Salon.com's CEO Richard Gingras is tasked, like many of his counterparts in the content business, with saving the business.  His solution?  The "brand," as described in a recent ClickZ article:

"[I]ncrease readership by focusing on relevancy and SEO; bring in advertisers by modernizing the ad inventory; and create new revenue streams, such as an online store. What makes Gingras thinks he can accomplish this amidst the most dire ad market in decades? The magic bullet, he says, is the brand."

"'I do think that in the content space, as we see the print publications decline, I think brands matter more than ever,' he said. 'I think brands with sharp personalities matter more than ever, and I think that presents an opportunity for salon.'"

He doesn't get it.  He's living in some 1950s fantasy world of brands.  A brand is not primarily a "personality;" not any longer.  Snap, Crackle and Pop are impotent in today's age of skepticism and abundance. 

In addition, content providers are living in an age of free, where writers trade work for attention and marketers increasingly launch their own media properties funded with the same ad dollars that Gingras and others so desperately seek. 

Here's the reality: Today's readers are searching for unique value; a compelling why to trade for their scarce time, attention and money.  The why comes before the who.  Where are the whys in Gringas' solution?  Relevancy? C'mon. Relevance is simply another word for niche.  And every strong brand is a niche brand today.

Here's what I think (call me crazy, many have): I think emerging platforms, like Apple's forthcoming tablet, are the whys that will save niche content businesses like salon.  When people have the cool, portable media device in their hands, they'll want their who -- their cool content -- to be on it and travel with them.

Salon.com presently has about 5 million readers a month, with only 25,000 selecting the ad-free version at $45/year.  Fast forward 18 months, and if Gingras gets the SEO and experience right, salon may have millions of people downloading a $9.95 tablet version of the digital magazine.

And then, instead of starting an anemic on-line store to "'curate' lifestyle goods from around the Web," salon can create and sell branded APPs for their community; social tools for their community; and other useful and meaningful innovations for the benefit of their community.  And that's when the salon brand will matter more than ever.

“I put my team first.”

That was Patriots head coach Bill Belichick's response to reporters on last night's failed decision to go for it on fourth-and-2 from his 28 with 2:08 left at Indy. And I happen to both believe in and respect Bill's decision and intent. Here's the entire quote:

"I told the team, and I think they believe I do what I feel like is best for our football team to win every game. I put the team first, I put those decisions first. I just hope everybody understands that."

As a leader, did Belichick make a bad call?  Absolutely not. A leader's job is to acutely examine the changing situation, assess his or her organization's resources and abilities in the evolving environment, and make a decision that best favors the entire organization's chances for success.

Most pigskin pundits have panned Belichick's decision.  They're almost unanimous in their criticism of the controversial call, declaring that he should have played the percentages and punted the ball.  Some have even called his decision a slap on the face to his defensive unit.

Bullshit. Great leaders make decisions for the benefit of the entire team, not to make certain folks feel good about themselves. I know I have many Boston friends seething right about now, so . . . sorry. Now answer me this (and be honest with yourself):

If last night's exact scenario presents itself in a do or die playoff game in January 2010, wouldn't you  want Bill to go for it . . . again? 

Especially considering the fact that since 2000 when Belichick has faced the Colts, on fourth down he has gone for it 12 times during the regular season and gotten it eight times. And during the postseason he's gone for it four times against the Colts and gotten it all four times.

You bet you would. We all want a leader who goes for it.  One with an inspiring vision, who makes both informed and bold decisions for the benefit of the entire team.

I say thumbs up to Belichick on a courageous and correct call last night.  We desperately need more leaders like Bill with the passion, intelligence and guts to go for it with the game on the line.  Because for most of us in business today, every game is on the line.

People are finally realizing that their most powerful assets are not their buildings, bank accounts, or even technologies. It’s their relationships with their audiences. The problems arise when they try to be all things to all people.

Instead, they should develop a core attitude with their core audiences and be as many things as possible to them.

Conventional wisdom resists most attempts to develop a business concept around an attitude.

“We need a defensible position. We need to own a space in the customer’s mind.”

Unfortunately, that’s why more than half of the businesses on the Fortune 500 list when I was in college are no longer in business.  They stuck to their knitting while their audiences moved on.

New and improved products and services will continue to appear at a mind-numbing rate. You'll never keep up as an outsider; by watching and reacting.

The future is about being an insider.  It's about co-creating with - and for - a passionate subculture of like-minded people.

It's time to go deep and discover their hopes, dreams and concerns. And lead them and educate them to new value propositions, new possibilities, for their benefit and for yours.

I took a ride with a couple of friends yesterday to visit a mutual friend who is home recovering from life-saving surgery.  We all hugged, laughed, told jokes and fully absorbed an, unfortunately, rare and quintessential human moment.

I suppose we could have visited him on Facebook, but the thought never crossed our minds.  Thank God.

Now, I don't mean to diminish the significance of the social web.  It is certainly a life changing and, for many, a life enhancing technology.  But folks, please don't become hypnotized and deluded by your addiction to simple social stimulus.  Real life is where it's at.

Get out from behind your screen, bake a loaf of hearty bread - like my friend Craig did for his recovering friend - and pay someone a visit.  And do it soon.  For real life streams much more quickly than your hyperactive mind would ever lead you to believe.

"Battle For The Brain: Hook wires to a snacker's head and you can figure out how to sell more potato chips. Maybe."

That's the headline of a recent Forbes magazine article under the heading "MARKETING."  It's no wonder that the word marketing conjures up words like spin, manipulation, bullshit, etc.  Marketers are doing it to themselves.

I did get a kick out of the last paragraph of the article:

There are skeptics. Craig Bennett, a neuroscientist at UC, Santa Barbara, wrote a report this year about running a dead Atlantic salmon through an MRI machine. The result showed signals of brain activity similar to the ones neuromarketers see when testing commercials on consumers. "You could say the salmon liked one brand of peanut butter over another brand," says Bennett. "But it was dead."

People don't really hate marketers.  They hate the modern day idea of marketing.  Marketers are the only ones who can change that idea by using their creativity and influence to make a meaningful difference in people's lives.  And now is the best time to start, when people really need it.

Years back two researchers argued that rampant crime in the city is the inevitable result of disorder. If a window in a building is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and that no one is in charge. One unrepaired window is an invitation to break more windows, and then lawlessness spreads outward from buildings to streets to entire communities.

Can you see the parallels between broken windows and broken brands?

A broken brand is a business that has no idea where it’s going; has no way of communicating its purpose (since none exists); and therefore cannot align its activities nor inspire its people. It’s in disorder. And this disorder leads to people walking around concluding that no one cares and that no one is in charge. Employees may see problems or opportunities, but they stop complaining and suggesting ideas, since they’re convinced management can’t do anything, or won’t. I’ve read the results of recent surveys, which showed that fewer than 10 percent of employees believe their daily activities are actually related to corporate goals. That’s pitiful.

Leaders are not connecting their organizations’ purposes to the individual’s sense of accomplishment, because the organization doesn’t have a purpose. There may be goals and objectives and “todos,” but there is no unifying perspective -- or strong brand -- that inspires people and guides their actions. This lack of a central organizing principle becomes an open invitation for people to run around following their own self-serving agendas. And like the broken window syndrome in neighborhoods, this lawlessness ends up spreading from employee to employee and from employee to customer. Before long, the organization is hardened with passionless team members, uninspired customers, shrinking margins, layoffs, accounting scandals, Dilbertesque cynicism. A vicious, and totally avoidable, downward spiral.

You’re probably wondering why the leader doesn’t simply step in and take control.

The simple answer is that today’s environment is too complex for leaders to “take control.” In the simpler days leaders acted as police and, like the police of that time, were far more integrated in the “community.” They could see -- or sense -- signals of disorder and intervene to protect their brand. The leaders of today -- like the police of today -- are dealing with a much more complex environment with widely different competitive pressures, customer demands, stockholder expectations, and workforce requirements. They are struggling with the global recession, the social web revolution, and the collapse of the old Industrial business paradigm. The only way for today’s leader to prevent disorderly behavior that will ultimately corrupt his or her organization is to viscerally understand and passionately communicate the organization’s brand!

The leader needs to communicate the brand’s compelling essence, which will inspire sharing, tolerance, teamwork and innovation, and act as a filtering mechanism for new ideas. The brand’s driving philosophy will create alignment and focus, and instill confidence, and give people permission to act, and bring ideas to life. Its special spirit will engage and unify people, and compel them to self-police the organization and prevent the small but unmistakable signals of impending chaos.

The good times are not returning any time soon. And until leaders put the brand at the heart of the organization and make people feel that they exist at that heart, chaos will prevail.

I just read another one of Stuart Elliott's advertising pieces in the New York Times.  Is it just me or does his stuff read like a parody of the ad business?

In this breakthrough article, Elliott sincerely discusses the pressing issue of naming 2010:

"In less than two months, a new year will arrive, along with a new decade. Each year in the current decade has been spoken the long way, as in 'two thousand nine,' rather than the short way, as in 'twenty oh nine' (or even 'twenty ought nine').

In 2010, however, another option will present itself, echoing how people referred to years starting in the second decade of the 20th century: 'twenty ten,' just like 'nineteen ten,' rather than 'two thousand ten'.

Most people will have a couple of months to consider how they will refer to next year — but not the automakers, because a model year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30."

Interviews with auto and ad execs reveal that Elliott's reporting is definitely not satire.  These folks really spend time and money contemplating this triviality:

“It wasn’t really a ‘potato, potahto’ moment for us. Twenty ten feels a little slick, a little self-consciously futuristic, and there’s nothing worse than trying to position — or reposition, for that matter — yourself with forced lingo.” -- Jon Pearce, group creative director at Team One Advertising (Lexus' agency)

"Saying twenty ten is 'too colloquial,' and two thousand ten is 'more formal.'" -- Erin Poole, a spokeswoman for Toyota’s agency, the Los Angeles office of Saatchi & Saatchi

"Twenty ten sounds 'different, modern and progressive, which is very appropriate for the new Buick. It’s also a quicker, more intuitive read' for an announcer when time is at a premium." -- Steve Rosenblum, director for advertising and promotion for the Buick and GMC lines at G.M.

Here's an idea: Split test the pronunciation of 2010 to determine which ads pull better.  Here's a better idea: Wake up and do something meaningful that will actually help sell cars.