Catching New Fans: Rob Thomas

When you visit the Web site of screenwriter and producer Rob Thomas, his work is divided into sections: Books, Film, Television, Music, and Personal Info. But one more category remains on the top of a site that hasn’t been updated since one of his projects received the green light for season two — and that would be Veronica Mars.

By all accounts, Thomas seems as dedicated to Veronica Mars as the fans are to him. I know the fans are, because every few weeks they send me an update on their activities to grow a show that was prematurely cancelled after its third season.

Sure, fan outcry from cancelled television shows has become commonplace, with everyone from Moonlight to October Road giving it their best shot. But there is one thing unique about Veronica Mars fans. They remain optimistic realists — people who accept that Veronica Mars is unlikely to return to television, but may one day see a second life with a Veronica Mars movie.

The secret to their continued success? They have several small but memorable programs in place. I was introduced to one of them last March when they asked me to “try watching three or four episodes” and see if I wanted to watch the rest of the season.

Although the question was padded, because I was already watching season three via iTunes, I gave season one a shot. Four busy months later: my family couldn’t watch three or four shows. They had to watch them all.

They are now waiting for me to order season two from Amazon.com, which will be right after I send the “loan it forward” DVD set to its next destination this week. It’s headed cross country to a blogger who might appreciate the high touch approach to consumer marketing if not the show on its own merit.

If he watches a few episodes into disc two, he might become another fan and then “loan it forward” again. After all, there is something smart about the writing in this enduring series as the primary story arches develop. Coincidently, I felt the same way about season three. The set-up doesn’t seem as strong as the middle, but it eventually becomes vital to the underlining story.

Is it working? Considering one of the fans recently presented actor Jason Dohring (he portrayed Logan) with a scrapbook full of fan letters and artwork and the fact that Veronica Mars is still being positively mentioned in the press again and again, they seem to be doing something right. And in some ways, perhaps, better than anyone else.

Sure, our friends and Jericho fans are still sending nuts, but the Veronica Mars campaign continually captures more fans and friendly media attention without the hazard of having already had its second chance.

But more importantly, after watching two seasons of Veronica Mars, I’m won over with the logic that it just feels like big screen material. Provided Rob Thomas is in the driver’s seat and some of the cast continues to show an interest before they get too old to play their parts, it really could work as an alternative to the consistently typical summer blockbusters that tend to grace the screen.

Wrapping Whimpers: Biegel vs. Dentsu

I’ve received several e-mails during the last few weeks asking if I was ever going to close the case study on Biegel vs. Dentsu after an attorney-infused circus side show ended in an anticlimactic settlement. What’s to write about? Everybody lost.

After months of double talk, with some participants pandering and dismissing blogs at the same time, the two parties tied to the case have agreed nothing happened and no one said anything. Um, you know, it’s almost like calling for a do over without the group hug.

"As a result of this settlement, those allegations and claims have been dismissed, including any potential counterclaims that have not been asserted by Dentsu. Both parties retract all public statements."

Steve Hall at Adrants offered the perfect summation in his first sentence: “Yawn.” Catherine Taylor, who writes adverganza, wondered about reversals and blanket retractions. And most, including me, said nothing at all since both parties have agreed not to disclose or discuss anything else.

However, one might wonder whether the unnamed “advertising company” described as a “discrimination re wrongful termination” case and listed on The Dwyer Law Firm’s Web site is coincidence or not. The amount, which would include attorney’s fees, costs and interest (according to the site) was $55,000.

Of course, if $55,000 was the undisclosed settlement amount, and I’m not saying it was, then the personal brand and credibility damage (despite blanket retraction) was obviously not worth it, which was my original point. Case closed.

Accounting For Brand: McDonald’s

In Nevada, a large McDonald’s franchisee pleaded guilty to supplying illegal workers with false identification and agreed to pay a $1 million fine.

Surprising to some, the franchise, which was raided last year, is located in Reno, Nev., where illegal immigration tends to be less of a hot button issue than it is eight hours south in Las Vegas.

While the owner of the franchise was not charged, the company's current director of operations, Joe Gillespie, and former vice president, Jimmy Moore, could face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The franchise has since promised it will never allow this to happen again.

In a statement, McDonald's Corp. has already said the case "was an isolated incident and not part of any ongoing investigation into McDonald's USA."

The case does, however, mirror another odd story where the manager of a Minn. McDonald’s allegedly turned down a Hispanic applicant after he revealed he was born in St. Paul, Minn. According to the story, the manager said he only hired Mexicans from Mexico.

While McDonald's Corp. handled the issue appropriately from a crisis communication standpoint, its at arms-length handling of franchise owners seems slightly off center of its longstanding brand protectiveness. After all, it was Ray Kroc who once said "the basis for our entire business is that we are ethical, truthful and dependable."

The trend to allow increasing autonomy to franchises began in 1991.

Advertising Conflict: TBWA Worldwide

Omnicom Group Inc.'s TBWA Worldwide is discovering just how difficult it can to be a global company without a consistent message. Two of its offices produced two different advertising campaigns for the Olympic games.

As covered by The Wall Street Journal, its Beijing office is running a campaign on Chinese pride for Adidas while its Paris office worked on another for Amnesty International that showed Chinese athletes being tortured by Chinese authorities.

According to the story, Chinese bloggers, spurred by a report in state-run media of the Amnesty campaign last week, are now calling for a boycott of all TBWA ads, among other measures.

While Amnesty International decided not to run the ads throughout the Olympics, they did give permission for the agency to run them one time so the agency could enter them in the Cannes competition. Yep, another award blunder. The TBWA ad won a Bronze Star at Cannes.

TBWA’s headquarters in New York has since dismissed the advertisement as “the action of one individual at our agency working on a pro bono account." But some people have pointed out the obvious. More than one person was credited with the Cannes win. And that is nothing compared to the timing of the debacle — TBWA’s major stake in the VISA account is undergoing a global ad review.

Times are changing. As advertising becomes more personal (in part because of social media), consumers seem to want the message makers to be as transparent or at least as authentic as the clients they are writing for — a trend that originally began with consumers scrutinizing which marketers supported (or did not support) which television and radio programs. I’m not always sure this is such a good thing, but it is what it is.

Even more obvious to me, once again, is that agencies and clients lose anytime the decision to do something is tied to awards. Awards are easy. Results are not. While these ads were creative, all they really succeeded in doing was damage everyone involved. And no matter how you spin it, that is not very effective at all.

Paying For Politics: Hillary Clinton

Ever since online merchandising became possible, candidates have been looking for ways to employ it for fundraising purposes. According to the Tribune’s Washington Bureau (hat tip: The Hotline), at least one candidate is looking to push the possibilities.

Hillary Clinton is hoping to erase $20 million from her campaign debt by selling a T-shirt that was originally meant to raise campaign funds. The T-shirt is “limited edition” and costs $50. Clinton promoted the T-shirt in an e-mail blast to supporters and the New York Daily News has a shot of her pushing the shirt, mentioning how it sounds a little bit like a Budweiser rip off and what the contest-winning designer has to say about it.

A Clinton spokesperson would not comment, nor has there been much mention that a good part of that debt is money she loaned herself and shirt purchases could detract from fundraising efforts by Sen. Barack Obama or other candidates, regardless of their party affiliation. Of course, Obama doesn’t seem to mind. He is also urging supporters to help his former rival out.

While there is nothing wrong with helping to retire a candidate’s debt, some people might wonder what’s wrong with a little fiscal restraint before asking voters to foot another bill caused by too much spending. Oh right, never mind. Visa, Mastercard, and American Express are accepted by the T-shirt site.

Now if only some politicians would propose a T-shirt to help erase the United States’ national debt then they might be onto something. Now that one really would be for you.

Marketing Softly: Apple iPhone 3G

Apple's new iPhone 3G will be in stores tomorrow, and its newest product represents a continued shift in marketing as much as computing infused telecommunication. In a little less than 30 minutes, Apple illustrates what’s new and improved on the iPhone 3G in a guided tour.

Adweek, speaking to Charles Golvin, principal analyst at Forrester Research, points out the obvious — it's advertising. Not only is it advertising, but it also makes several references throughout the tour for existing iPhone customers who might be less quick to buy a new phone.

In addition, Apple provides more information about iPhone 2.0 software that will add many of the same features sported by the new phone, including its ability to add applications and display iWork and Microsoft PowerPoint files.

Equally striking, there is no hard sell nor does there need to be. Apple casually presented information in a “matter of fact” style that makes sense without being boring. So sure, Apple might be criticized for not approaching social media the way some might think it should, but it really has been blurring the lines between marketing and customer service, using social media tools and real people to do it.

Does it work? Considering most advertisers struggle to capture customer interest in 30 seconds, I’d say engaging someone for 30 minutes is pretty smart. As for Apple being criticized for not having a transparent social media outlet? Well, it seems to me that its customers do a fine job of filling that so-called absence.