the world, and more importantly your prospects, to see. Yikes! (see The Google Sidewiki Controversy) Even more scary, the idea that these posters are now given the power to define your brand for you if you are not monitoring carefully and maintaining a steady stream of corrective comments. (see Don’t Blame Google Sidewiki if Your Brand Takes Another Hit) Brand management in the age of social media is not really a new idea anymore, but this particular application brings into shocking clarity the need for such management due to its extreme proximity to your most important outward facing channel, your website.

Google Sidewiki is still relatively new and adoption rates are unclear at this point but regardless of any personal feelings I may hold about Google overstepping here, the point is clear, social media, while no panacea, is a force that must be recognized in strategic brand management for the foreseeable future.

Google Sidewiki may just be the flavor of the month social media tool, but make no mistake; other tools are currently under development in some garage somewhere in the world that will one day be the next outlet demanding your direct and immediate attention. The only way to truly prepare for the onslaught is to make sure you have a well thought out and defensible brand platform and a strategy that allows for the rapid adoption of new channels to manage that brand.