Off the Reservation

So who at GM was responsible for pulling the company’s advertising money away from Facebook? The Wall Street Journal told me so today. The man was Joel Ewanick, then the company’s global marketing executive. The Journal’s story tells us that Ewanick was fired—evidently for “failing to properly vet the financial details of a European soccer-sponsorship deal.” Did his actions regarding Facebook play a role. Oh, no! Oh, no! Not the least of it. But Ewanick’s talking to the WSJ about that action, before the Facebook IPO was launched “didn’t go over well among the executives in GM’s top ranks,” the Journal tells us. A European soccer-sponsorship deal? Really? Or was the board just digging for something—anything—to rid itself of a man who was “polarizing,” a “glass breaker,” and a “firebrand”?

Nothing wrong with pulling money from an advertiser—but making GM look like a maverick, making it seem disrespectful of the gods of Social-Media, why that will start somebody digging into European soccer sponsorships.

Reminds me of another polarizing firebrand at GM, Ross Perot. He joined the board in 1984 when GM bought Electronic Data Systems and Perot became GM’s largest stockholder. From his board position, Perot had a look-see. Soon he was in the public media criticizing GM’s ways. Board members don’t do that, Ross. Phrases like “nuke the GM system” and “teaching an elephant to tapdance” reverberated in the media—until, in 2007, the board decided to repurchase all of Perot’s stock for $700 million and to send him back into the wilderness where firebrands belong. I got these facts from an old Time Magazine story (here).

Will we learn, in days to come, that GM has once more discovered that a presence on Facebook “has been shown to be helpful to reach a vital audience”? Wouldn’t be surprised. As for Ewanick, I don’t think he will just disappear.

Expanding Canvas, Shrinking Paint

The WSJ yesterday carried a story titled “Social-Media Stock Frenzy Fizzles.” Whatever the content here, I admire that headline. Catchy. Now all this, I think, began when General Motors called its advertising money back from Facebook—in advance, one speculates, of pouring out vast masses of it on NBC’s coverage of the Olympics. Tell you the truth, I’m falling in love with Chevrolet all over again. The Olympic spirit? Oh, it’s Okay. The Chevrolet spirit? Now that’s the shining red pickup I want to drive to heaven.

I got to thinking yesterday, what with that frenzy fizzling. The abstract thought was: If supply expands fueled by frenzy—but demand shrinks because the customer isn’t shopping anyway, no matter what you say, no matter how low interest rates are, no matter how radiant that Shining City in the Cyber Sky, why then there is a mismatch. And even those people dancing the St. Vitus dance will eventually notice. The visual image that came unbidden into my mind is the situation of a painter who discovers that his canvas is expanding as he tries to cover its surface, and the faster he paints, the more his paint-supply diminishes.

We’ve all noticed it, of course. With-it broadcasters have developed a new sign-off line. “See us online anytime. And follow us on Facebook and on Twitter.” Why is that list so short? Wikipedia shows a list of 198 social-media (link)—from “43 Things” to “Zoopa”—and it doesn’t even include Zynga, a “major player” in services and games.

Painting the sky Chevrolet red? GM has no problem doing that—on NBC. Watching sports big time every four years? Yes. Discovering what itsibitsiThunder has to say on Twitter today? That isn’t quite so big a magnet.

GM Face-Off

Genuinely interesting business stories are so rare. The Dow is off because the Greeks don’t want to play? Again? How many more times? An investment bank is rocked by losses? Again? The stock of a company leaps on news that it will have massive layoffs? Yawn.

The news today that GM will no longer advertise on Facebook, having, as it were, tested the waters by spending $10 million—why that is something worth contemplation. Have I said it before? Probably. Certainly on the old LaMarotte. I’ve felt, ever since my own days in advertising, which now seems pre-historic, that justifying ad expenditures by results may not be possible, with any precision, unless you’re advertising in the Wanted sections of papers. Well, GM has found the way to do so, and evidently FB does not deliver.

Our latest “industries” consist largely of banks of computers and software connected to the Internet: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and their imitators. They depend on building up massive bases of names and e-mail addresses—“monetizing” which to channel advertising messages is where the “industry” actually is.

Assemble a huge crowd in an abandoned drive-in movie theater and then show them masses of ads on a huge screen. Is that the model? No. Not really. Assemble a huge crowd in an abandoned drive-in movie theater and then show them a tense thriller on the huge screen. But scatter postage-stamp-sized little ads on the grounds so that the few who have to go to the toilet in the dark might see them, bend down, and pick them up. That’s the model at work on the social media.

A question today sent me to FB; I am one of the millions Facebook counts as its monetizable base, but I visit the site only rarely. Okay, I am a minority perhaps. Still, I did my business there. It’s content is immensely rich, complex, all those people who are my friends, all the stuff they say, the links they provide, the pictures. Did I even notice the ads on the right? No. Did I look there? No. I’ve learned to ignore the right column precisely because I know that it holds ads. Can’t do that when watching TV. That’s where the mute button comes into play.