Category Archives: Web/Tech

Feb 22

Does the D in Digital Stand for Dying?

Posted on by

I’ve read quite a few recent articles in the advertising and marketing trade press suggesting the halo surrounding the magical word “digital” is not only fading, but actually becoming a bit of an albatross.

According to this article in Marketing Week, more and more marketers are disbanding their separate digital departments and teams and folding them into the larger marcom group. Why? Because, just as was the case with social media, digital is no longer perceived as a standalone “thing.” It’s now seen as simply one more channel in the never-ending battle to engage with stakeholder audiences in a holistic way.

And, as the article points out, we all live in a digital world. So let’s move on and get back to calling ourselves marketers and not digital specialists or influencer specialists or CSR specialists, etc. We’re marketers, pure and simple.

This development comes as no surprise to me because, like so many previous cutting-edge products or service offerings, our industry witnessed a Gold Rush mentality on the part of many firms to immediately reposition themselves as being digitally driven. I like to survey the battlefield before deploying my resources. At Peppercomm, we’ve fully embraced digital, but have never elevated it to a pedestal higher than our other integrated offerings.

In retrospect, I think it was the right move because, as Marketing Week columnist Tom Goodwin said, “…using the word digital in the near future will come across as slightly batty.” And, as Mark Ritson, the author of this particular MW column, wrote, “As we speak, most senior marketers are making their power play and ensuring that the head of digital is being shifted horizontally towards the nearest window while they unite the two teams under their direct leadership.” Ouch! Caveat digital specialist.

Based upon this very real trend, it’s only a matter of time before the “digitally driven” moniker becomes a red flag to any corporation looking to engage a fully integrated agency. It’ll be similar to those firms who, in the aftermath of the dotcom bubble bursting, rapidly repositioned themselves as anything but dotcom specialists. I should know since I led Peppercomm’s repositioning.

While I certainly don’t claim to be a futurist, I sensed the digital metamorphosis would peak at some point in the future and be seen for what it is and what it isn’t (while simultaneously hearing digital specialists proclaim the death of public relations).

As the Marketing Week column confirms, we’re entering a new phase of marketing communications in which an old-school Wall Street Journal feature story is just as important as understanding the user experience and properly coding a new website.

The bottom line for me is this: the stakeholder audience will always determine which channel(s) a brand and its agency should use to engage with it and, ideally, convince that audience to consider the brand’s product or service.

So, digital, it was nice to know you. And social media, it’s been a real treat to partner with you through the years. Now let’s wake up before it’s too late and realize that a fully integrated in-house department or partner agency is the business model (and positioning) of the future. Oh, and by the way, thanks to the non-stop, 24×7 crisis world in which we live, public relations has never been more important. Any reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated

Jul 28

Will complacency cause RIM to R.I.P.?

Posted on by

Research In Motion, makers of the ubiquitous Blackberry, just announced a layoff of some 2,000 RIP-RIM workers. That's more than 10 percent of the total workforce. It's also an indication the organization has rested on its laurels far too long.

RIM's BB is being beaten to the virtual punch by Apple's iPhone and Google's Android. And, while the once high-flying RIM says it's shipped a brand new BB platform with all sorts of cool bells and whistles as well as a version of the iPad, customers aren't taking the bait.

RIM is just the latest MySpace, Second Life or Pets.com. Or, if you prefer time traveling to a distant era, RIM may end up being this generation's Smith-Corona (once one of the world's leading manufacturers of typewriters that simply couldn't adapt to the computer revolution).

I find it ironic that companies who initiate change often fall prey to it. Take Yahoo, please. Fifteen years ago, Yahoo was a dotcom pioneer at the absolute forefront of online search. Today, they're an afterthought, having lost the entire market to a company whose name has become a verb: Google.

PR firms that resist changing their mojo risk facing the same fate as RIM.

I know quite a few who remain firmly entrenched in the service model of the 1990s, providing little more than media by the pound.

These risk-averse agencies believe clients will always pay for a big hit in the Times or Journal. Perhaps. But, fleet-footed firms are anticipating change and following the conversation, wherever it may lead. They're also finding new and different ways to earn a seat at the proverbial C-suite table. It's no longer just enough to be masters of crisis communications and social media protocols. Smart PR firms also understand they can play a critical, and desperately needed, role in helping to close the gaps between what an organization promises and what the end user experiences (Comcast is the classic example).

As a Blackberry user of long-standing, I'm hoping the company can pull a rabbit out of the hat. But, based upon the fact that the new platform is being ignored and the current system is antiquated, I fear the handwriting may already be on the wall. If so, RIM will R.I.P. right alongside other movers and shakers of past eras.

The corporate graveyard is littered with the names of countless organizations that all died of the same disease: complacency.

Jun 16

Communication breakdown

Posted on by

Blog-or-facebookI'm perplexed. I'm faced with a communications conundrum and need your help to make a  decision.
 
Here's my problem. Several months ago, we decided to simultaneously post the latest Repman blog on my Facebook page. I thought this was a smart move since the lines between the personal and professional are becoming more blurry than the meaning of Sarah Palin's latest Tweet. LinkedIn is no longer the exclusive enclave of one's professional networking life. And, the business world seems to be becoming ever more prevalent on Facebook.

So, we decided to post Repman on my Facebook page.

And, that's when my communication breakdown began.
 
Almost overnight, the number of comments decreased on the Repman blog website itself and increased on the Facebook comments section accompanying each blog post. Blogs that would sometimes generate as many as 50 comments on Repman site were now being abandoned in favor of direct postings on my Facebook page. And, all of a sudden, I started receiving Facebook alerts to new comments all day long.
 
So, here's my conundrum. Like all marketing communications blogs, Repman is rated on the quality and quantity of its content (and comments). With the latter suffering as a direct result of my simultaneous Facebook posting, Repman reader comments are becoming scarcer than positive coverage of Anthony Weiner.
 
I see three possible courses of action:

1.) Do nothing and let the blogosphere decide when and where it wants to engage with Repman/me.
 
2.) Pull down the Facebook posting and go back to the future with Repman content existing solely on www.repmanblog.com.
 
3.) Figure out some sort of hybrid solution (i.e. maybe we post the blog on Facebook later in the day?).
 
These are clearly high class problems. I love writing blogs that engender good, bad and even ugly comments in response. I'm just at a crossroads as to how best to maintain the buzz for the original Repman while still engaging with new, and different, readers on my Facebook page.
 
So, what would you do?

May 26

There’s no such thing as a merger of equals

Posted on by

NewsweekBeastAdweek reports the merger between Newsweek and The Daily Beast is a steaming pile of sh*t. As  is the case with most 'mergers of equals', this one is anything but.

It started out well, though. One unnamed departed editor told Adweek, “Initially, a lot of us were really excited.” But now, says Adweek, former staffers say the newsroom is “…in a constant state of turmoil, uncertainty and confusion.” No surprise.

I was part of a multi-agency merger of equals back in 1992. Earle Palmer Brown scooped up four or five of us simultaneously promising that, although we'd lose our individual firm names, we'd still have full autonomy. The first indication to the contrary came two weeks later. I was attending a firm-wide, 40th anniversary retreat in lovely Bethesda, Md., when I felt a tap on my shoulder. It was our human resources manager. He pointed to a spot in the distance. “See that guy with the moustache? He's your new boss.” When I asked what had happened to the old boss with whom I'd negotiated my contract, the human resources guy shrugged his shoulder and sighed, “Oh, he'll be gone in three months. He just doesn't know it yet.” Nice.

I've also witnessed countless mergers of equals as an agency partner. None went very smoothly. Some management teams really tried. Others merely went through the motions. And, then there were the unmitigated disasters. I remember visiting the headquarters of the 'loser' in one merger of equals and thinking it must have been like touring Hitler's bunker in May 1945. The halls were empty. The survivors shuffled along staring blankly ahead and, when we held a morale building workshop we listened to one horror story after another (up to, and including, one very senior executive who told us she was tossed out of her office and told to find the first empty cube).

One key reason mergers of equals fail is the cultural disconnect. At Newsweek, staffers are going nuts because as Tina Brown herself was heard to say, “Oh, I'm causing all sorts of trouble. I'm changing all the features in the last hour (before going to press).” What a fun gal! I know first-hand how much staffers detest 11th hour changes on a big presentation, so I can only imagine how the merged equals react to a steady diet of this type of drive-by management.

It's rare to find a marriage of equals. It's even rarer to find one in the business world. Here's betting the merged Newsweek/Daily Beast sputters for a year or so before either folding or sold at fire sale prices. It's the AOL-Time Warner of 2011.

May 16

From gold standard to sub standard

Posted on by

Johnson-And-R_jpg_600x345_crop-smart_upscale_q85Rather than crafting just another blog castigating Burson for its catastrophic mishandling of the  Facebook crisis, I thought I'd instead reflect on a delicious irony that seems to have gotten lost in the fray. I refer to the positively karma-like timing of the Burson crisis and the latest in a long-line of product recalls that have decimated the image of its one-time client, Johnson & Johnson.

Some 30 years ago J&J's executives, in partnership with a Burson team led by the legendary Al Tortorella, literally wrote the crisis communications handbook when consumers started dropping like flies after ingesting arsenic-tainted Tylenol tablets. They did everything right. The corporation's CEO was front and center in any and all interviews. He apologized for the mortal mistake. He grieved right along with the affected families. He even yanked ALL Tylenol products off every single store shelf. That decision was unexpected, unprecedented and unbelievably gutsy. It was also the right thing to do and it became the gold standard against which all future crisis responses were judged.

Now, juxtapose what Tortorella & team did then with what Burson, in particular, isn't doing today. Burson has delayed, obfuscated and issued terse, impersonal statements. Perhaps, most importantly, they haven't apologized for their mistakes. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that neither Burson, nor its erstwhile client, will be setting any new, gold standards in their management of these latter-day crises. Both are, instead, now textbook examples of how NOT to manage a crisis.

I don't know Mark Penn and his senior Burson lieutenants, so I can't comment on what they knew or when they knew it. But, their post crisis communications has been abysmal at best. One wonders why they didn't just give Al Tortorella a call?

I won't lose any sleep over Burson's blues, but I am genuinely sad for Harold Burson. He's a great man who built a great firm that was once populated by great people. He deserves much better than this.

May 02

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. Or was it?

Posted on by

If two leading trade journals are any indication, the advertising industry is suffering from a Mood-swings1 severe case of manic depression.

On the one hand, there's The Delaney Report (TDR), which humbly bills itself as 'the international newsletter for marketing, advertising and media executives'. TDR just ran a lead story entitled, 'We'll Take It from Here.' The text provides a sobering report about inroads being made across the board by public relations. “No longer is it uncommon to have a PR agency compete for a client's services (PR, digital, advertising and direct) versus a traditional advertising agency.” TDR says, “PR is now in the sweet spot of a company's marketing plans.” Nice. Very nice.

Unfortunately, though, TDR then dives deep into PR's gains in social media and corroborates its thinking with observations from the heads of three PR holding companies: Harris Diamond of Weber, Gary Stockman of Porter and Ken Luce of H&K. Now, I could be wrong, but I'll bet an annual subscription to TDR (a damned pricey proposition, BTW), that none of these three, old white guys personally blogs, tweets, posts comments, podcasts or does anything else that would remotely resembles engaging in social media. Asking these three for their views on social media is akin to asking a couch potato what it's like to compete in a 230-mile cycling race. “Tough, dude. Very tough.” C'mon TDR, show some journalistic chops, dig a little deeper and interview PR executives who actually walk the talk.

And, now, for something completely different, take a gander at another ad industry trade: Michael Wolff's supercharged revamp of AdWeek, which calls itself 'The Voice of Media.' Methinks this particular voice suffers from laryngitis.

How else to explain its love fest with all things advertising? You'd never know traditional advertising is staggering like some drunken sailor on shore leave. Or, that other disciplines such as PR and interactive are stealing away market share faster than you can say land grab.

Instead, AdWeek's pages are an unapologetic homage to the 30-second TV spot (ugh) and mainstream TV advertising in general (Yuck. What's become of one-on-one marketing and engaging in a conversation with customers?). There are even photographic retrospectives of Doyle Dane Bernbach's and McCann-Erickson's offices from the halcyon days of the 1960s (should PR Week retaliate with a photo essay of, say, the Lobsenz-Stevens offices of the mid-1980s featuring an adolescent wunderkind named Edward Aloysius Moed?).

Like just about everything else, I suspect the truth about advertising's massive struggle to reinvent itself lies somewhere in-between TDR's doom-and-gloom report and AdWeek’s sunshine-and-roses tome.

I'd suggest readers view the two the way I do The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times and Fox News and MSNBC, respectively (absorb the extreme POVS of each, realizing the truth lies somewhere in the midst of the murkiness).

In the meantime, though, a quick note to the big agency PR guys: I'm happy to issue an apology if you fellas actually do engage in social media.

Apr 04

When It Comes to Cobras, the Bronx Zoo Is Asleep at the Ssswitch

Posted on by

Today's guest post is by Julie Farin, @JulieFarin.

By now everyone has heard about the Bronx Zoo’s baby Egyptian cobra – I’ll call her “Tina” (short Main-bronx-zoo-cobra for Serpentina) since she hasn’t been given a proper name yet – who went hissing and missing in the Reptile House last week and went on to become an overnight media sssensation. 

The story became national news – not because of any concerted effort by the Bronx Zoo – but because of an anonymous Twitter user who set up an account as @BronxZoosCobra, cleverly issuing snarky tweets about the pencil thin 20-inch, 3-oz. slitherer’s adventures “out on the town” after her great Madagascar-esque escape.  For example, on March 30th she tweeted: “Does anyone know if the Whole Foods in Columbus Circle sells organic mice?” and “Getting on the ferry to Ellis Island.  Let's hope this goes better than that time on the plane. #snakeonthetown”

After the Twitter page was featured on local NY television newscasts and in NY newspapers, @BronxZoosCobra snared more than 200,000 followers (including Mayor Bloomberg) in less than a week.  Soon after, Café Press and other web sites jumped on the marketing bandwagon selling cobra T-shirts, mugs, and other souvenirs capitalizing on the forked-tongued slinker’s new-found celebrity (http://www.cafepress.com/+bronx-zoo-cobra+mugs).

This tremendous PR and marketing opportunity fell smack onto the Bronx Zoo’s doorsteps. It has the potential to do for the Zoo what Night at the Museum did for the American Museum of Natural History. I envisioned a paparazzi-filled press conference complete with a Bronx Zoo/Save the Cobra logo emblazoned on a step-and-repeat once the cobra was safely captured, where the Mayor and zoo officials donning cobra T-shirts would encourage visitors to meet the snake in-person (or should I say, “in-serpent”) once she fully recuperated. 

Her instant fame could be used as a unique fundraising tool for the Zoo by spotlighting her as the star attraction (think San Diego Zoo pandas) and a must-see destination for tourists and New Yorkers alike.  The NYC Convention & Visitors Bureau could even create weekend packages featuring a visit to the Bronx Zoo.  The cobra’s celebrity could also serve as an opportunity to educate the public by clearing up any misconceptions about the proper care and feeding of snakes as house pets.  (And, let’s face it, ever since that whole Adam & Eve incident back in the Garden, these belly-walkers could really use some positive PR.). 

Instead, Bronx Zoo director Jim Breheny announced in a rather uninspired manner that the snake had been found…coiled up in a darkened corner of the Reptile House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgjkPuxLuQY).
He deflected any endorsement of the Twitterer who had helped make the cobra (and his Zoo) a national story, and did not specify when the Reptile House would re-open.  However, he did say that the former fanged fugitive was nameless, and that they may consider a “name the snake” contest in the future (the NY Post and NY Daily News were already all over this, so the Zoo finally decided to partner with the Daily News for this contest).

In the meantime, @BronxZoosCobra is still tweeting in captivity (#freethebronxzooscobra), and even managed to hijack both RyanSeacrest’s Twitter account and web site on April Fool’s Day, which is only serving to make this satirical writer more sought-after…if we ever figure out the snake behind it.

So,
RepMan readers: What name would YOU give the baby Bronx Zoo Cobra?  Remember, she’s Egyptian, yet a native New Yorker…and also has some boundary issues.  The most creative name submitted wins a (slightly-used) Prince William & Kate mug direct from the UK.

Mar 21

Social Media Quality Control

Posted on by

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Jason Green.

You are an established brand that is active in the social media space but are struggling to Think before you post constantly create fresh, original content. Now what? 

Companies, whether they know it or not, find themselves in a rat race to remain relevant as the next generation of consumers have a short attention span, are increasing fickle, and have a declining ability to comprehend content that is longer than 140 characters. Not to mention, they have numerous platforms to trash your brand indiscriminately. This has created a fertile environment for innovative and fresh thinking social media gurus to flourish. But, are brands risking their reputation by outsourcing their social media efforts without taking the proper precautions?  This recent article in the New York Times seems to indicate the answer is yes.

The Chrysler example illustrates the classic faux pas of an overeager agency employee operating off of the “Sarah Palin” model. Which is say what you want, when you want, how you want, and deal with the consequences later. A good idea in theory but not when put into practice. Turns out that the people of Detroit did not find the humor when their beloved Chrysler (@ChryslerAutos) tweeted “I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to f**king drive.” Instant online firestorm. Check. Agency fired. Check. Employee fired. Check. And just when the “imported from Detroit” campaign was taking off.

Another popular tactic that seems like a sure thing, given our country’s love affair with celebrities, is to give the celebrity of your choice free reign as a brand ambassador. OMG, did Taylor Swift just tweet about how much she loves Neutrogena’s exfoliating hand scrub?! A strategy that is easily facilitated by companies like ad.ly that “helps brands connect with consumers via today’s most influential celebrities, athletes and artists on Facebook, Twitter and more.” The website boasts clients such as Toyota, Microsoft, American Airlines, NBC, and Sony.

Unfortunately for Aflac, they seem to have gone rogue by selecting insult comic Gilbert Gottfried (yes, Gilbert Gottfried) as a social media ambassador. A great decision up until the point that he began poking fun at, according to the New York Times, a market that accounts for 75 percent of Aflac’s revenue – Japan. Too soon? Yes, Gibert, too soon. Good thing Aflac has a crisis PR team on retainer!

So, how do you ensure that your brand is taking advantage of social media rather than eroding years of careful brand positioning with one tweet? Take a step back, a deep breath and implement a social media quality control system.

It is critical to develop a process and system for engagement on each social media platform. Spoiler alert: social media is not as free flowing and organic as it may appear. It is essential to spend time developing a well thought out news flow with conversation topics and approved messages. We can’t give away all of the secrets but here are a few questions to mull over:

•    Who will own and manage your brands social media strategy? Will it be in-house, an agency (is it the right agency?), or a combination of both?
•    How is your brand perceived in the market place and is there room to push the envelope? How edgy is too edgy?
•    Is any publicity good publicity?
•    Will a celebrity partnership enhance your social media strategy and how do you align your brand image with the correct spokesperson?
•    Do you want to participate in real-time conversations? If so, who is authorized to approve messages on the fly?

A brand is a terrible thing to waste, and one twitpic gone awry can sink your brand, cost your agency a client, or turn you into a 99er. So, think before you tweet.

Aug 25

Could 60 million Americans be wrong?

Posted on by

Up-ie A brand new Pew Research Center survey shows that 21 percent of the American population doesn't use the Internet at all. That's  60 million people!

And, it's not just the old 'digital divide' that's causing folks not to tune out, turn off and power down. According to Pew, the 60 million plus, non-tech heads stay away because:
– They don't have a computer (OK, fine, a digital divide)
– It's too expensive (Fine. The damn divide again, but wait….)
– It's too difficult or frustrating
– They think it's a waste of time
– They don't have access (Fine. Divide.)
– They're too busy (That response fascinates me. The Web's a huge time saver for this blogger.)
– They don't need or want it (Put that in your social media pipe and smoke it)
– They're too old to learn (So much for these old dogs learning new tricks)
– They reported having a bad experience with Ed Moed's 'MeasuringUP' blog (Now, that makes sense).

Simultaneously, Pew reports the Internet's explosive growth has finally slowed. Sixty-six percent of respondents reported having a high-speed Internet connection at home which is up just marginally from the 63 percent saying the same thing last year.

So, here's my question: knowing that some 60 million Americans aren't using the Internet at all, why are we not seeing opinion pieces on the subject? PR Week, PR News, Holmes and the other industry trades are filled to the brim with the latest, greatest, social media case studies, features and announcements. And everyone's arguing about which marketing discipline deserves to lead the social media discourse. But, what about the huge market that doesn't want or need the Internet? Don't our journalists owe us thinking on the subject?

Lost in the social media land rush mentality is the reasoned approach a person such as our very own Sam Ford takes. He's never suggested the Internet is the ‘be-all end-all’ for each and every client. Instead, he urges they first LISTEN before acting. Listening would enable clients and agencies alike to uncover the 60 million non-Internet users who, I guarantee, are a core constituent audience for lots and lots of organizations. And, once one has listened, one can determine the best strategies with which to engage.

So, the next time you're in a new business pitch and the prospect asks about your firm's social media strategy, turn the tables and ask what her organization's plan is to reach the 60 million Americans who aren't using the web. Ask her if she's taken the time to listen to the non-Internet users. If nothing else, it will differentiate you from every other agency in the pitch who, I guarantee, will do nothing but wax poetic about their digital capabilities.

Aug 04

Timeless academia in need of re-publishing

Posted on by

TODAY'S GUEST POST IS BY MICHAEL DRESNER, CEO, PEPPERCOM'S BRAND² SQUARED LICENSING DIVISION.

Long before I entered the workforce I read an article in college called “Marketing Myopia” by
Usps-USPostalService Theodore Levitt. It was laborious reading– not because of complicated subject matter, but because I was two years out of high school and acting my age. I never forgot it. And, in the same way readers refer back to “Catcher in the Rye” or “Huckleberry Finn” (other books I didn’t understand the first time I read them), there are profound lessons that can’t be missed.

“Marketing Myopia”– first published in 1960– provokes a businessperson to rethink and sharpen the definition of the industry in which they have a presence. The more narrow that industry is defined, the more risk a businessperson applies to her or his future. Fact is, too many industries become obsolete once new innovations fulfill the same customer needs– more easily, more quickly, more cheaply. The classic example from “Marketing Myopia” is the railroad ecosystem of the 19th century. Railways and train manufacturers alike had a grip on the industry of getting people from points A to B. But they always (and still) define their industry as one of train travel. If they considered their industry as one of people travel– and leveraged their engineers, government relations, cash position accordingly– they could have been the automobile and highway conglomerates of the 20th century. Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan would have simply worked for Union Pacific. The rest is history there.

I was reminded of this analogy in a Newsweek article last month, quantifying the electronic communication trend from 2000 to 2010. Unsurprisingly, 12 billion e-mails sent in 2000, 247 billion in 2010.  Four hundred thousand texts in 2000, 4.5 billion in 2010. Here’s another trend: 208 billion letters mailed in 2000, and 176 billion in 2010. Where was the US Postal Service (either the service, the infrastructure or the brand name) in all of this?  They rode the contraction train for sure. If they have anything to do with society’s expanding e-mail and texting activity, I haven’t seen them.

What a shame. For centuries, the USPS had a near lock on the industry in which they are now a dinosaur. Like the railways of old, USPS had (and has) staff by the thousands. Consumers across every demographic go out of their way to stand in line and prepay for the service. Its balance sheet is a practical ATM machine that most CFOs would kill for. And the universal experience of pressing a fresh stamp on an envelope is a brand moment no other entity has ever been able to replicate. No doubt– they have stayed atop the mail business. 

Except that’s not what their business is or ever was. The USPS was a driver (and now follower) of the written communication business. And by sticking to paper, envelopes, stamps and metal boxes, they were wedded to the feature instead of the benefit. Imagine having an electronic “stamp” option to credentialize every e-mail. (MS Outlook does have that option, hidden obscurely.)  It may sound inconvenient, but we’ve been doing it for centuries. The USPS could have brought their leadership from traditional postal service to digital communication. Their brand equity was far more embedded in consumer psyche even 15 years ago relative to Hotmail, Gmail, Facebook, and most every other way we now express ourselves in writing. Postal service personnel still abound, but let’s face it– en masse at least, they’re on borrowed time. Kind of like trains.

Nearly twenty years after I first read “Marketing Myopia” I spend my days trying to convince brand owners that by testing their relevance in new categories they can rethink the industry definition in which they must thrive. It shouldn’t be this tough.  But lots of managers have noses to the grindstone, putting out the fire du jour, with so little time to step back, putting their company’s futures in peril. Is the New York Times in the newspaper business or the information distribution business?  Are PR firms in the media placement business or the client repositioning business?  Are these legitimate questions?  Does anyone go back to re-read business articles from the early 1960s?  “Marketing Myopia” is worth a re-look.  Unlike the industries it laments, Theodore Levitt’s treatise will never go out of style.