WWJD?

Ok, so you've been talking to a new-business prospect and they tell you they want to keep talking to see what you can do for them, but they have just conceived a campaign internally that they like pretty much.

Eventually you see it. And it's awful.

What do you do?

Do you take the "if this is what they think is good, I can't help them" approach and drop it?

Do you consider it an opportunity to show them what you'd do instead and assume they will recognize the difference?

If you talk to them again and they ask you what you think, what do you tell them? How honest can you be? I mean somebody would have approved it.

Are you just being an arrogant ass? I mean clearly somebody likes it.

Is the education curve too steep or does it present an opportunity?

Just wondering.

This works a couple of ways, I think

The target -- people who want to use Wi-Fi wherever they may be -- get it immediately.

Others probably think it's an ad for french fries.

Either way I love it.

By DDB Sydney (Australia) via I Believe in Advertising.

I'm not picking on the Washington Post. Not exactly.

It's just that they have given me such a great WTF? example of Strangeness in Marketing.

Let's start at the beginning. Newspapers are losing readers and subscribers. This is an unfortunate thing, but a true thing. One would hope that newspapers would want to stem the flow of departures.

As in incent subscribers to stay subscribers, yes? You would think so.

So then it makes a whole bunch of no sense to me for them to continue to develop special pricing programs for new subscribers only. We've been paying like $53 a quarter for daily and weekly delivery of the Post. But they recently had an offer that was for something like $41 for six months for new subscribers only. (Or subscribers who have not subscribed for 30 days.)

And the day after that promotion expired, they came out with an even better one

If there was ever an example of an organization giving the finger to existing customers, this is it. In order to keep subscribers, why not offer some sort of great pricing package after 2 or 3 years of ongoing subscribing? Even if just for a year. Or offer Sundays free for six months as a token of gratitude to loyal customers and an incentive to keep them that way. Something that says "thanks for your business."

The Post isn't the only company that does this kind of bone-headed thing. Cell carriers and credit card companies do it too. And it seems like the emphasis on new customers encourages us all to keep hopping around, starting and stopping things and changing banks, cell phone companies, credit cards and the like. Wouldn't retaining customers be a better business strategy?

It just seems basic to me that if you're losing customers or subscribers, somewhere in your marketing plan there ought to be as much emphasis on keeping them as getting new ones.

But what do I know? I thought the Beatles would never catch on.

Is "doofi" the plural of "doofus"?

OK, some people probably find Rhett and Link funny, but now their commercials are stupid. At least this one is.

Now, I'm guessing this is supposed to be satire or something. Or what they think is satire. Well, I mean, obviously it's supposed to be something other than serious. But still, this is the kind of dog-doo that makes people think anybody who can slap something up on YouTube can make a commercial.

Would you buy furniture from the Red House based on this? Really? Are you kidding me?

I say we get a bunch together to head down to wherever in North Carolina these un-funny clowns are based and rub 'em out. Who's with me?

Yankees win. Rest of world mourns.

Sorry, but it's just hard to root for these guys . . .

Ooops . . .

This apparently ran in Philly papers yesterday -- before Game Five was played.

In any case, the Yankees were up 3-1 at the time anyway.

Found on AdFreak.

("That's just positive thinking," says Karen.)

Please read this before you cut that budget

Like everybody else in our business, we've heard a lot from clients and prospects about cutting or eliminating advertising budgets.

Now, advertising is not a panacea by any stretch (please be impressed that I spelled that right -- whether it is the correct usage here or not is another question). But it can certainly help if properly applied.

Just ask Kellogg's who, according to this piece in Ad Age, credits a 17% increase in ad spending for increased earnings. I especially wish the guy who told me yesterday that he would really like to take his organization's entire marketing budget and just hire three more salesmen would read it.

Here is part of what the CEO said:

"Our commitment to investing in advertising continues to be a key to our business model and to achieving our goals. Rather than take advantage of lower rates to reduce the cost of our advertising investment, we see this as a great opportunity to increase our investment and build even stronger brands in the future. Higher spend combined with media deflation and a push on efficiency is driving a significant increase in advertising pressure."

Just a little food for thought while you're working on that 2010 budget.