from Patrick Davis Partners, the six priorities for the post-agency market:

1. Find your voice.
2. Engage with the semantic marketplace.
3. Return to humanist marketing.
4. Live the renaissance.
5. Champion social agenda marketing.
6. Build brand integrity.

And if I were to add a seventh priority, it would be to simply cultivate each of the previous six.  Finding, engaging, returning, living, championing, and building are wonderful starting points, ideas to help shift a brand in the right direction, but without cultivation, care, attention, and sustainability ideas can and will die.  So, hold true to the future of a more honest, more conscious, more open environment for us all.  Cultivate that ideal.  We can make it prosper.

I remember, very clearly, my reaction of defiance when three of my favorite co-workers and friends suggested that I should pick up the Twilight book series. The thought of becoming engrossed in a high school vampire saga sounded simply ridiculous. I made my opinions known, and still, somehow, ended up with my friend Matt’s copy in hand. It was after reading the first few pages that I remembered having picked up a copy a few months earlier, on a trip home to New York. I recall the massive Barnes & Noble windows at Union Square where I sat, drenched in sunlight and not entirely captivated by a rather slow introduction to the book. I believe I initially only read about half of the first chapter, and decidedly did not leave the store with a copy to accompany me home. Twilight was not love at first read for me, but sometimes, life has a way of bringing things back full circle. This would not be the first time I had become deeply engrossed in the adventures of young adults and the supernatural.

I must admit, I faced little trepidation in religiously buying multiple copies of Harry Potter for my brother, sister and anyone else who needed a good read. I was not alone wrapped up in wizardly rapture. The books have sold more than 400 million copies and have been translated into 67 languages. To date J.K Rowling is the only billionaire author and there are rumors that she may be richer than Queen Elizabeth II. The books J.K. Rowling’s publisher wanted to market toward 9-11 year olds, became the modern dark fairytales, firmly gripped in the hands of parents, teenagers, children, professors, doctors, lawyers, and Wall Street analysts alike. The books are all being made into Movies, video games and Universal and Warner Bros. have teamed up to launch a Harry Potter theme park in Orlando Florida in 2009.

Stephanie Meyers, a 34 year old, mother of three, and author of the Twilight series credits J. K Rowling with having paved the way of young adult books reaching pages numbers well into the five hundreds. These thick books read like flowing water, and pass between the hands of all ages.

I devour books. I read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in one day, only stopping to occasionally nibble on something, and hydrate. Tears and all, I called New York in the early morning hours to discuss the outcome with my siblings. We had each grown attached to the characters, and the lure associated with great works of writing, capable of maneuvering the feat of speeding up and slowing down the human heart with mere words.

I began reading Twilight on a Monday afternoon, and finished reading Braking Dawn, the last, and in my opinion, the best of the four books in the series, a week later. Filter in work, internship and school, and it may just spell devotion. I was fortunate enough to come down with a throat infection toward the end of my workweek, and in between not being able to eat solid foods for two days, and doping up on antibiotics, I spent a whole Saturday in bed, reading as if my life depended on it.

At work, I snuck in pages every chance I had to be in the office. On the bus, and even walking down the street, if there was enough light still left, my feet moved but my eyes remained glued to the pages. I read during my class breaks. I called my brother to tell him of this addiction that had taken hold of me, and he informed me that I was acting like a thirteen-year-old girl. I didn’t feel the need to defend myself, he may very well be right. I had been wrapped up in these books, in a manner similar to housewives being enslaved by soap operas.

I can’t call the Twilight series a great literary read, but I can tell you that they are engrossing. By the time I had finished the first book and made my way into Borders on my lunch break to acquire the other three books, the first one was already sold out. Everywhere I turn, someone is either reading the books, or trying to figure out exactly why everyone else is reading them. While the idea for the books surfaced in a dream for Meyers, the ease with which the reader is able to attach themselves to the characters is not surreal. Everything inside you, is found willing a happily-ever-after ending with each turn of the page.

To some, the Twilight books are simply horror plots rewritten by Meyers as a love story. Yes, vampires are monstrous and sensual legends found surfacing and resurfacing in many cultures throughout time. The vampire genre has built classical characters like Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Anne Rice’s legacy of beautiful immortals. What could seventeen-year-olds add to this already rich tableau? Bella and Edward, the main characters in Twilight, remind us all, young and old, what love feels like. Love in its blinding brilliance, the act of being drawn to someone across space and time, the millions of scattered pieces of what remains of us when love leaves, and the unequaled magnitude in knowing that nothing in this life or beyond, will ever compare.

Meyers’ golden-eyed, supernaturally gifted vampires choose not to take human life, and choice becomes a central theme throughout the books. It is the ability to recognize and reject the enslavement to our natures, to become better than what we imagined we could be, that these books seem to ask of us. This aspect made more sense to me after I read a little about Stephanie Meyers.

In over 2000 pages, Meyers never leads her readers into a full sex scene. Yes, I realize this is a young adult novel but my one frustration with the book lies in its lack of a descriptive sexual encounter. Even a chapter, only to released on line for those select few (perhaps not so few actually, after conferring with friends who all agree) who would like to know the details would fulfill the need to know. There is a great deal of emphasis placed on the erotics of abstinence, and resisting temptation. Here is where Stephanie Meyers’ life begins to illuminate the motives of her characters. Meyers is a Mormon, never drinks, not even coffee, and has never seen an R-rated movie.

I must admit, at times, the main characters fall into the distinctly stereotypical displays of the overprotective male, and a histrionic female. Still, we the masses of readers, bear with them through the sighs, fainting and dizzy spells, and continuous self sacrificing, because while it may makes us feel a little queasy a times, we yearn for something as all encompassing and consuming as this type of love. Genetically we respond to passion, even when reason might make us think twice.

Just so that there are no misunderstandings regarding my current devotion, I have bought seven tickets to watch the Twilight movie Saturday night. One ticket is mine, and the other six are for my own personal army of friends equally enamored with the books. I imagine that we are not the only ones making this into an event.

Around 3pm this afternoon, a friend of mine text me that her boyfriend could not make it to the screening of Twilight tonight. I quickly type back an affirmative response and spend the rest of the day in anticipation. A minute ago, my brother in New York, text to tell me that he’s being “a major looser” because he is going to see Twilight tonight. What a surprise, so is his sister.

At the moment, I am part of the Twilight fad, and only time will tell if Twilight becomes part of world libraries, or a faded monument of 2008. If it becomes a trend, expect it to follow in the footsteps of Harry Potter, billions and all.

POW! Campbell’s struck first.  Wanting to position themselves as the healthy, natural option in the canned soup vertical, Campbell’s released a series of television and print ads (seen above) chastising Progresso for including MSG in their soups.  Campbell’s, of course, uses all natural ingredients and TLC (tender love and care).  Damn! No they didn’t!

BLAM! Progresso counters.  In a full page ad in The New York Times, in large, block letters, Progresso asserts, “Campbell’s has 95 soups made with MSG.”  Oh, SNAP! That. Just. Happened! So much for tender love and care, Campbell’s.  Even more so, Progresso announced along with the ad that they have removed MSG from 26 of its soups.  Quite the left hook.

But Campbell’s is resilient.  And it’s going to take more than body shots.  So… KABLOOM! Again, in a full page ad in The New York Times, in large, block letters, Campbell’s strikes back: “Campbell’s proudly offers 124 soups with NO MSG.”  Wassup, Progresso? Get your facts straight, fools! Looks like the haymaker has landed.  And in Campbell’s’ corner, wiping the collective brand’s brow, is the one and only Stephen Colbert.  On last night’s episode (November 17th 2008) of “The Colbert Report” Stephen covered the Soup Wars and was even presented his own Campbell’s Soup, known now as Easy Street.  Seems that without the negative political attack ads that had been consistent on all of our televisions we’re continuing to seek out this negativity.  It just so happens that now, it involves soup.

Have your say!  Are these ads resonating?  Are they too negative?  Do you all even eat soup?! Or, just enjoy Mr. Colbert below!

The Chinese hegemony already spread its wings. Among the collection of items that “cohabits” in our houses, just quantify the ones that have the denomination “made in China” to understand the extent of the economic invasion. From the trifle to the technological device the conquest is complete. Which product doesn’t have the sinological seal? Based upon fallacious or veridical allegations concerning the factor quality of their products, no one will disown nonetheless their supremacy.

When Europe then the U.S. experienced unexpectedly their industrialization and later as a result their economic development, the key words were production that became mass production and productivity. Following the Occidentals’ models, China accelerated frantically its rhythm of industrialization, its production and therefore its productivity. Like its sisters, China has big bulky eyes envisioning big projects for the grandeur of the country, coveting Tibetan natural richness and worldwide natural resources as its predecessors not so long ago, hunting on the African continent.

No more Maoist little red book imposing agrarian reforms privileging 90% of the territory to agriculture. Now Chinese dream of mass consumption, brands, liberalism and soon freedom!

With the industrialization comes mass production (for local or/and international markets!), with mass production mass pollution, with mass pollution to evolve now mass recycling… Not even mass implemented in the Occident yet! And the cherry on the cake, the mass COST of our outrageous irresponsibility!

With the industrialization comes fierce urbanization, with urbanization mass expropriation, mass migration, with mass migration mass occidentalized consumption, with mass occidentalized consumption mass energy production, with mass energy production (construction of gigantic dams destroying the ecosystem, nuclear plants) mass pollution… It’s a vicious circle!

With the industrialization comes the energy dependency that ends up, refer to the USA, England…, to wage wars.

This could perfectly be a plausible scenario however the time given to our planet and to China shortens daily and opposes each others. The global warming and the depletion of the natural resources may shift China’s ambitions. Is it the reason why China who just become the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide is asking for the richest countries in the world to abandon their unsustainable lifestyle to fight the climate change? In this call, does China acknowledge its pertaining to the decried countries’ circle  “the polluters and the richest” ? If yes, will China, as it proposed, be paying taxes as the detainer of the record of pollution?

In 1975, an employee of the Pentagon revealed to the American Public the historical facts of the Vietnam war. The document, the United-States-Vietnam relations, 1945-1967 : A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, denounced the falsifications of the U.S. politico-military involvement in the Vietnam war.

Ellsberg, the leak of the affair was at the time in charge of writing factually whether the Vietnam war was humanly and budget wise viable.

When the affair exploded the president in power was Nixon.

What originally titillated my criticism was the presence in the equation of a man tormented in delivering the truth because the documents he possessed had the seal of classified “top secret”. An American citizen torn apart between being a patriot (to his nation, to the people) and being a betrayer to the eyes of the highest authority of the nation, the government. As he chooses his side, the truth, he will use the NY Times to be the medium of communication of his message, to divulge the truth.

In its article 1, section 6, the U.S. constitution brags (in its first amendment) “For any Speech or Debate in either house, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in other place”. Consequently, Ellsberg sees in senators his legitimate voice to outcry publicly the truth that would be gagged by a treason trial by the government if exposed!

The opportunity of introducing the papers as congressional records would give the Senate omnipotence over the government.

It is interesting and revealing to know that none of the senators he encountered was willing to oppose the government in the name of the truth, at the light of the controversial content, and the classified “top secret” nature of the document! Which fear was undermining the senators at the moment? Wasn’t America a democracy?

Allegedly constitutional chambers, because of their multipartism are the organs that constitutionally oppose the executive from any outburst, abuse, that carries the legal power to counter-weigh absolutism.

Aware of Ellsberg’s move (to the NY Times), the government tried unsuccessfully to cease the publication by a federal court injunction, that escalated to the Supreme Court in a challenging trial “NY Times v. United-States”.

By the failure of the government to demonstrate the “burden of proof”, by proving the unconstitutional behaviors of successive presidencies and their violation of their oaths, Ellsberg was absolved and gained the U.S. public support.

In an authoritarian society, the first move implemented by the dictatorial regime is to shut down the freedom of press, so as to be adequate to the highest sphere thinking. By suppressing one fundamental right instituted by the constitution, the government alters and redefines the constitutionality and the constituency of the former democracy.

Installed by a democratic majority “by the people” to represent its interests, the executive branch definitely disconnects itself from its constituents “for the people” while striving against the right of information.

By suing the NY Times, the U.S. government dissociated itself as an individual entity to the rest of the nation. In standing in the way of any constituent by illegitimating his belonging to the same group of people, by denying his identity (as an American) by identifying him as a “treater”, the government rejects the ability of any being to think individually, to exert one’s freedom of speech.

According to the NY Times, the Pentagon Papers were “historical” documents stating by this allegation as being part of the American history, heritage, culture, therefore a part of you, the people.

By hiding national documents, by not allowing the people to access “Top Secret” documents in formatting them as archives sleeping for at least a quarter of a century, the government assesses itself as an independent cell. As a result, why wouldn’t Ellsberg, X, Y, Z when truth matters be others independent cells living and evolving in the same environment (same nation)?

The time has come where the “territorial” government and the people unit as one! The move belongs to the government!

Let’s not be so pessimistic, some we have to admit participate by donating time and money to caritative organizations who consecrate their activity to voice westerners’ acknowledgment of others’ suffering. Those “others”, who share our lives virtually, are Iraqis, Afghans, Tibetans… Let’s say people pertaining to war zones or potential unstable worldwide platforms.

But, since the formation and the development of online communities, people interact with each other with more realism, objectivity, with what makes human beings so magic, their human touch.

For instance Iraqis’ versions of the war are more individualized and not only seen under one and only one reductive scope, the media eye : FOX’s, CNN’s, CBS’…

To illustrate the power of people, the power of community, what they can do as one, when they are willing to gather to break all the molds, let me just refer to the Boulder Dushanbe Teahouse project to mark the sisterhood, between Boulder (Colorado) and Dushanbe (Tajikistan). To honor their special bond the Mayor of Dushanbe Maksud Ikramov outsourced 40 Tadjik artisans to redecorate the Boulder Teahouse (the place where friends meet to talk or play chess in Central Asia). What could be associated to online community sites, couldn’t they?

To reciprocate Boulder financed a Cyber cafe in Dushanbe. The Cyber cafe will symbolize an open window to the world, a tool for communication, a structure for information, knowledge, a foundation for both cultures.

Based upon their original idea of antinomic cultures reciprocity, partnership, Don Philabaum gave birth to his “Adopt a War Affected Person or Family”. Roughly the concept consists in adopting an Iraqi or Afghan family through the Internet. His goal is to establish a partnership between all social categories, from lawyers to bakers, and the war casualties, and the collateral casualties by creating a bank, a web of responsible, caring people to be involved in sponsoring, educating Iraqi and Afghan citizens. In his innovative and audacious program, actions isn’t it the right way to express the difference between the Americans and the American government?

Fruits are battling for recognition on the American soil. Through an impressive battery of TV spots and billboards, the agro-industry, the medical corpse, the government urge the American Public to consume the healthy ailments.

“Five portions of fruits and vegetables a day” is the leitmotiv for whom wants to be healthy. “Five portions of fruits and vegetables a day” is according the marketers’ voices better for our diet! Better for the fresh or the processed produce industry? For the industry, the allegation is not arguable since it increased the volume of the sales of the agro-business.

Figures show that among regular fruits such as apples, grapes, oranges, the consumption of fresh fruits augmented very slightly since 1986. Per capita, in 2008 apples represent 17.9 pounds, grapes 9.4 and oranges total a timid 10.9 pounds. Nothing that could reflect or assert a consequent consumption, an improvement of the nutritional behavior!

Maybe my understanding of the definition of fresh fruits is erroneous! By fruits consumption do they exclusively include processed fruits? As I study the U.S. consumption report, ciphers are staggering and tend to valid my theory!  For 2008, processed apples registered 39.7 pounds, grapes and oranges respectively reached 72.8 and 79.7 pounds. To summarize, the consumption of fresh fruits gained ONE POUND in 28 years whereas processed fruits boomed attaining 192.2 pounds. In their jargon, fruit consumption clearly means processed fruits!

The disparity between the consumption of fruits and vegetables is enormous. The consumption of vegetables barely reached an average of 3 pounds. Every green (broccoli, cauliflower, peas…) experiences a slight (not new) one pound of positive inflexion. In the American mind, vegetables are definitely not associated to greens. The only exceptions remain the head of lettuce and the tomatoes, faithful accompaniments to the unalterable “sandwich”!

By vegetables American fantasize on potatoes, with a predilection, once again, for processed ones. As fresh potatoes fight to reach the 50 pounds bar, the “processed” ones flaunt a consumption of 143.8 pounds!

When the media refers to the increase of the American consumption of fruits and vegetables, they apparently keep under silence the prevalence of the processed fruits and vegetables consumption which amounts for 405 pounds versus 208.1 for fresh produce.

Facing those facts, I can’t help but wondering, since they consume preferably processed fruits and vegetables, doesn’t it spoil the data on their daily nutritive supply? Does the over consumption of processed produce over fresh correspond to a cultural behavior or is it the result of a fast pace lifestyle where everything is prepackaged and easy to use?

It is taken for granted now, that processed produce are plunged in ascorbic acid, treated with vitamins and minerals (NatureSeal), covered with bacteria to keep their freshness! Here are the elaboration of chemical processes that will guarantee the freshness to produce that we don’t want in their natural original state! The world upside down!

Few months ago, ready-to-use lettuces were the fertile ground for food-poisoning outbreaks and their packages were denounced to be the vector of 6 % of food poisoning.

Nowadays doctors debate on the nuritive values of such produce! From cutting to storing fruits nutrients get lost in the process as well as their rate of vitamin C. Contrary to the common thinking fruits are mainly constituted of sugar, water, vitamins, and not as many nutrients as we thought!

With the mass production came the introduction of chemicals affecting the quality of produce, accusing consequently a deficiency in their nutritive values.

The demistification has come : dieticians in concert agree upon the wrong ideas proliferating on packaged, commercialized “superfood” produce. As for the antioxidants, their efficiency only operates for an hour in the body. The detoxifying chlorophill in the popular wheatgrass is no exception since the chlorophyll isn’t absorbable by our bodies…

Our perception of fruit juices, smoothies is idealized. Who would have guessed that liquidized fruits bring more sugar and calories as their natural state?

The choice between fresh and processed depends on our knowledge. The more you know, the more you go back to Nature. Unfortunately, health has its cost, its name : organic!

Whatever taste, aspirations are yours when choosing the car of the, your future, the constant in the equation will be its green properties. In the 2008 Paris, Detroit Motor Show, the diversification of the designs, technologies and creativity displayed incontestably the full range of environmental awareness of the car manufacturers.

Aligned with the desiderata of industrialized countries’ consumption, the values of the car industry shifted with in the back of their mind, to maximize the good on earth. From luxury to ordinary cars, the competition is sharp to present excellence in fuel economy, in gas emission reduction : The paradigm of the Millennium!

If Toyota with its famous Prius enjoys its leading position among the diesel sales (hunted by Honda, Nissan, Ford…), the appearance of new technologies as the Blue Tec for Mercedes, or the hydrogen power for BMW expresses the eagerness of brands to overthrow any supremacy in surpassing the market expectancy. Performance is now synonymous with respect of the environment, the clean energy is the common denominator.

Since the mass consumption opts for ordinary cars, luxury cars responding exclusively to the high-end market, developing a car that corresponds both to the financial affordability and the eco-consciousness of the nowadays tendency will be the coming challenge. For that matter, the “agile and zippy” Jetta TDI designed by Volkswagen has already won people’s heart over the Prius!

Without disarming and on the offensive track, Toyota, once again, started the electric vehicles race by proposing to the public in 2010 its “plug-in hybrid electric” prototype, twin version of its popular Prius, bearing (I guess!) in mind for its conceptualization that it will follow its elder sister’s glorious steps!

Powered with its lithium-ion battery pack, the motor generates 50kW allowing an autonomy of 7 miles at 62mph. Electrifying isn’t it?

Its fierce competitors Chevy Volts, GM plug-in are sparkling, right behind! Soon, cars like computers will become obsolete as launched on the market!

Only problem in this clean energy picture : what is the end of life of lithium-ion batteries?

Becoming a member of the community, participating proactively from within, and resisting every urge to “sell one’s self” (in the traditional marketing sense) are most important.  And it’s all about relevant content and interaction – and listening.

Listening is not participating.  Listening is reconnaissance and research and should begin on sites such as:

Bookmarks
Ma.gnolia
Delicious
Diigo
StumbleUpon

Crowdsourced Content
Digg
Yahoo Buzz
Mixx

Conversations
Google Alerts
Blogpulse
Radian6
Ask.com
BuzzLogic
Google Blog Search

Blog Communities
Blogged.com
MyBlogLog
BlogCatalog

Micromedia
Tweetscan
Twemes
TwitterLocal
FriendFeed

Social Networks
MySpace
Bebo
Ning
Facebook
Friendfeed
LinkedIn

It’s important to synthesize not only the information being aggregated, created, and talked about by people on these sites, but also the community of people that inhabit them.  How do people relate to one another?  What is the language? What is acceptable, what is forbidden, and why? Their interactions between one another are paramount and will allow the listener to learn how to interact successfully before entering the contribution stage.

Now, once the brand is confident in their target and prepared to participate as a part of the larger community the brand must contribute as a person, not a marketer, spokesperson, or sales representative.  Talk like a person, and more specifically, from your brand’s point of view.  With each contribution assure that as a participant you are: bringing value to the conversation, creating honest, original content, and are engaging in proactive, helpful conversations.  Throughout this process the brand’s personality and viewpoint will become the synonymous with the brand itself.  With some great conversation, link-backs (others’ links to the brand’s content), and constant activity among the community, the brand will begin to accumulate followers.

A testament to social media community activism and the leveraging of a powerful web presence is Skullcandy.  Relatively small at its birth, Skullcandy (a high-fashion headphone and audio accessory company) has now become an evangelized force among the social media community.  This was, and continues to be, achieved through their active and consistent contributions to the community from downloadable music, custom artwork, peer-to-peer photo and video sharing, embeddable widgets, and virtual street teams to blogs, self-started communities and forums, social networks, virtual and physical events, and customer-centric traditional marketing.  The customer became, and now is, their friend.  And that relationship is at the center of every interaction they initiate.

And so should the community-centric relationship be all brands’ focus.  It’s expected.  And if your brand isn’t delivering, your competition will be.

Thank you to Brian Solis and his comprehensize blog post on PR 2.0 from where much of the information above was synthesized and presented originally.  For even more on creating and sustaining a social media community and how to further leverage the community in favor of your brand, do hang on his every word.

Unknown among the common people but influential in the global economy sphere, Nooyi is no one else but the chairman and CEO of Pepsico. She symbolizes the voice of the Indian woman, perceived as the engine of growth within the Indian society, with altruistic ideals (development of sanitation in the world, improvement of sustainable agricultures) expressed on the stage of the world.

A better place for corporations and its loyal subjects. For their project to be viable I guess either you adopt affordable prices following their third world markets (initiated by Bill Gates) or you increase their propensity for consumption. For the later to happen, Nooyi (through Pepsico) has provided readily available treats (fortified nutritional products) to distribute among poorer economies.

In Nooyi’s “Business call to action” campaign, she promotes innovative business models. In her action program, she advocates passionately conservation of natural resources (especially water) as a guiding goal. In the back of her mind, Pepsico’s interests.

So we should stay aware of our surroundings when Mrs Nooyi speaks with the business jargon. It’s one thing to address a patronizing message with “we understand you” to the local population, it’s another thing to articulate growth in percentage. Associating humanistic concepts with rates, volumes and percentages is indecent and antisocial.

Pepsico made a conscious choice by choosing a woman to lead, praying on the cultural “mother figure”, an equal right recognition in quest of the third world market domination. In business every decision has its rationalization. Nooyi is ardently encouraging rigid sanitation and conservation of water in those markets. Does this respond to her conglomerate’s needs? Firstly because 90% of soft drinks are made with water, secondly because when Pepsico exports its holding to foreign markets, it has to supply itself from the markets’ resources and adapt its policy to the governmental directives. Go figure…

To refer to Nooyi’s native country, let’s just underline the fact that Pepsi was denounced to carry in its soft drinks 35 times more pesticide residues in India than in Europe, what must we conclude?  A laxer safety policy when it comes to deal with the health of poorest countries?

Just a thought…

Isn’t the choice of Nooyi to represent Pepsico, their best asset to any controversial outbursts in one of the fastest growing markets?