Digital Rocket Surgery

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Thanks to Peter Shankman for bringing #Motrinmoms to my attention. It’s the top trending term on Twitter right now–meaning, there’s a huge amount of buzz on the subject.

So what’s the deal? Motrin produced an ad (currently still on the front page of Motrin.com) that completely sent LOTS of moms into orbit with offense. I’m not a mom; so I was unclear on the source of offense after watching the ad.

Then I watched this:

Makes more sense now. Best I can tell, it’s not that Motrin said anything directly offensive. It’s that they chose to speak on behalf of ‘baby toting mommies’ in a way that exposed the fact that they didn’t know what the hell they were talking about.

The ad should have ended with a disclaimer that ‘No Baby Toting Mothers Were Consulting During the Making of This Commercial.’

So moms were understandably offended when a company attempted to speak on their behalf and just, well, completely screwed it up.

Instead of appearing concerned and compassionate, Motrin ended up looking condescending and uninformed. Oops.

A few thoughts:

1. I would hate to be the ad agency that produced this. Like, I’d REALLY hate it. At the end of the day, they’ll likely take a bigger hit than Motrin. Motrin’s core business is making pain medication, and there are lots of demographics they DIDN’T upset that won’t ever hear about this.

The agency on the other hand is going to take a huge hit to their credibility in marketing research. The ad was actually really well done from a technical standpoint. It was catchy and unique. But catchy and unique don’t matter if you offend the very people you’re trying to market to.

Any new business pitch this agency does that includes their marketing research is likely to ring hollow for quite some time.

2. WHY IS THIS AD STILL ON THE FRONT OF MOTRIN.COM? This has only been going on today (Sunday), but if there’s been enough time to produce a 9+ minute YouTube video about this, you’d think somebody could have yanked the ad. Does Motrin not have anyone subscribed to Google Alerts, TweetBeep, etc?

3. It’s a really, really, really good idea to listen to your customers.  I’ve definitely made the mistake of plowing ahead in a direction I thought customers wanted only to find that if I’d just asked, I would have realized I was dead wrong. Answering questions no one is asking is a fast track to frustration and not-so-happy P&L sheets.

Many of the postcards on PostSecret are trainwrecks. This one wasn’t. Great idea. Enjoy!

Image via Wikipedia

Britain’s ‘Telegraph’ reports that online bookmaker Paddy Power allows you to place a wager on whether or not God exists. The current odds are 4-1.

The article reads:

A spokesman for Paddy Power said that confirmation of God’s existence would have to be verified by scientists and given by an independent authority before any payouts were made, however.

A few thoughts:

1. What counts as ‘God’? A friend of mine asked me the other day, ‘Are you convinced that God exists?’ I replied, ‘Yes, depending on what you mean by “convinced” and “God.”‘

I know the bet is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but scientific verfication of the God of the Bible seems like a nearly impossible order. Science might (miiiiiiiight) be able to demonstrate that some kind of intelligence independent of the known universe probably exists, but I can’t see that science can get any closer than that.

2. it seems downright impossible for science to disconfirm the existence of God. Some (many?) philosophers may argue that ‘God exists’ is logically inconsistent with propositions like ‘Evil exists.’ Since ‘Evil exists’ seems like an uncontroversial proposition, it would follow that God necessarily doesn’t exist.

But that’s a philosophical argument, not an empirical one. I have no idea how science could provide empirical evidence to prove the non-existence of God. Enlighten me if you know how that could work. I have no clue how.

3. If I were a betting man, my money would be on Paddy Power never having to pay out that money either way. (Of course, if I were a betting man, I’d realize that’s a dumb bet since it would never actually have to pay out in my favor…)

Last thing:

The article says:

Paddy Power’s book on the theological topic was only opened this year, but the notion that it is a good idea to gamble on God’s existence was first put forward in the 17th Century.

The French philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that although God’s existence cannot be proven through reason, it makes sense to have religious faith since a person has everything to gain – an “infinitely happy life” – and nothing to lose by doing so.

That’s a reference to ‘Pascal’s Wager.’ Anybody know why Pascal’s argument doesn’t work as an argument for why we should believe in God’s existence?

Image via Wikipedia

I downloaded the Livestrong app this morning, and it took all of 2 minutes for me to fall in love. Chances are fairly high that I may propose to it by the end of the week.

It tracks your calorie intake, exercise and weight.

The food database has over 450,000 items–even my favorite brand of peanut butter crackers.

The app syncs with the Livestrong.com site so you can access it either on your phone or your computer.

It’s a 5 star app, but the fact that it’s also free makes this one of the best iPhone apps available.

You can grab it here.

Image via Wikipedia

I have nearly 7,000 audio tracks in iTunes. A 57″ HDTV. A dedicated media room. A ridiculously cool studio setup. A DVD collection of several hundred discs.

But I know virtually nothing about home audio. Just north of zippo.

Anything I have in the way of audio equipment was picked out for me–or at least with a LOT of assistance and advice.

I randomly ran across the website for Entertainment Solutions in Cincinnati. I don’t live in Cincinnati, and how I ended up at the site is quite immaterial, thank you very much.

Very simple site. Nothing crazy.

But I was struck by their company tag line:

‘We Won’t Let You Make a Mistake.’

Perfect.

My guess is they recognize that most people buying a home audio setup are thinking at least a couple of things:

1. ‘I’m about to spend a lot of money.’

2. ‘I have no idea what I’m doing.’

3. ‘I hope I don’t screw this up.’

Most people (myself included) aren’t interested in a top of the line, my-home-theater-is-worth-more-than-my-car setup. They don’t necessarily care about champagne sound if they have beer ears.

But they don’t want crap either.

Turns out there’s a HUGE gap between an off-the-shelf surround sound setup at Sam’s Club and a Batcave Home Theater.

Within that gap is a lot of room for mistakes.

Very simply and directly, Entertainment Solutions says, ‘We won’t let you screw it up.’

Question: What mistake are your prospective clients afraid of making?

Question: How can you communicate that working with you means they don’t have to worry about making that mistake?

Fascinating video from 60 Minutes. Jaw dropping, really. The implications for this are surreal.

Could this be a way for life spans to increase exponentially? If my brain still works, then who cares if my heart, lungs, etc are machines rather than organic.

Could Neo’s instant learning from ‘The Matrix’ be a future reality for us?

That’s not to mention the near-term implications for those battling paralysis and other diseases that destroy the body’s functions without affecting the brain.

Wow.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Image via CrunchBase

Today I tested a new release of PlayOn streaming software. PlayOn allows PC users to stream video to their TVs from Netflix, Hulu, YouTube and ESPN using either a PS 3 or Xbox 360.

Short version: It worked perfectly. Setup was a breeze. Streaming content through my Xbox 360 was dead simple. I have a 57″ 1080p HDTV; so I was skeptical of the quality of the video on a screen that size. But I was pleasantly surprised–particularly of the quality from Netflix.

PlayOn software is $30 but comes with a 14-day free trial.

Note: I’m running Windows XP; so Lifehacker’s tip on streaming Netflix via my Xbox 360 won’t work since it requires Windows Vista.

Several blogs have pointed to the Forrester Research report showing that RSS adoption seems to be peaking at 11% of internet users.

Steve Rubel has interesting commentary on the report, while Mark Hopkins at Mashable.com dissents from the report’s findings.

For those of you who like pretty pie charts, here’s a snapshot of the report’s results:

My thoughts? I’ve long been an evangelist for RSS, and every single person I’ve convinced to use Google Reader, et al has thanked me profusely after the fact–even those who initially saw no need for it.

For the already-converted, giving up your RSS reader would be akin to losing a limb.

Many, many, many of the not-yet-converted would dramatically benefit from RSS, but they don’t know they need it. That’s not a technology problem. That’s a marketing problem.

Couple of suggestions:

1. Stop referring to RSS and instead go with Web Delivery Service or Content Delivery Service or Web Surfing for Lazy People.

2. Offer a service that sets up RSS feeds in Google Reader for users for free–so they don’t have to do it themselves. Invite users to submit a list of websites they frequent. Build a list of feeds for those and related sites and send them an OMPL file along with setup instructions.

There’s no reason RSS adoption should stay at only 11%.  No reason at all.

Oh, and if you haven’t subscribed to Digital Rocket Surgery, click here and improve your life 43%.

From my good friend Giles.

Thank to Duncan Riley at The Inquisitr for pointing to this Russian love song dedicated to Sarah Palin. Quality stuff.