An article in yesterday’s New York Times prompted me to write this post that I’ve been meaning to write all week. M&Ms, that tried and true candy (and one of my mother’ favorites) that stayed the same for so many years began spinning off new iterations several years back. Today, the candy that outraged so many by simply pulling a color out of the line-up for health reasons, barely receives a raised eyebrow when introducing a new formulation. Among other variations, you can get M&Ms in Easter and Christmas colors, with almonds inside, and in dark chocolate, mint and other flavors, and even with your own message on the outside. But now, according to yesterday’s Times article, one of America’s favorite candies has made what is being called a radical departure from its traditional specs.

“The candies themselves are fatter and less uniform than traditional M&M’s. More radically, these M&M’s have no candy shell — just a shiny topcoat with a marbleized, almost metallic-looking finish in bright colors.”

It’s not a new phenomenon, but it is a sign of times. The marketing times, that is. There is such fierce competition for our brutally truncated attention spans that marketers feel they need to create new products, or new iterations of products, out of nothing just to keep our attention—and our dollars.

I’ve long wondered why we need so many different types of toilet paper, air fresheners, under-arm deoderant, toothpaste, what-have-you, and I try to keep my buying choices simple when faced with so many. I really don’t need all that stuff, and as someone who realizes their impact is already more than it should be, I am very conscious of what I buy. For not only is pretty much anything we buy making an impact, but the manufacture of this dearth of products simply to provide all potato chips to all people is certainly making an impact.

I’m not going to go into the depth of products available the the ridiculousness of it because Advertising Age’s Al Ries already wrote that article. It’s called “The Pitfalls of Megabranding” and I couldn’t say it any better myself. However, his point is a bit different. Mr. Ries states that megabranding really harms manufacturers and their brands because by offering so many choices retailers end up buying less of any single offering in exchange for a broad spectrum of product “flavors” (my quotes, not his). This means that there are often fewer of the flagship product that consumers rely on, and when they run out, they buy the competition’s product.

His point is that of harming your brand, but my point is that all this selection not only harms your brand, it harms the environment because of all the extra resources those new options gobble up. New flavors require extra ingredients and new packaging; more products require more shipping, more shelf space, and ultimately larger stores. And when it doesn’t all sell, the unpurchased merchandise has to go somewhere: to the dump or the Dollar Store (one in the same, I say) or who knows where.

But Ries’ best and final point is that megabrands may be threatened not by their own excess but by the brands who’s strength is in providing the one best product and dominating the market. Apple Computers and Illy Coffee, as he points out, provide a very limited selection of the best product possible. I learned a lot of great stuff at the last company I worked for before I struck out on my own, but perhaps the most important thing I learned is that you’ll never be the best at what you do if you try to do too much. Focusing on producing the best single product or service you can benefits your company in many ways. It keeps your people focused and saves resources—time and money being two of the most important in the business world. Because while environmentalists will preach until their blue in the face about what must be done to save the environment, most businesses and people won’t do what’s really necessary until it affects their bottom line.

Yesterday I received an email from Pulse 360’s verticals advertising department letting me know about a new advertising program in conjunction with MSNBC’s Going Green network. While making money isn’t my main goal in writing this blog (if it were, I’d have given up long ago), it doesn’t hurt to bring in a little extra cash. While I always remain skeptical of corporate efforts to go green, I’ve also been a fan of MSNBC and believe they’re doing a pretty good job of covering green news stories.

So I went ahead and joined their program and plugged an ad unit in over there on the right. We’ll see how well it does.

That’s the topic of the New York Times article this morning titled, “Direct Mail Tries to Go Green. No, Really.” The initiative, while admirable in its effort, is a bit dubious to say the least. It is headed up by the Green Marketing Coalition and they have introduced a few ways to help lighten the carbon footprint of those who insist upon using direct mail for marketing purposes.

Don’t get me wrong, I too agree that direct mail is an effective way to reach potential customers, and I encourage my clients to use it in select circumstances. But, like others quoted in the Times article, I’m a bit skeptical of the effectiveness of the Green Marketing Coalition’s efforts. You can download a copy of their “Recommended Guidelines” at their site and see what I mean. Among the recommendations they list:

Purchase recycled paper.
Choose vendors and partners with internal environmental initiatives.
Use UV printing presses and comply with hazardous waste disposal standards.
Improve “list hygiene.”
Proof and edit using PDF files rather than hard copies.
Use chlorine-free, recycled paper. (this seems like a redundant point)
Benefit from tax savings by going green.

These recommendations are good ones, but to me they seem a little obvious. Shouldn’t direct marketers be doing this already? And the last “guideline,” “Companies can benefit from the tax savings associated with going green,” seems like where their real efforts lie.

According to Spyro Kourtis, president of the Hacker Group as quoted in the Times article,

“This industry just didn’t have any real green standards.”

Well, at least they’re doing something. But we’re not living and working in a vacuum here. The guidelines were developed with the help of the above-mentioned Hacker Group, which is a direct marketing firm. One has to wonder why direct email or other types of electronic marketing aren’t on their guidelines. Obviously they’re protecting their own interests, but if this were truly a broad-based initiative to really green direct marketing and do more than just greenwash and reap some tax breaks, their guidelines could easily go beyond printed junk mail.

I have to agree with the conclusion of the Times article:

“So far, the coalition’s guidelines are long on earnestness and short on truly new ideas.”

It’s long been the perception that the marketing department is often the first to take a hit when business goes south. But a report from the Marketing Executives Networking Group claims that, in fact, marketing departments are going understaffed not because of layoffs, but because there is a shortage of executive talent. Adding insult to injury, the report states that the situation is expected to worsen as baby-boomers continue to retire and there are fewer executive level marketers available to fill those positions.

What does that have to do with marketing to small businesses and organizations in Jackson Hole? I’m not exactly sure, but I can draw a few parallels. While this isn’t exactly a business community rife with executive level positions, I too have seen a lack of marketing talent within the businesses with which I work. This isn’t a criticism of those businesses; rather, it’s a result of two patterns I see within small businesses and organizations locally. The first is that often times small businesses can’t afford to hire an employee who can be dedicated solely to marketing. (But when they do, that marketing person is often over-worked and overwhelmed by the demands of the job.) And when they do fill a marketing position, it is often with a person who doesn’t have much marketing experience.

The second reason there seems to be a lack of marketing talent here, and the main reason I see a shortage of any professional talent in small communities ( around 20,000 people) is because it’s not a real attractive market for young professionals on a career track. Now, Jackson Hole and other similar mountain towns offer a slight exception to that rule due to the exceptional lifestyle available. But because of the popularity of great lifestyle opportunities, there is another factor that is somewhat related to the retiring baby-boomer issue mentioned in the MENG report. In our case, retiring baby-boomers—albeit those with a lot of money—are retiring to or buying second homes here, adding to the over-inflated real estate market, driving up prices, and making it difficult for many, including young professionals, to be able to afford to live here. That trend isn’t just taking a toll on marketers in particular or young professionals in general; it’s hitting the majority of our working community members at every job level and age.

But back to the issue of marketing talent. Ours is a professional community of what Richard Florida calls the “creative class.” We have a seemingly disproportionate number of artists, graphic designers, software developers, and all-around entrepreneurs. It is a strong business community and one that seems to be weathering the recent economic downturn fairly well. But the lack of marketing talent remains a bit of a mystery to me. It is a niche I never intended to fill when I took my first communications job here, and one that still appears to be relatively empty eight years later now that I’ve started my own marketing firm. I’m not sure how that relates to the Marketing Executives Networking Group report, but there does seem to be a correlation.

David Koretz’s article today on Media Post’s Publishing Insider blog, “Please Stop Talking,” seems to have touched a nerve. His post borders on the heretical and I, for one, couldn’t agree more. He makes two main points: that connectivity has caused us to be a society suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHC) of pandemic proportions, and that this level of ADHC is posing a serious challenge for marketers.

“Being ‘connected’ sucks,” he says. “It is highly overrated and getting old fast.”

Well, I might suggest that being connected doesn’t necessarily suck, but being over-connected certainly has its drawbacks.

Back from a week or so of vacation and I’m feeling a little dirty, if not guilty, about what I’ve just experienced. Now, before I get into cruise ship bashing, let me first say that this trip allowed for several positive experiences that might not have been possible (or at least easy) given the circumstances.

For my wife’s parents’ 50th wedding anniversary, it was decided that a cruise would be the easiest and most economical way for 30 people to all get together, celebrate, have fun, and not become an undue burden on any one family. So, after nearly two years of planning, we set sail for Southeast Alaska from Vancouver, BC. We could have gone on any number of cruises, but for a diverse family who appreciates the mountains and didn’t want to be in the tropics in mid-July, this was the best option.

It was a fantastic way to see a part of the world that none of us had seen before, and it allowed everyone to take things at their own pace. The kids—there are 14 of them, ranging from 3 to 20 years old—had an incredible time. And while you can fly into Ketchikan and Juneau, and drive to Skagway, they’re all difficult to get to. In addition, cruising allows you to see some of the world’s largest glaciers—in Glacier Bay National Park and College Fjord—which you cannot get to without a boat or airplane. These glaciers and the surrounding landscape really are incredible, and I’m grateful to have seen them close up in this way.

All that said, the act of cruising on a large ship is about as far from an ecological vacation as I can imagine.

Just arrived in Vancouver, BC, yesterday for our Alaska cruise. My wife and I were trying to remember back and we couldn’t believe it’s been 12 years since we were last here! It’s always fun to spend some time in the city—especially when you live in a very rural area as we do—and Vancouver is one of my favorites. Very cosmopolitan and international, and one thing I really miss about living in the Northwest is big trees.

It also turns out that Vancouver is quite recycle savvy. One thing I plan to document on this vacation is just how green our travels may or may not be. While I anticipate time spent on a cruise ship to be pretty low on the scale of eco-friendly vacations (how much diesel fuel do you think one of those things burns in seven days? I just may have to find out.), I was pleasantly surprised to see how committed to recycling Vancouver seems to be. From the time we got off the plane until we settled into our hotel room, I was amazed at how ubiquitous recycle bins seem to be. They’re right there next to every trash can, just like they’re supposed to be. Nobody charges for this extra service, and Vancouverites seem to be trusted by their municipality to make the right decisions about exactly what is recyclable and which ones go in which bin. No signs about only this kind of plastic or paper and not that kind. (On a walk through one downtown neighborhood I took the above pic of two large recycle receptacles outside an apartment building with no garbage can in sight.)

Of course, I shouldn’t be surprised about recycling being this common-place. No, what is really surprising is how bass-akwards we Americans are about our preference to just throw everything “away” instead of taking the extra time (we’re talking seconds here, folks) to recycling that water bottle, newspaper, paper plate, what-have-you. And here’s a news-flash for you: there is no such place as “away”; it’s gotta go somewhere, and we’re running out of places to send our garbage.

So while you celebrate Independence Day down there in the good ol’ US of A this weekend, with your hot dogs and hamburgers eaten from paper plates and beer drank from glass bottles and aluminum cans, think about what you can do to help create American independence, not from oil but from garbage. Happy 4th!

I was just playing around with SEO Chat’s Search Engine Keyword Position tool and noticed that, according to them, MarketGreener is ranked 9th by Google for the phrase “Jackson Hole Marketing.” I was curious to see if it was true, so I did it myself. Lo and behold, I was actually number 11, but hey, that’s still pretty good. What made me even happier is that it was several places above my old employer, Circumerro (sorry, boys, no link today).

So I took it a step further and googled “Jackson Hole Marketing Agency” and found that MarketGreener was listed 7th! Not bad even though the Keyword Position tool said I was 4th. (Though even since I’ve started writing this post it’s slipped to number 9.) What is a little disturbing, however, is the proliferation of real estate related sites that rank for that term.

Next step is to get TwistofLime.biz, marketing and content service business, ranked up there higher than MarketGreener, ’cause right now its not ranking anywhere and I’ve got some work to do. The good news is that the number 7 position is for a post I wrote about the launch of Twist of Lime.