Windows 7 - last chance for Microsoft??

As a small business owner there are always periods of time when investments in infrastructure become a blinding necessity. Just recently we embarked upon a re-branding and website overhaul which we trust will be completed by the end of this month - that’s a significant investment in time, energy and cash. But the rewards are tangible and satisfying. Next on the agenda is the question of materials upgrades...

With this in mind I came across the following article on Bmighty.com about the value of smb's upgrading to Windows 7. It reminded me of the fact that I had already blogged about XP verses Vista back in 2007 . Back then we made a decision to not support Vista. We deliberately purchased a half dozen machines with XP that were put on ice and rotated into our renewal program as other machines slowed or new staff joined. That policy ensures a consistent operating platform and contented employees for two more years. Given all we know about Vista it was a wise move.

Now maybe different. While XP still feels perfectly adequate for most day to day business applications the tech world is radically different now than it was back in 2001 when XP first showed up (yes THAT long ago). I'm dealing with a generation of iphone app users now and frankly the expectations they have as consumers absolutely impacts the expectations they have for business tools.

So the big question for this new generation of Microsoft Windows software is whether it really does offer enough bells and whistles to justify early adoption. Already I hear that there are issues. Initial versions will downgrade to XP to facilitate transition but reportedly after a relatively short period it will only downgrade to Vista (OMG!!!).

Microsoft need to be very careful – there are other valid alternatives solutions available to smb’s now like the ability to pull apps from the cloud (back in 2001 we had a server in house running Lotus Notes for email, database and collaboration tools – now everything is piped in via the web) or even a move towards Apple technology which can more easily be integrated into the existing systems as several of our team have done.

So I will watch with interest the reaction to Windows 7. I’ll read the reviews and listen to the discussions on the web amongst early users and see just what this has to offer and then we will decide in which direction to move…if I’m a representative sample of a typical smb then Microsoft better get it right this time or it could be game over for them.

B2B research - brand verses demand gen

I was extremely interested to see some coverage of a research piece between Ziff Davis Enterprise, Forbes and B2B agency Stein Rogan and Partners. The article link on B2B magazine can be found here.

Firstly the findings that a majority of B2B marketers (64%) are giving equal weight to branding and demand gen is reassuring. Over the last 2 years we have found the tech market has shifted heavily towards lead generation, many times at the expense of more identifiable branding initiatives. This is also compounded by a shift to more digitally based, response focused media, often as we know at the expense of traditional media formats like print.

Now don't get me wrong - it's my personal opinion that lead gen and branding are entirely compatible, indeed the assets used to generate leads are often the "deliverable proof" of some higher brand promise (proving a technology leadership position, innovation in the field, improved servicing of a market segment, better customer service, etc).

However there's a mind set question here. In many companies lead or demand gen is operated separately from corporate or brand communications. For marketers to realize the joint goals they set forth in the research, it's going to be critical to see more integration of these two components.

As a second side note the views on mix of media used for branding is fascinating. OOH at 72% and social media at 69% ahead of broadcast and print 68% and 64% respectively bodes well for the OOH industry but really throws up another key point.

Social media is, by it's nature unpredictable. My opinions here could in theory attract negative views from the market and may impact on my company brand. With social being a much more dynamic environment and less controllable, are marketers taking a huge risk by giving it such a huge role in brand development? It absolutely has a role to play. Giving it the right weight in the mix is where the questions lies.

These are interesting and highly dynamic times. B2B marketing departments and service companies as well as publishers are indeed set for exciting changes. The real winners will be those that get the media mix right and successfully integrate all the components. That change will need to start internally, with bigger broader campaign initiatives, real vision and use of appropriate metrics.

Going Green - coming of age?

You cannot expect us to be based in Berkeley, California and not have an interest in the green space. It's part of the DNA of the region and infused within the local culture.

With this in mind it was nice to attend this weeks Going Green 2009 event and get an update on how this sector of the market is developing. The Going Green event is predominately an opportunity for green tech companies to network with potential investors and for industry experts to discuss the issues driving new innovation and change.

Two sessions were particularly interesting to me - "Terrawatts of Solar" and "Urban Development". The solar experts discussed the issues around industrial scale delivery of solar for grid electricity and highlighted the issues blocking this. Incredibly second to financing and ROI (which is a huge obstacle) the next one they noted was "environmentalists". Ironic I thought that legal protests from those protecting habitats would delay a technology that could save the planet!

The "urban" panel drew attention to the difficulties of executing on major renovation/modernization projects like Boston's "Big Dig", Seattle's tunnel project and London's Cross Link Railway. Most noted that going underground was in most cases the only option left without massive disruption to existing infrastructure, while again the cost and political will was always a challenge especially for publicly funded and managed projects. In many cases providing an infrastructure upgrade necessary to facilitate the "greening" of a city (less traffic, more pedestrian areas, more mass transit, bike lanes, etc) simply are never going to get the financial support. Money it seems is the stumbling block to so many green initiatives.

Finally a very important theme came through about who controls the future of green tech success.

The US is simply a terrible industrial environment to realize the change needed to help green tech succeed. Let me qualify that - in terms of innovation it's all happening here and to an extent in Europe too. But and it's a big BUT - the commitment required to actually realize the technology and bring it to market only exists in one market - China. The economy and commitment in that market is geared towards the long term. We all know green innovations and change pay off long term but US culture now thinks short term, quarter to quarter and so to thrive, green tech must utilize China's phenomenal industrial might. The downside of this...an ever faster leaching of intellectual value from the US to China and even greater reliance on one economy to provide long term global solutions.

Bottom line - the world needs a strong US/China relationship, perhaps more now than ever before. Only then will green tech really come of age.


NOTE - Just Media have handled media campaigns for Solar City - targeting residential customers and encouraging installation of solar systems for the home; Applied Materials - running a global campaign promoting Applied's solar manufacturing equipment and San Francisco Environmental - promoting recycling habits amongst city residents and business.

Wow what a ride!

I was staggered to see that my last blog post was back in May. In some ways that reflects the internal shift in focus required by all during what was some massive upheavals within both the media industry and our own company. It's nice to finally come up for air.

I guess everyone who works in this industry has felt the effects. Layoffs have been abundant in media companies and across the board we have witnessed adjusted business models, pricing structures, staff skill sets and services. Ultimately organizations have been forced to reflect upon their own best practices. Change has been the most common theme over the last 6 months.

Just Media was no different. We lost two key staff members - long term employees who we miss greatly. But when client spends drop - in some cases by 90%, any organization needs to adjust to survive. Thankfully we are now back hiring again and able to take advantage of some great talent to boost our teams expertise. Adding new blood is a fantastic way to re-energize - new ideas, different experiences and fresh thinking - challenging the conventional thinking and creating new angles to attack and deliver upon existing client goals.

Client wise it's also been a roller coaster ride. Early signs in 2009 showed big budget cuts and the inevitable shift of dollars to ROI and lead gen - almost to the exclusion of all other media activity. That's tough for all. Small budgets as we all know don't take less time to manage. I lost count of projects that got planned only to get cut at the last minute when quarterly figures didn't match expectations. That frustrates everyone - clients and agency - everyone feels like they are stuck in the mud with wheels spinning.

However in the last few months things have changed. We have picked up some major wins - Hitachi Data Systems, Trinet HR services, Juniper Networks, Webroot and Stephens Bank - and whats interesting is that ALL are asking for assistance to develop strategies, plan and run branding and awareness campaigns. A return to true marketing perhaps?

So as analysts predict an end to the recession, companies appear now to be rushing to claim market and mind share from competitors. All realize the window for this is short and anyone who is sleeping now will miss one of those rare post recession openings to win and win big....

Maybe the real ride is only just beginning - buckle up....

Now this is funny - every client should watch this.

The following video was sent to me and like most agency folks right now it's nicely summarizing the types of conversations that are happening in the real world. I guess we may even be accused of doing the same thing with our publishing partners as we squeeze them for more value.

Thankfully since we don't do creative work we are probably not being hit as badly as some agencies as regards the very final comments - they are priceless though and very apt right now.

Hats off to the creative team that did this work. The very fact they did it and it resonates with so many in the industry is somewhat telling I think.

BTW has anyone esle noticed there seems to be more black humor around at the moment. Idle hands are obviously still finding things to do (and yes I know this is my second blog of the day)

Why some tech CMO's succeed and others don't

There is an interesting article just been posted on the Forbes site once again noting that the most dangerous C suite title to carry is that of CMO. The article notes that the average tenure for a CMO is just 28 months compared with 38 months for CIO's and at least four years for other C titles.

This got me thinking. Since we have dealt with literally hundreds of tech companies over the years, is the situation any different in our space and what might be effecting that.

Well we are different in some ways. Tech companies are always looking at innovation as a core business driver and culturally this infuses the marketing department with a feeling that they must always operate on the cutting edge of what is available as a communications vehicle. The hasty move away from print and the current obsession with social media are two classic examples of tech marketing trying to force the issue. But there's more to it than that.

The more I consider this, the more I realize there are basically two forms of tech company marketing department. Stable and dysfunctional.

We have some incredibly good clients with staff who have been present for a considerable time and who one might even suggest are "stable". This stability though exists in two completely different forms.

Firstly there is the version where marketing is a culturally defined function of sales support and where the marcom professionals place is to provide assistance to a sales program through somewhat monotonous but consistent marketing activities such as events management, collateral production, lead generation and product related marketing support which may sometimes include the odd media campaign. Stability is delivered by the simple fact that no one has time to think long term and indeed there is little compunction or will to do so. Budget management is only done by quarter and no sooner is one activity completed than the next is underway. The relentless treadmill turns and the marketing team, in order to be successful, must function as a well oiled machine.

In the second type of stable tech marcoms set up, the client usually operates within a relatively strict set of brand guidelines, creating campaigns within defined parameters and with a longer term corporate communications goal in mind. This works well, forcing the alignment of the different marketing components together and allows for more consistently integrated campaigns. Sure it has drawbacks - mostly in the stifling of the more radical creative ideas but even here, with some leeway and the right "adult supervision" things can still get interesting.

Both types of stability have drawbacks. The first tends to be staff burnout. Only certain types of marketing professionals accept relentless grind and one might argue that the real talent will tend to move on to organizations presenting more of a challenge and greater opportunity. This is perhaps unfair - some CMO's simply enjoy building extremely functional departments and should be applauded for doing so.

In the second scenario the real problem is maintaining the consistency, especially in the short term. It typically requires other C level functions - mainly the CEO - to be very supportive of the brand vision and not feel inclined to tinker with it. If they buy in, then they will often move on to focus on other aspects of the business and allow the CMO the leeway to run with the vision and mould it over time. They must also accept, that while marketing should be measured, not all of marketing's objectives can be simplified into a spread sheet. Carrying a brand vision into the market is as much about tone, feel and emotion as CPC and CPL's.

So what makes a CMO bound to fail? Sadly dysfunctional tech marketing departments abound. In many cases the CMO is responsible themselves. They come in and immediately engage in radical overhaul without necessarily taking the time to leverage the good that exists. They "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and can actually inflict more harm than good - especially if they don't stick around long enough to complete the task. This approach can be due to a radical difference in their vision as to what marketing goals should be or simply a wish to stamp their creative/message vision on the company at the expense of any historic work done. Again a CEO is probably behind much of this as they look for marketing to "reinvent itself" to help a struggling company position or diminishing bottom line.

However the most common problem I observe is often an organizational infrastructure that's just designed to kill any CMO's good intentions. Field marketing, corporate marketing, lead generation, events marketing, product marketing, web team, regional marketing, PR, etc, etc. Any company with this many departments, often with private agendas and rarely coordinated, is a disaster waiting to happen. If I meet any CMO who tells me "oh that's not something I control" I know they are doing the job with both hands tied behind their back. It's simply impossible to rally the troops if some think they are Indians and others think they are the cavalry. It never ceases to amaze me how often one marcoms function appears to be taking pleasure in screwing up the actions of another.

Oh the stories I could tell.......

Google gets a dose of media reality

I sometimes joke with the Just Media team that media planning could be done by a bunch of trained monkeys. It's one of the reasons clients are always trying to pay us peanuts for our services!

Indeed in this modern economy of cost cutting and service justification it's often the impression that agencies like ours that only do media planning and buying (no creative work) are a luxury item that can be replaced, in many cases by clients doing the work themselves. Well for once I have to send my thanks to Google for proving to all that it's simply not possible to replace hard working media professionals with automated systems and algorithms.

The news Google has pulled out of trying to sell traditional media like print and radio was somewhat of a surprise to me I have to say. I was quietly concerned that potential cost savings offered by media bidding models would attract significant attention and dollars out of the hands of professional buyers, like us. I thought, foolishly it seems, that human input into this process was so devalued by many that a new "agency" model was being created - indeed that was the stated goal.

However the reality is it's actually getting harder than ever to be in this business. The knowledge required is so much greater than just 15 years ago when I started on the agency side (where I moved for ad sales). Obviously the web has lead to much of that - it's a media vehicle with almost unlimited options and the ability to combine pretty much every other media type within it (print, radio, TV, events, face to face meeting, out of home - all is replicated in the digital world). However as we have seen even radio, a media format that offers so many similarities with online as regards buying (small standardized ad units, solid audience demographics, calculated values of spot rate based on target reached) it's really not that simple. Especially complex is the evaluation of the performance metrics so beloved by Google algorithms and also the "human effect" of bias ingrained in most radio advertisers who like to speculate on what times and stations their target is listening rather than using simple mathematics to calculate a reach/impression/value matrix that builds a plan based on desired response.

So thank you Google - for once you have helped prove we still do have a place in this world and that my team is not in any immediate danger of being replaced by chimps and gibbons.

We know what you think!

A friend of mine sent me a link to an interesting company who have recently won a marketing innovation award, called Neurofocus.

This technology of scanning brain patterns is not new and I recall hearing about it several years ago, based on the interesting results of studying subliminal messages as part of an academic study.

For obvious reasons this is both fascinating and completely scary. Being able to predict what messages will be most effective in creating reactions and response offers huge potential to the advertising, branding and marketing communities (not to say sales). It's especially intriguing to think about reactions to messages that are not necessarily driven by logical thought patterns but our emotional ones (the ones we have so much trouble controlling that is).

Like all new advances there are two sides to this. In adults one feels this is perhaps somewhat less contentious - we are all free thinking and emotionally stable right? But what about other groups like kids. Groups that are driven far more by emotional reactions and who are less able to adjust for those subtle nuances being produced by brain induced research? Should this technology be banned in it's application to those groups and who's going to police it (I should state here and now that I am not a fan of deliberate advertising and targeting to anyone under the age of 16).I have absolutely no faith in our industry to self regulate.

Like I say fascinating stuff and without doubt open to producing some spectacular results when applied correctly to the industry in which we operate. However just as the original research showed, use of subliminal content and brain reactions need to be carefully managed before things get out of hand.

Ad spends to drop in 2009 but should yours?

The parent company of Just Media's London office, Aegis Media, have just announced their 2009 media ad spend predication's. Global decline was predicted as being down by 5.8% while in the US this figure was predicted to fall by 9.8%.

For an industry that creaks and groans as soon as it is not experiencing year on year increases or 2-3% this data may appear to be a disaster but lets look at this more realistically.

Media rates have softened and it's entirely possible that much of this decline can be absorbed by cost reductions in strongly negotiated media buys. So any company who actually does slash a budget by 10% is probably going to net out with almost as much media as before.

Also a 10% decline in budgets means that for every marketer who is slashing their budget significantly (you perhaps?) there are others who are seeing the opportunity to grab market share of voice and actually increase activity. Also historically we know that those that do slash hard, also tend to be the most conservative and the slowest to come back.

Within the tech sector and indeed our own client base we have seen this pattern emerge. Some clients have reacted to market pressures by slashing back on spend and consolidating all activity into lead gen programs - completely abandoning significant outbound awareness marketing programs. Others are seizing the opportunity afforded by softer rates to buy stronger integrated campaigns which include a balanced mix of above the line components such as print ads, advertorials and targeted banner creative with direct contact strategies or lead development through content syndication, small personal events programs and virtual and web events.

While I fully understand the natural reaction within executives is to look at instant cost reduction (I am a CEO after all) I can only hope that marketing professionals in tech companies are not bowing to pressures and making decisions that will in the long term prove to be counter intuitive.

This is not the first recession we have seen and it's won't be the last. Ever noticed the pattern that those who emerge the strongest each time are the companies who didn't disappear off the face of the planet and stop talking to their customers?

Fascinating results of radio's new measuring techniques

Although we buy radio advertising on behalf of some clients and are actually quite strong proponents of this media platform for certain types of campaigns (for example retail promotions) I certainly don't claim to be an expert.

This week we were visited by Victoria Mann a lovely sales rep from SF station KFOG. She took us through us through some of the recent changes in radio listenership methodology and the impact that has had on station demographics...fascinating stuff.

Historically radio audience figures were drawn up by using selected panels recording their listening patterns in a diary format. This has now been replaced by an electronic surveillance device which actually picks up stations unique ID codes when people are really listening (as opposed to what they remembered listening to).

When analyzed by age groups what pops out are the following interesting facts (note this is for SF/Bay area stations only):

With the exception of some urban and dance stations the 18-24 age group is not really listening to the radio. Of those groups that are, it's reasonable to suspect that most are concentrated in minority demographic groups given the skew to musical style (hip hop, urban and Latino stations score much higher than rock, indie and country styles)

The 6-17 year old age group is listening to many of the same stations as those with 25-44 age skew - effectively showing the data is collected for the kids at the same time as the parents. This raises the question as to whether kids are actually "listening" or are they just "exposed" to mum or dads radio choice - that I know is true for my kids.

That conservative talk radio stations are fundamentally now an "oldies" select with almost 70% of listeners over the age of 55.

That progressive talk radio is more solidly in the 35 - 54 age range so technically a more attractive demo for most advertisers despite lower listening figures than their political rivals.

That sports radio tends to skew male and over 35 (OK no shock there then)

That listening really is spread throughout the day part and is not limited to just the "drive" hours.

This new data really goes a long way to enabling media buyers to more accurately read between the lines and build even stronger radio buys.

The question to be raised here just like for print media - if our new generation is not consuming this media platform now, how will this effect radio in the long term. On the reverse side the data shows that radio is certainly a very valid media option and does still deserve it's place at the table.

United Business Media announced Thursday that four issues of Information Week this year will be available solely as downloadable interactive PDFs.

The publication is calling these four PDFs “InformationWeek Green Issues.” and said it will plant a tree for each of the first 5,000 downloads of each of the four issues in conjunction with American Forests.

Whilst I applaud the efforts to reforest the planet, I'd personally like to see a more significant move coming from publishers who would like us to take digital magazine more seriously - get us genuine performance data!

Over the years, publishers have dodged major questions about digital versions of magazines, almost never giving details of download numbers, open numbers, pages consumed, advertisements clicked or unsubscribe rates. Many have hidden behind the "well when we send out a print magazine we can't tell you how many people actually read them either" line, which whilst true hardly is comparable. Digital versions are, by there nature, able to provide stats. I know this by having had "private" discussions with publishers, so it's obvious to me that if data is not forthcoming it's probably because it's not that impressive.

Result - As a rule the agency does not encourage support of this format. We are strong advocates for print (our own research proves that magazines DO still get read) and obviously we do a boat load of web advertising.

Personally I'm frustrated - I really do want to support digital formats and think the industry as a whole would benefit enormously if we have data to help us understand them and evaluate sensibly. Perhaps these special issues will provide us with more data...I will keep you posted.

A master class in using social media for a business

In these times of high stress and depression it's always nice to find a story that brightens the day. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did:

We all know the business world has become obsessed with finding ways to use social media to promote their brand. It's a delicate balance and most companies struggle with developing an appropriate approach - mainly because the marketing department is incorrectly set up to handle and exploit this new media environment (but that's for another blog). In this instance, Irish airline company Ryanair has illustrated they do at least have a clear strategy of dealing with bloggers.

Fantastic !

:-)

Does the industry have the courage to say no?

If the report in the recent Advertising Age is true then the media and advertising industry needs to take a good hard look at itself. And frankly it's going to need to get itself a set of "chicken nuggets" large enough to avoid being held to ransom.

In case you have not heard, some of the biggest advertisers in the market including GM and Budweiser owners Anheuser-Busch are insisting they be given 70 or even 120 days to pay bills related to advertising activities.

In an industry that is already reeling from reduced spending levels, such an attitude is effectively blackmailing any supplier who might be in the unfortunate position to have to rely on this business to survive. It's a shifting of credit from banks (who know better than to subsidize these giants) to the small companies across the industry. It's classic corporate bullying of the very worst kind.

This will result in only one thing - faster and more complete destruction of the industry. No agency can survive on 70 days credit - especially since that's almost never the reality and payments almost always arrive later than the stipulated time. Even large media owners will suffer severe cash flow issues if enough giant advertisers pull the same stunt.

Obviously there are ways to reduce exposure to this. Firstly it is a refusal to accept these terms. If you have succeeded in being viewed as more than just another commodity, then many client contacts will fight tooth and nail to get you supported, as we oursleves have seen in many contract negotiations. Secondly it is possible to insist that the advertiser takes responsibility for paying media invoices directly (thus enabling the media owners to say no to the business or accept floating the campaign themselves). Thirdly it is to walk away from the business and look for more sustainable accounts elsewhere.

As someone who runs a small business and strives everyday to be honest with suppliers and staff, there's something inherently despicable about companies that advertize brand attributes about positive behaviour, play on the heart strings of the American spirit and portray themselves as bringing positive influence into peoples lives when behind the scenes they are prepared to screw an entire segment of small companies. Survival at the expense of others should not be acceptable and they should be called on it (well done to Ad Age for publicizing this).

As you can see I'm not buying it...

What price content?

I was listening to a very interesting debate from the Charlie Rose program about the future of newspapers with Walter Isaacson of "Time," Robert Thomson of "Wall Street Journal" and Mort Zuckerman of "The New York Daily News".

A couple of items caught my attention. Firstly the comment that Google devalues everything - the argument being that through Google, advertisers can target ads anywhere on the web regardless and without thought towards the content quality against which the ads run. That's true, although as someone who focuses on audiences, I also have to note that audience quality is also a highly questionable sales item that I have rarely observed to have been delivered or proven in reality (no site I ever worked with could give me any reasonable guarantee my ad was being seen by anyone I was actually trying to target).

The second item I picked up on was the comment that publishers are in danger of loosing the relationship with readers in order to chase revenue from the advertiser. Now that has often been put forward as the case in many B2B fields where magazines shamelessly would jump on the next "hot" topic in order to generate ad revenue. Is this any different now on the web?

I would argue that it is. The problem is that now site designers are looking at all the ways they can integrate ad messages into sites - leading advertising to become so intertwined with content - that in many cases users are getting even less original content and more "ad created content" than ever before.

So at what point does this turn full circle. Does the subscription model ensure freedom from this advertising/content bond? If so can publishers who have so far offered content for free ever realistically charge for it and move away from advertising. With so much out there do readers even value content quality as much as they used to especially the "web generation" who have probably little loyalty to brands especially when getting news from Google news feeds.

What price content indeed.

Business predictions for 2009 and a look back...

As we start this new year, it's appropriate to look forward to 2009 predictions and also interesting to look back at 2008.

I was amazed and slightly perplexed to read my introduction notes to my 2008 predictions. At that time I was already noting tough times ahead for the economy and likely recession - interesting given that the actual arrival of this was really delayed in most peoples minds until the stock crash in October. This was confirmed in our own business figures. Up until October 2008 we had consistently been out performing 2007 and were up in both revenue and income. A very good year in fact with even more growth than I had thought possible.

Well as we enter 2009 I think everyone is now on the same recessionary page. Indeed the reactions appear to have swung almost into panic mode with concerns about the global economy the main subject of every holiday dinner conversation. People are worried and in ways which I cannot say I have experienced before.

The issue this time is the global scale of this recession and the fact that no-one really knows exactly how we will get out of it. Root to this confusion and concern is the nature of the problem. World financial markets have run riot and since they are global in nature they outreach the power of individual national political establishments to control them. Everyone has thrown money at the problem but I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that will actually work or who even thinks that solution is fair.

Bottom line is that this year we will see huge reaction to the worry with companies hunkering down - eliminating excess spends, jobs and scaling back to consolidate on core activities. It's CFO's perfect storm and they will become the single most important corporate player in 2009.

Probably the worst place to be in a recession is at the end of the marketing chain. Marcoms budgets are the easiest to cut and like many companies in the segment we can see 2009 budgets
being slashed back by almost every client as they prepare for the tight year ahead. We see the results already - WPP the global media/ad agency behemoth predicts scaling back it's operation in both US and Europe, this comes after similiar stories about rival Omnicom.

So what for Just Media in 2009. Well like 2008 I predict we will need to consolidate with our existing clients, expand the client base to make up for individual budget shortfalls and we will see even greater movement to performance based, lead gen activity. Goals for us this year will also include expanding some service offerings whether through partnerships or additions to the team. More on that laterin the month.

It's going to be a tough year of that I'm certain. However opportunities will continue to open up as businesses shift around agency relationships (especially those downsizing from big brand shops) and the need for specialist skills grows in value. We are well placed to capitalize on this and with hopes for a rebound later in 2009 it will be another crazy 12 months.

Safety belts will be obligatory....