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.

First, Dunkin Donuts is slightly more prevalent than the Catholic Church.

Second, Stop and Shop has a new logo that’s REALLY reminiscent of
Giant Food’s new logo.

Here they are side by side:

Who designed this thing, Jayson Blair?

And I don’t care that the two companies are now merged into one by their conglomerate ownership (awkwardly titled “Royal Ahold”). It’s still brand prostitution. One name, one logo—that’s my rule. Otherwise, it gets extremely disorienting for the traveling consumer.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes mergers so irritating. Plus, it muddies the water for other companies that seek intentionally misleading false affiliation.

Here’s the worst case scenario. Two companies, same name, one logo, no affiliation whatsoever:

Bunch of royal aholds if you ask me.

There has been quite a bit of buzz this week surrounding YouTube Direct, a platform that narrows the gap between news organizations and anyone with video-capture capabilities. Thanks to digital cameras that shoot video, the economically priced Flip video camcorder and the fact that many cell phones can now shoot video, that means A LOT more people just became citizen journalists.

The new tool allows media organizations to request, review and rebroadcast YouTube clips directly from YouTube users.

If you work in or with your communications department or agency, then you may be familiar with the idea of pitching stories to, or having stories broken by bloggers. You may have also heard horror stories of disgruntled customers sounding off on blogs, Twitter or Facebook. You also hear great stories about customers promoting brands themselves through those same outlets. Imagine all of this in video, and figure in that these videos may have just gotten exponentially easier for news organizations that hit your key demographics and stakeholders to upload and share.

There is a lot of exciting opportunity that YouTube’s new tool presents. Only time will tell whether or not this really takes off and how much the media will really put it to use. I imagine it will take off, though, since everyday people like you and me can capture a video faster than a news crew can arrive on a scene, and because having video to accompany a story makes the content much more rich and the story much more authentic.

The Washington Post, ABC-News, NPR and the Huffington Post are among the media outlets that have already used YouTube Direct.

Consider what doors this development opens, as well as what you need to be careful of. If you do not do regular YouTube searches related to your brand, you could be missing out on something that just got a lot easier for a news organization to find… for better or for worse.

• Government is using social media. Whether you are the Government or it is your customer, you should care that agencies aren’t just thinking about it any more, they are engaging. Many have started blogs and Facebook accounts. You can even find Government agencies on Twitter in what I consider to still be an early adoption stage. GovTwit is a great resource to see which agencies have already arrived to the party.

• If you don’t stake your claim soon, someone else will. Or perhaps they already have. At least getting your organization set up with a few basic social media accounts (with a verification seal if it is available with the service) ensures that no one else takes your name and either acts as an imposter or in the case of businesses, stakes the claim on your name or acronym that they may share with you, forcing you to go for “second best.” Staking your claim also applies to the fact that whether you are participating in social media or not, other people are and they are talking about your organization specifically for better or for worse. If they aren’t, it is only a matter of time. Better to get set up now so that you can monitor and engage. It is incredible how quickly rumors can be put to rest if you can respond yourself in real time!

• It is okay if you think it is overwhelming. I can’t even list every social media platform… and it is a part of my job. The fact is, you are doing something wrong if you are on them all. Just like any new tactic, it should be backed by strategy. Getting started with social media is less overwhelming if you take a step back and think about where your target audiences are participating and which tools help you communicate what you need to. For example, is recruitment a big goal? Then there isn’t a good reason for you not to be engaging with prospects on LinkedIn and Facebook for starters. See where it takes you from there rather then trying to take on every social media site at once.

• Everyone who is pushing you to get on social media is very aware there are security  and productivity concerns. We are not blind to this fact. This is why it is important to involve your IT and security personnel every step of the way, as well as to set up a formal social media policy to be shared organization-wide. Not sure where to begin with a social media policy? Begin with my first blog post. If you do a search for social media guidelines, you’ll find many great examples. View several because some are more comprehensive than others.

• The purpose is pretty simple, use social media to reach a goal. Got goals? Sure you do! Yes, some people do use their personal social media accounts to broadcast what their cat is getting into or that they are on their way to a meeting, but those people do not represent all of social media. Also, sometimes those people talk about other things, such as their government, employers, etc. So, they could still be your audience. But I digress… my point is that when an organization sets up an account, it is successful when there is a purpose. I am not encouraging you to get online just for giggles. I want you to use it to reach a goal. Set it in the beginning, and then decided how much time you need to invest to realistically meet that goal. Finally, measure for success!

• Final words: IT IS ALL FREE TO SIGN UP!!!

As it turns out, drug companies spend vastly more money on marketing than they do on research and development.

But to be fair, it takes a whole lot of ad dollars to sell brand-name drugs. After all, they’re legally identical to their “bioequivalent” counterparts.

So here’s what’s happening: after the initial drug patent has expired (20 years pre-clinical trials), drug companies have to spend billions to maintain their market share–which isn’t easy when Plavix costs five dollars per dose, and the Plavix biosimilar costs three cents.

But with a 50 billion dollar budget, the marketing works, and consumers (particularly American consumers since we’re one of, if not the only nation that doesn’t regulate drug prices) end up buying the brands they see on TV.

Only now, Senators Franken, Brown, and Whitehouse are proposing an end to the federal tax deduction for prescription drug marketing, as part of the current health care reform legislation.

Not surprisingly, the 4As and the AAF are up in arms, since this type of policy change could increase the cost of drug marketing by 35%.

Franken argues that tax payers shouldn’t have to subsidize pharmaceutical marketing campaigns while their own health care options remain cost-prohibitive.

I’ll be floored if this type of stipulation is ever approved in the Senate. But if it is, it’s bad news for a host of other ad agency cash cows that might lose their marketing tax deductions (fast food, alcohol, cigarettes).

Then again, if we started penalizing every business that’s detrimental to society, they’d have to close down Las Vegas.

• 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…

• Chris McGurn became the hero of nerds everywhere, citing recent data showing that more women than men use social media.
• Jonathan Katz wants to thin out crowdsourcing – by violence if necessary.
• Taryn Johnson joins Chris in talking about the feminine appeal of the social web by highlighting a great new campaign by Estee Lauder.
• Gal Borenstein explores why trusting no one is better left to spies and assassins than brand managers.
• Michael Johnson has Facebook lay down on the couch and talk about its feelings.
• Taryn Johnson and Jonathan Katz show us what they would look like. As Playmobiles. In the world of Tron.