CBS is beginning to head down an interesting path in its ad placement for the SuperBowl. They have turned down two “gay-themed” ads so far: one is from male-male oriented dating site ManCrunch.com and the other is from web-hosting service GoDaddy.com. The ManCrunch ad shows two men watching a football game (presumably the SuperBowl) and munching chips. Their hands touch as they both reach for a crisp, and suddenly they can’t hold back any longer–they smooch! The GoDaddy ad is more surprising…it does feature a flamboyant ex-football star, but it also features women in lingerie. Doesn’t that usually get any and all content a free pass? (It does for American Apparel)

In any case, both ads were rejected on the grounds that they don’t meet CBS’s content standards for the SuperBowl and they might offend people. For ManCrunch, the broadcasting company went one further and claimed that they couldn’t verify the firm’s credit (the rejection letter is up on Scribd as well as being reproduced on the Mashable article). However, it DOES look like they’re going to air the Tim Tebow pro-life ad, which is guaranteed to offend at least some people…which people is it okay to offend, and which have to be kept happy? CBS is sending a pretty clear message about what audience bracket they value, which is fine–First Amendment and all that. But still, what about all the gay-friendly sports fans? Seems like a bit of a business mistake to alienate such a vocal consumer group…

Thoughts?

A few days ago it was reported by numerous news outlets that a NJ based PetsMart location had fired an employee for “bringing his dog to work.” The story is a bit convoluted, but it goes something like this. The employee normally worked the day shift and as a favor to a manager, agreed to take on a night shift due to a staffing issue at that specific locale. In doing so, he on his own accord decided that he would bring his dog into PetsMart and leave it in the “Doggie Daycare facility for the evening checking in on it every so often.” A relatively non issue in that it is PetSmart and PetSmart has an open door policy to pets. Plus, remember the store was closed and no customers and very few employees were even there. The night shift seemingly went off with out a hitch, yet a few days later, the employee was called into management’s office and officially terminated under the guise of “theft of services.”

Now the first question that comes to mind is how does “bringing your dog to work” amount to a “theft of services.” That question was immediately posed by the terminated employee. And of course the corporate conglomerate not wanting to cow tow to pressure from a terminated employee’s questioning of their ridiculous actions justified the decision by stating:

“the doggie daycare service is a huge part of PetSmart’s business. Access to the store’s doggie daycare facility is ‘viewed as sale items the same way items on the shelf are. To use the facilities and not pay for it — it falls under the same lines,’” said PetSmart spokeswoman Jessica White.

Now this is where brands need to understand how the social space works. The social world does not stop and continue to go about one’s day just because a corporate “edict” goes out from the C-Suite. No one really cares if this was said by the CEO and treated as the 11th commandment within the confines of the company compound or even only happened in an isolated store in the bowels of NJ. The point is that consumer expectations around the brand have been breached and people have the power and means to voice their displeasure via social technologies like no tomorrow. And this is exactly what happened in this case.

On PetSmart Official Face book page over the course of the last 24 hours, their core fan base of 15,000+ have really stepped up and made their feelings heard. Sentiments of disappointment to outright treason are running rampant across the social sphere, so much so that it has forced PetSmart to issue an official statement and apologize for their lack of judgment. Too little too late IMO, but to date this is the only saving grace in this entire situation:

“We feel badly this happened and has upset so many people. We simply messed up. We didn’t handle it the way we should have, and we’re very sorry about it. Unfortunately, before we made things right with this associate, the damage was done. We’ve certainly learned from it. We still think PetSmart’s a great place to work …and we’re using this experience to make us better. We hope you’ll understand. -Jessica”

What this means is that brands need to rapidly understand that the experience they share with the consumer does not stop at 5pm; people could care less about who or what level made a specific decision and only care that it was a “Branded Decision” and see it accordingly.

And lastly, if people are only thinking that us social media freaks aren’t seeing this as what it is - business - period - think again! While I don’t subscribe to that type of business thinking I do honor it, and I’ll bring up one last business point. If I were a competitor working in their marketing department and saw what was happening, I’d be seeing dollar signs. I’d be all over the competitor’s FaceBook wall speaking directly to all the PetSmart fans who were let down by this lapse in judgment. i’d be literally taking market share from them one by one. In fact, I noticed that a few people were already saying how much better their company’s dog policies are compared to PetSmart. So this isn’t just about social media do’s and dont’s, it’s about business in the 21st Century!

About 15 hours ago Haiti the poorest country in the world was devastated by a 7.5 earthquake. Literally every hospital has been evacuated or destroyed. Almost every government building has been destroyed including the presidential palace and parliament. I was glued to my TV this morning as the photos and stories started to come in, it is totally shocking and sad.

I couldn’t help but wonder what I could do to help these people so I did some research and thought I would share.

I will try to keep this list updated in the coming days but here are some ways you can help.

The Red Cross already has a donation site up
The Salvation Army also has information on their site up
If you know a nurse that wants to help have them check out National Nurses United
Finally check out this Orphanage called Three Angels Children’s relief
The U.S. State department has a text program up Text “Haiti” to 90999 and automatically donate $10 (click link for details)
NPR just posted links to websites where people can take go for info on how to help

Please comment with other suggestions and ways to help.

Sounds easy enough, right? We’re all used to hearing the saying “the customer is always right.” It’s common sense, isn’t it?

Apparently not.

It’s old hat at this point to toss around Zappos as an example of a good business model. If you’ve read even one marketing or business magazine in the last few years, you’ve probably heard all about their willingness to embrace social media and their fun, kooky office culture. Which is great. That explains why their employees love it, and therefore why the company reposes such trust in its employees.

But why do the customers love it? Well, because of the fact that the business trusts its employees and encourages its call center workers to do things like spend hours on the phone with a customer to make sure his or her question gets answered, or send a thank you note and flowers, or even direct a customer to a rival site if Zappos.com is out of stock on a particular item. The employees are truly invested in helping the client get what he or she needs and wants, without the usual customer service nastiness and disinterest. A positive experience generates positive buzz. Pure and simple. Any press may be good press because it gets you air time, but positive buzz is the thing that translates into respect and loyalty from both employees and consumers. In the current downward-trending climate, every company should be doing whatever it can to hold on to both.

In other words, trust your employees. Respect your consumers. Both will reward you for it.

For more details on Zappos’s business model, check out this Business Week article.

Alright, I’ve had my winter vacation, I’ve seen the movie, and I’ve finished the game. I liked the movie a whole bunch. A WHOLE BUNCH. Lots of fun, witty banter, and all the things one would hope for in a collaboration between Robert Downey Jr. and, well, anybody. Mark Strong was also enjoyably lugubrious and Rachel McAdams was cute.

The ending of the game? Not so much. The answer to the last code was guessable from the trailers and the reward was a video response from Inspector Lestrade hinting that Scotland Yard would be calling on Holmes and Watson in the future for help with the mysterious Prof. Moriarty. Rumor has it that Brad Pitt might be taking on the chalk-dusted jacket, but I would rather see Colin Farrell.

So, to sum up: fun game, great movie, slightly lame ending. All with impeccable production values.

And not one deerstalker in sight (thankfully).