It’s ironic to me that the professional marketing species that insists (rightly, I believe) that every interaction that your company or product has with a consumer is an opportunity to build a relationship, is the same species that looks at banners as only a means to an end — a canvas that should be left as blank as possible, and engineered only to create a click-thru. Where’s the relationship-building in that? Where’s the “Hey, I’m Brand X. Nice to meet you?” No. It’s about an ever present logo, a direct call-to-action, and as little in between as possible, lest we do anything to distract the user from clicking. As if clicking would be a foregone conclusion if not for the annoying creative part.

No offense, data. But you’re becoming the stiff suit in an otherwise thought-provoking, brand-building world.

A two-year lifecycle for Facebook would mean that by the end of 2010, a huge percentage of Facebook users would start to trail off. And then in 2011, another massive percentage will follow suit. (I’m not saying they’ll delete their accounts or won’t check in now and then. I simply mean they will cease to be “active users” the way they once were.)

Just throwing this out as a what-if. We seem to believe that, because Facebook is the size of a nation, that it has the stability of one. But the viewing audience of American Idol has been the size of its own nation in the past too — with just as much hype and chatter and addiction surrounding it. But predictably, American Idol is fading. It’s not going away yet, but it’s imaginable.

I’m not suggesting that Facebook is going away either. But to me, it’s reminding me of the neighborhood pub that’s lost its charm. What was once a simple, quiet place to hang out with friends has become a sea of bathroom ads, pinball machines and bar fights. You can still get a drink and enjoy a conversation, but you have to dodge a lot of crap to do it.

How do we staff? How do we balance the intrinsic need for conceptual creative excellence with the need for technological brilliance with the need for a complete measurement mindset with the need for the nimbleness to react quickly.

This ain’t your Daddy’s ad agency model we’re talking about.

But what if that’s where your roots are? If you’re an apple tree, can you become an orange tree? Can you start sprouting apples AND oranges? Or do you just need to plant a new tree?

We’ve made incredible strides. But the end game is still elusive.

I’m off to climb the tree again…

Great video. Can’t deny how much engagement there is.

The concern I have is rooted in my memory of the dot-com boom, when everyone (and I mean everyone — economists, professors, business gurus) claimed that company valuations would forever be changed by focusing on profit potential rather than actual profit. It was universally viewed as a Revolution. Until the model crashed and burned after 3 years or so.

There’s no question that the train has left the station for good when it comes to consumer empowerment. What it’s going to look like, long term, is harder to grapple with. Because whether the social media landscape we’ve come to love today (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) transforms into a true revolution will be determined by whether profit potential can turn into actual profit.

Facebook is not profitable. Neither is Twitter.

There’s no stopping the online conversations consumers are having. But a high % of those conversations are happening via tools that are currently free. Will they always be free? And if not, where will the conversations go? And will we even be willing to pay to have them?

The bad news: said senior manager is headed to another big brand, which can look forward to a fresh wave of communications that don’t communicate much of anything.

I had the inconvenience of needing to rent a car there twice in the last two weeks. They laid it on thicker than usual both times — down economy equals ultra-cheery salesmanship I suppose. But again, I can grin and bear excruciating happiness among strangers as long as it doesn’t last too long.

I returned my car at the end of the 2nd rental period and they did their usual walk-around. But this time — for the first time in the 12 or so years I’ve been renting cars — they found something. They called me out and pointed out a dent in the rear bumper. I present Exhibit A, a 3-inch minor dent with a hairline of cracked paint:

Now — I certainly wasn’t there when that 3″ dent appeared. Perhaps it happened while I was parked somewhere. (I have a theory that they hose down the car just before you rent it so you’re less likely to see imperfections — like this one — when you do your initial walk around. But lacking proof, I’ll hold off on launching the Dry My Rental campaign I’ve been scheming.)

I can honestly say that from a few feet away, you wouldn’t know there was a dent at all. And in the grand scheme of the dozens of other little nicks and dents on the car, this one was no more significant. If it had happened to my own car, I wouldn’t think much of it.

But I’m not Enterprise. They thought a LOT of it. And this is where a dent becomes far more damaging than the damage itself.

Per Enterprise’s policy, instead of being charged $190 for the rental, I was also charged the amount of my auto insurance deductible: $1000. $1000 for a petty dent. I was not happy with this development. I was very clear with them that I was not happy with this development. But all of the friendly “Mr. Levys” were now replaced with stern, unbending looks of corporate rule brokers.

Granted, this bumper won’t cost $1000 to repair, so I’ll get money back. And with my killer Amex coverage, I’ll probably get it all back. But that’s not the point.

The point is that all the smiles in the world don’t erase poor customer service when the customer needs it most. And that was the moment of truth:

“Do I lay down the law on a marginal bumper repair that’ll cost a couple hundred bucks, or do I protect our relationship with a customer who spends a couple hundred bucks with us several times a year?”

Given the cost of getting a new customer versus that of keeping an old one, they made a choice that will end up being more expensive for them than for me. The bumper will sure look pretty, though.

I shared work to a client team of brand management folks at a well known consumer product company. And though I knew none of them beforehand, I immediately recognized each one the minute I started presenting.

These were MBAs.

MBAs who concentrated in marketing and then moved directly to a consumer brand company. And who therefore, bless them, haven’t processed marketing messages like real-life human beings in years. Maybe decades.

On one hand, it’s impossible to argue with their company’s success; it’s had a whole lot of it. And a history of some great ad campaigns too.

But…

When I hear a client say (in reaction to headlines that maybe would require the reader to spend two seconds for the ‘aha!’ rather than one), and I quote, “we never want the consumer to have to think,” I shudder. These weren’t math equations I was proposing. Just turns of phrase and some clever metaphors.

It begs a retelling of the great David Ogilvy’s Hall of Fame quote: “The consumer isn’t a moron; she is your wife.”

I sat through many marketing classes as an MBA candidate. And I had scores of cringe-worthy moments when fellow students — whose careers in accounting, banking, finance and consulting made them a gathering of the least creative minds that God could assemble — would try to rationalize advertising campaigns, often at the encouragement of their professors, and always at the bewilderment of yours truly.

No matter how many great ideas these classmates of mine saw, they didn’t get it. Everything was squeezed through this bizarre, hyper-critical filter that parsed each idea to smithereens. But then off they went into the marketing world, never getting it.

Never getting that consumers don’t parse each idea to smithereens.

Never getting that you have to give them a reason to care about you. Always. Even more so if it’s a crowded category and you’re a late entrant. (Which was the case in my experience this week.)

Never getting that consumers aren’t sitting idly by, praying that Brand X give them yet another choice in Product Category Y.

Never getting that consumers aren’t fools.

Whether it’s a giggle, a surprise, a tear — something other than “I have a product and I say it’s great, so go buy it.”

It amazes me that this is still a debatable premise.

Asking consumers to think a little isn’t the worst thing that can happen. Giving them no compelling reason to think about you absolutely is.

Ironic and sad, then, that Perez has become an overnight embodiment of the same. And to the extent that having a broad audience matters to him, he’s now severely damaged his brand. (If mass appeal is not important to him — and that’s his prerogative — then the argument is moot.)

The Miss USA controversy requires no detailed rehashing. Miss California’s position on gay marriage is hardly surprising — it’s shared by the majority of her state, the majority of America, and, for now, by the President himself.

No surprise, either, that Hilton disagreed with her. (For the record, so do I.)

And sadly, in the current media climate, it’s also not surprising that her awkward condemnation of gay marriage would be vilified 24/7, as if she’d suggested that the world is flat, the moon is made of cheese or American Idol isn’t fixed.

What IS surprising is that Hilton has, with the Miss USA episode, revealed himself as exactly the kind of blowhard, classless celebrity he’s made a living attacking. And it’s a shame. It’s not that Perez has been immune to controversy; he’s often creating it. But normally it’s for others — he’s on the outside looking in, smartly opining on how the Hollywood circle should look, dress, act and speak. Or more often, how they shouldn’t. That’s where the honesty, charm and humor of Perez Hilton shines brightest.

With the Miss USA incident, he’s taken his brand away from its core competency. When he agrees to be a pageant judge, asks a controversial question, and upon receiving a controversial answer calls her a bitch for days on end, he reveals himself to be exactly the kind of lame-brained Hollywood elitist that most of America cannot relate to, whether they agree with his cause or not.

I support gay marriage. And it is exactly for that reason that I find myself not supporting Perez. Equal rights in this country have never been won on the backs of those who believe the road to that equality is paved with petty name-calling. Intelligence generally wins. But in this case, there hasn’t been much of that on display from Mr. Hilton.

So sorry, Perez. I’ve been a huge fan of your blog for years. Have even advocated for my clients to advertise there. But until you grow up, I’m checking out.