In the world of online forums, blogs and social media that I prowl around, it's not uncommon to see spats arise and be played out publicly between individuals (particular between more techie minded users - sorry developers yes that means you).  For a serial spectator like myself, sometimes they can be very funny, sometimes they provide a nice diversion, but more often than not they are a bit sad and embarrassing. Mostly they are insignificant.  

It's certainly not the kind of behaviour you'd expect businesses to get caught up in.

So last week it was interesting to observe two brands I respect succumb to such foolery.  Howies & Finisterre got into their own little online ding-dong, played out on their blogs. (I have to declare being a loyal customer of both, having a bit of a fetish for UK-designed technical clothing).

Finisterre started it, with a blog post moaning about Howies bidding on their name on PPC, seeing themselves as the aggrieved underdog.  'How could they', the blog said (I'm paraphrasing to keep it short), 'target us as a fledgling brand. They should support us little guys rather than try to wipe us out'. Oh, at the same time they point out how Howies has sold out to 'the man', being now owned by corporates.

Howies then responded, publishing their actual PPC stats claiming that bidding on the brand name actually has resulted in hardly any business anyhow, itself an implicit put down, saying they've tried to call Finisterre but that they've been avoiding their calls.   

Both posts were accompanied by the usual range of comments, from the considered and unconsidered, through all flavours of bias.

The rule on this kind of thing: whenever there's a bit of public mud-slinging, neither side comes off particularly well.

Both brands quickly realised this, and did what they should have done in the first place: had a chat on the phone.  They had used their blogs like the worst type of email exchange - getting into a silly little argument that never would have arisen if they'd have spoken. At least they had the sense to end it fast.

Finisterre has stamped 'case closed' on their blog post. Howies has removed it from their blog altogether. This may do a pretty good thing of covering things for the future, though for those couple of days it was very visible to most of their advocates, those who follow their blogs and social media.  It was a bit like overhearing an argument between a couple you are friendly with: you learn things you don't want to about both them and in general you could just do without it.

Both still make very nice clothes though.

Flash had a bit of a hard time in 2010, and many will point the finger at Apple. When the iPad was released, consumers complained Flash didn't appear on the device, like its iOS sisters: the iPhone and iPod touch. Steve Jobs' Thoughts on Flash open letter cleverly spins the argument for not supporting the tech as a 'feature' as opposed to a 'hindrance'... in a "this is for your own good", kinda way.

They have now taken this one step further by shipping all new Macs without Flash pre-installed for Mac OS X - which started with the MacBook Air and now on all new Macs. Apple claim this is because users will not receive the latest version on initial install, and so have given them the "choice" to install Flash themselves, making it less, "Flash! Ahhhh!" and more, "Flash! Arrggh!"

Apple-cynics will argue that Jobs is dictating what technology us consumers are and are not 'allowed' to use. But cynic or evangelist, one would be forgiven for thinking Apple is trying to flush the technology completely. It raises many questions regarding the future of Adobe's adopted baby, and whether it is indeed obsolete...

It seems to me that nearly every ad on the box these days tries to annoy you into buying their products. Whether it's irritating jingles, weird puppets or damn right nonsensical industry jargon, ads seem to be more ridiculous and unbearable than ever before.

Before you start shooting me down, I'm well aware that for many advertising agencies this is exactly the intention. They want to invent situations so ridiculous or so grating that you can't possibly forget them or their brands in the future. They become part of your subconscious so that the next time you come to get insurance, sell your gold via mail(!) or use a search comparison site, their logo is etched well and truly into your brain. Whether you like it or not.

But this has got me wondering: does this mean we're more likely to buy their products? I, for example, dislike Gio Compario, the star of the Go Compare ads (see above), so much that I would rather pay more to use another brand that doesn't make me want to kill.

I admit I'm probably fighting a losing battle because I'm sure they're here to stay. They're obviously working because there are more and more. So, instead, I'll give my top 10 most hated TV ads. And if there are any that you think I've missed, let me know using the comment form below. Enjoy.

Can't Jump? Won't Jump.

So the image of b2b marketing is still generally seen as straight-laced and stuffy.

*Yawn*

It doesn't have to be like this. Hell, it shouldn't be like this.

No room for a windbreak, even

But it's because of this perception that b2b still offers great opportunities for Creatives to make a big splash - far more visibly than on the overcrowded beaches of b2c, where even great creativity is drowning, not waving. But as far as attracting more creative talent goes, b2b marketing's image needs rebranding. Because the opportunities for b2c Creatives in b2b are many.

I've just seen this recent cross-industry survey into B2B Buyers use of Social Media which compares how decision makers use various types of media through the process of making major business purchases. Good to see some solid research in this area. You can see a quick description of the research here. It revealed that word of mouth was second only to visiting supplier websites when identifying and selecting a supplier. Everyone knows that WoM is important - it was the level that surprised me - it was used by 45% of those surveyed for indentifying potential suppliers and by 40% for actual selection. Around 70% of these people considered WoM to be very influential. It struck me that, since social media is effectively 'word of mouth' and its usage for business is increasing - especially in the up to 30s age group with around 25% already using Twitter and blogs, there is a strong case for believing social media will soon become a key method for B2B purchasing decisions as more buyers seek the opinions of others on line. Businesses adopting a marketing strategy that encompasses social media will increasingly reap the rewards as late adopters' share of online 'voice' decreases.

One note of caution - the report also revealed business users' concerns about the accuracy and reliability of information gathered through social media along with the increasing volume of information to wade through. It seems certain that buyers will become more selective in where they look online. I think it's true that many companies/brands are putting out information and opinion based on existing information found on the social networks and expecting it to work for them. It's a reasonable approach up to a point, but me-too content is as weak as me-too products. I bet the biggest winners in social media marketing will be the ones who put a big effort into creating original content to become valued voices in their industry.

Many male readers will sympathise about having to miss an important football match because of other engagements. (If you’re as sad as me, you’ll have all the fixtures in your diary so you check before you agree to do anything). Those less keen on football find it hard to understand how missing a football match can be such a big deal.

JWT used this common disagreement to their advantage in this very clever campaign for Heineken.

Over 200 accomplices were used to trick 1136 Italian students, boyfriends and journalists into missing a vital Champions League fixture: AC Milan versus Real Madrid. Much to their annoyance, they would spend an evening watching a combination of poetry and classical music. Little did they know that they would be in for a big surprise - and it would be broadcast to 1.5 million people.

Watch the video below to see the results.

Spring is (supposedly) here and, if you’re anything like me, you’ll be fantasising about all the things you can do outside, just as soon as the weather becomes bearable and we’re treated to lighter and longer days. Right now I’m thinking about the joys of cycling around Richmond Park in the sunshine followed by a nice pub lunch and a cold beer. I’m so excited about it that I’m thinking about getting myself a new bike for the summer.

I’m not one to impulse buy. For me, part of the excitement of buying something of any great expense (I’ll be riding it to work every day, so I intend to get one that will last) is reading up about it, speaking to a couple of ‘experts’ and trying to hunt down the best price. I may spend days - weeks, perhaps - working out which one I’ll buy and how to get the best deal. I’ll visit retailers, go Google shopping and hunt around for any sales.

I’m sad, I know, but me admitting that is not the point of this blog.

Days after trawling through cycle shops’ websites, hunting for the ideal bike, I was minding my own business on a non-bike-related site when a banner ad caught my eye. Nothing unusual about that, you’ll say, but this particular banner ad was about the very bike I had my beady little eye on while ‘on the hunt’ - the bike at the top of my shortlist. Coincidence, I thought. But then this happened on another site. And another. I started to think I was going a little crazy…

After speaking with the web geniuses in the project management team at Base One, I realise that I wasn’t crazy (or, if I am, that it was unrelated). It was in fact a clever targeted banner that stored what I had been looking at in a cookie. It could then find me wherever I went in the future. A stalking banner, if you will. Very clever, huh? Well, is it? Or is it just creepy?

Then something similar happened. I was also looking for a cookery book on Amazon later that week. Lo and behold, I get an email a day or two later with a few alternative suggestions for cookery books I should consider.

In this instance, I wasn’t as spooked because Amazon has used a cookie to store your search history for as long as I can remember using the site. (I know this because I get recommended some lovely Cath Kidston kitchenware and kitchen wear each time I visit just because I bought some for my mum one Christmas.)

But, for me, there is a line that can be crossed between clever marketing and an invasion of privacy. That banner ad was like a little voice in my head that seemingly said, “Go on, buy me. Go on! Buy me. You know you will eventually because you’re weak.” Did it cross the line? To be honest, I’m not sure. Yes, I realise I can turn cookies off on my browser to stop this happening again, but I suppose my biggest worry is where it’s heading…

I remember a university lecturer telling us all that sooner rather than later the GPS feature found in many mobile phones would soon be used to advertise ads for a certain product or store as you walked past them in the street. Imagine walking past a KFC and your phone flashing an ad for their latest Mega Chicken Twister Tower Wrap thingy - I’d be huge within a year. At the time, I thought this lecturer was a little bonkers. Now I’m not so sure. After all, something not too dissimilar may already happen if you turn on your phone’s Bluetooth.

If this were to come true then surely the line between clever marketing and invasion of privacy has been crossed? When does an ad become a message that you can selectively filter and when does it become obtrusive and annoying? I’m afraid I’m too busy to tell you - I’ve got to go buy that bike.

Everyone likes a good testimonial. Glowing comments straight from another customer give you confidence in the brand. If they enjoyed it, you'll enjoy it. A recommendation from a genuine customer is worth its weight in gold.

But we weren't born yesterday. User comments are exploited to the max by marketers. They are edited. They are quoted out of context. They are sometimes even made up.

This has raised the bar. It means that an average testimonial - while accurate - does nothing.A user comment has to be glowing in the extreme these days to make an impact.

Find the very best. Find the comments with 'wow' factor. Find comments that make a customer think "I'll have what he's having".

And don't do what they did outside the Revolution Bar in Richmond [see above and below].

Are you an honest marketer? Or would you say anything to promote your brand?

Personally, I think you don't have a choice these days.

The world of marketing is regarded as a fast-paced, dynamic and innovative profession, but I am often disheartened by the cynicism it is sometimes regarded with. To many people, we are clever tricksters looking to make a quick buck at any price. It's easy to see why our reputation has degenerated in this way over the past few decades, but things are changing....

About three weeks ago, following massive objections by working mothers, the Outdoor Advertising Association ordered the withdrawal of an outdoor campaign, the first creative of which read "Career women make bad mothers".

Naturally, as a career woman/working mother myself, you can imagine my initial reaction in seeing a billboard with such a slogan plastered all over London! But at this point I thought, 'NO, NO...I won't give in to this...it is clearly supposed to raise a storm and I won't give them (the 'creative' agency) the satisfaction of showing my anger...'

But then, a week ago, I went to a dinner party, and lo and behold, what was the subject that we debated and argued about for an entire hour and half? You guessed it. The time had come to speak out.