How funny that I should stumble across this article today on Slate while eating lunch: Copy-Editing the Culture: The Holiday Horrors of Starbucks, Wendy’s, and a Foreign Film.

From the headline alone, I knew immediately what the author was referencing as far as Starbuck’s goes. I saw an ad on Facebook this morning that featured their new holiday tagline, “Let’s Merry,” and though I’m not quite as worked up about it as this guy is, I definitely winced when I saw it.

“Merry” is an adjective. “Let’s,” as in “let us,” as in “permit us to,” demands a verb. Presumably, this slogan represents some effort to make a pun. The effort fails. Would Starbucks write, “Let’s funny” or “Let’s delicious”? Apparently, Starbucks would. Customers ought to be concerned: Word play at the expense of grammar is not play at all. It’s antisocial.

I’m with ya, buddy (although you’d probably smack me for my use of “ya”).

I also second his call out of the Starbuck’s sizing terminology:

(The shop’s drink-size appellations shift, inexplicably, from general descriptions to specific numerals—and, what’s more, from English to Italian.)

I love you Starbuck’s, but seriously, what is that?

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, we took an internal survey to recap all that we’re thankful for.

Here are some of the clear winners:

• Family
• Friends
• Kids
• Spouses
• Health
• Employment

And here are a few of the more random replies:

• Soy peppermint mocha latte’s from Starbuck’s
• Alexander Skarsgard
• Habanero peppers
• DVRs
• Alcohol
• Opposable thumbs

And of course, we’re thankful all year round for great clients that trust us to do good work!

Got anything else you’d add to the mix?

I went to the movies on Labor Day and one of the previews was for “The Social Network” (which, just like actual “Facebook,” totally baffled my mom). I haven’t heard that much about the movie to this point. I remember reading some column about how scathing it was a few months ago, but that’s about it.

Unfortunately, now having seen the trailer, I still can’t tell you much about it. Why is that? Because I was so busy marveling at the choice of music that accompanies the entire preview to notice any of the actors or plot points. The whole thing plays against a gussied up version of Radiohead’s classic anthem, “Creep,” sung by a youth choir accompanied by piano.

As I listened to it alongside a montage of Facebook status updates, changes in relationship status, profile pictures and the like, I was totally blown away by what an absolute perfect commentary it is on Facebook and the population(s) it serves. Totally one of those connections you can’t believe you haven’t already made yourself.

To whomever is responsible for this stroke of genius: Bravo.

Surprisingly enough (even to me!), I think not.

This morning James called my attention to a really great column from Al Ries that was published at adage.com a few days ago, “Long Slogans are Absolutely, Positively More Effective Than Short Ones.” Now, we work on the web where it’s a commonly agreed upon fact that your homepage  has about three seconds to grab the attention of a viewer before they move on to something else that will, so right away I start running through all the reasons I disagree with Mr. Ries:

• Long isn’t catchy
• Long is too hard to remember
• People lose interest before you’ve made your point
• Long is too complicated

You can preface all of these arguments with “usually” because, of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but generally that’s where I stand on slogans. Short, simple and straightforward win the day.

Then, about a quarter of the way through the article, Mr. Ries gives a list of short slogans that he deems ineffective, followed by this statement:

Short slogans like these, in my opinion, are not very effective. And it’s not because they’re short; it’s because they’re not very memorable.

Hmmm. He might be on to something there.

So what does make a slogan memorable? According to Mr. Ries: Emotion.

Sure, slogans should be as short as possible, but there’s a trade-off. Slogans should be long enough to contain some words that knock on the right side of the consumer’s brain. The emotional side of the brain as opposed to the left side, the logical, analytical side.

Sold.

Check out the original post to see some  examples of both “good” and “bad” slogans, but here’s one of our own:

Our “official” slogan is “Strategy. Creativity. Technology.” That is absolutely the most succinct and simple way to describe us, but if I asked you what is was tomorrow, would you remember?

Now consider our homepage. We have a short little Flash animation that automatically runs  if you’ve never been to the site before. It mimics someone typing in a word processor (which sounds boring, but actually isn’t – I swear ). At the climax, if you will, the screen reads “Thoughtprocess Interactive: a blend of strategy and creativity with a dash of techie geek.” “Geek” is then replaced with “chic .”

This is clearly a play on our tagline and essentially boils down to the exact same thing. But, I have never heard anyone refer to or even comment on our tagline. This 48 second Flash animation on the other hand gets rave reviews. It’s truly rare for a new client not to mention it in our first conversation.

If Mr. Ries is to be believed, that’s because the second example adds in just a handful of additional descriptive words that inject a little warmth and playfulness: otherwise known as emotion.

And so it begins…Search advertising guru, Bill Gross, is bringing what he does best to Twitter. Announced today, his newest brainchild, TweetUp, will allow people to bid on key words to improve the ranking of their Tweets. Accordingly, TweetUp will also measure retweets and clicked links to organize Tweets by popularity.

The idea is for users to be able to quickly and easily wade through the multitude of useless information on any particular subject to see Tweets that have been deemed useful and/or originated from a knowledgeable/credible source. This also works in the opposite direction by giving users who are trying to build a following or establish themselves as subject-matter experts, a (quicker?) way to break out of the crowd. The question is: are people willing to pay for this and will the mass of users on Twitter take kindly to paid placements?

Here at TPI, we’re pretty big fans of Twitter both for ourselves and for our clients. Generally, we see it as a quick and easy(er) way to engage a target audience and establish credibility as an expert. Of the major limitations of Twitter ( 1) sometimes 140 characters really isn’t enough, 2) it’s a long, slow climb to the top and 3) the difficulty of locating useful Tweets) TweetUp has the potential to knock out two of them. Two out of three ain’t bad.

So what do you think? Would you pay to get your Tweets to the head of the line? As a user, would it bother you to know that some Tweets have been bumped up by $$?

For the most part, the idea behind sending holiday cards to clients is about showing appreciation and spreading a little goodwill, right? So does it really matter if your good intentions arrive on actual paper? The answer: maybe.

At the risk of looking cheap, lazy and/or impersonal, e-cards are best left to businesses who fit one or more of the following criteria:

• Tech/Web Companies
• Environmentally-Related Companies
• Environmentally-Conscious Companies*

*Good rule of thumb here is whether your business walks the walk on evironmental responsibility the other 365 days a year in ways that are recognizable enough for your clients to be aware of them.

Done well, an e-card from a business like those described above can be an even better approach  to spreading good cheer in a personal and fun way than traditional holiday cards. Speaking of…take a gander at what we drummed up for our ’09 holiday card! (Tooting our own horn? No, not us!)

Ask me which of these two social networking giants I prefer and I’ll tell you Facebook. Now ask me which of these two I think will still be around in 5 years. I think you might be surprised to hear me say Twitter. Honestly, I’m kind of surprised by it too – but hear me out.

Obviously, both of these networks hold value (and/or create value) for their users. Both are very popular and both are adding members like mad. Both are also likely to take a hit in membership over the next several years as users grow bored with them and move on to the next big thing (which will probably be something from Google – like everything else). That said, if you had to hedge a bet on the success of one or the other, you might be inclined to go with Facebook since 250 million users is a lot more than somewhere around 5 million (though no “official” membership data has been released by Twitter). But it’s another shared characteristic of both networks that gives me pause: each has yet to turn a profit.

Popularity aside, we all know that nothing is free – and if these networks can’t figure out how to turn their fame into fortune, they’re sunk. Both have legions of super-smart people working tirelessly to try and figure out how to be profitable.

So why do I think Twitter has a better shot? Two reasons:

1. This article from today’s NYTimes.
2. And this article from Newsweek.com.

I found the most important information in the Twitter article to be this:

Twitter, which does not yet make money, is now concentrating on teaching businesses how they can join and use it, Mr. Banerji said, and the company plans to publish case studies. He is also developing products that Twitter can sell to businesses of all sizes this year, including features to verify businesses’ accounts and analyze traffic to their Twitter profiles.

For the Facebook article, it’s this:

The paradox of the social network is that trust—the very lifeblood of the site’s growth—may be the same thing hindering its financial success. Recently, the company faced a series of heavily-publicized battles when users were turned off by Beacon, an initiative by the site that targeted advertisements at individual users without their consent. After many Facebookers protested, discussions arose over what information Facebook owns about each of their users, and a new privacy code was established on the site.

Facebook members have grown too comfortable with the idea of the site being used for any purpose beyond the one it currently serves in their lives. They don’t want to get messages from advertisers in their inbox (even if they really might want what’s being peddled), they want messages from friends. Period.

Twitter on the other hand is new enough not to have fully cemented this kind of relationship with their users, and already seems to have an audience that is more open and accepting of commercial overtures. What’s more, some of the possibilities for revenue opportunities they’ve floated seem like winners. If I was a business owner or celebrity, I’d be more than happy to pay for the ability to weed out imposter accounts or access analytics of my profile page (at least one of which should be possible and free to begin with, but that’s a topic for another post).

Anyone disagree?

We recently buttoned up a pretty cool project for Black Magic Auto Care Products to highlight their sponsorship of Bullrun 2009. In case you’re wondering, Bullrun is an annual, seven-day, cross-country road trip featuring a rowdy, celeb-studded cast of characters and some of the hottest, most exclusive automobiles on the planet.

As part of their sponsorship efforts, Black Magic entered a customized, Ford F-150 SVT Raptor driven by the guys at Garage 419 into the rally to get in on the action and get extra mileage (pun intended) out of their participation.

To put rally fans in the passenger seat with the Black Magic team, we built a custom microsite with flash features for daily updates, race tracking and even a custom YouTube Channel. Through daily blog posts, an up-to-the-minute Twitter feed, maps, photos and videos, Black Magic fans were able to live the experience of an exclusive and world-renowned automotive event and interact directly with the brand in an engaging and authentic way. Check out our portfolio for more information or visit the site to see things for yourself!

Today’s New York Times has an interesting feature about FedEx’s first foray into web-video advertising. Starting today you’ll find a series of clips extolling the virtues of FedEx in the form of three(ish) minute skits at youtube.com/getinfotained. FedEx has brought in veteran comedy writer, Bob Odenkirk, to direct each skit – which play as parodies of the classic infomercial formula.

The move to the web follows FedEx’s surprise decision to forgo ad space in the last Super Bowl after 20 years as a notable advertiser. At the time, the company felt like the expense ($3 million for a 30-second spot this year) was unjustifiable in light of the economic downturn. As FedEx’s director of advertising makes clear to the NY Times, the reach and relative affordability of the web has become impossible to ignore:

Steve Pacheco, director of advertising at FedEx, said the new infomercial campaign reflected FedEx’s acknowledgment of the growing sentiment that “lunchtime is the new prime time,” meaning that the multitudes who watch videos online while chomping sandwiches in cubicles rival those wielding remote controls at night.

“We’re still very involved in television, especially with all our sports and sponsorship support,” Mr. Pacheco said. “But digital advertising and communication is taking a bigger role in the overall plan, because we try to scale our media plan to be where our customers are.”

There are several things that I’m seriously interested in. Two of the biggies are writing (obviously) and politics. Even if you’re not all that into either one of those things, this interview with political PR guru, Frank Luntz, is worth checking out for any business owner or marketing/brand manager who wants to know what really makes people tick (Hint: it’s all about the language). While technically he’s actually discussing “phrasing” vs. “writing,” the practical applications are the same.

Behold: The Wordsmith