Starting to see a good deal of online content from brands that are looking to leverage soccer, specifically the FIFA World Cup, but also the UEFA Champions League. You’ll recall of course how ESPN, via the head-bangingly clever Group of Death, kicked things off back in December for the FIFA World Cup draw. Here’s some footage:

More recently, Heineken, a UEFA Champions League sponsor, pulled off this little gem:

Die hard football fans will notice that the orchestra starts to play the Champions League theme song. More on this one over at PSFK.

Puma also tapped into this insight, noting that Valentine’s Day fell on a game day:

Now let’s jump over to Umbro, who’ve done a couple of clever things. First, they launched the new England away kit via a live Kasabian concert.

Then, on Facebook, Umbro gave consumers an opportunity to win custom England jerseys for themselves and several of their friends.

What about Nike? Oh, don’t worry, they are working it too, with a recent press trip that had plenty of bloggers in attendance.

Even the host nation, South Africa, is getting social. In fact they are using crowdsourcing to help generate awareness for everything the country has to offer.

You can participate via Zooppaa.

Sabathia or Lincecum? You know who Mayor Mike is going with.

Ok, perhaps that’s not quite right, although I don’t know, maybe Mayor Bloomberg is a closet Roto guy. But I do know that the company he founded, and that made him a billionaire, has come into the world of Fantasy Sports in a big, big way with Bloomberg Sport’s MLB offering.

A couple of notes up front: I have to thank the folks at Bloomberg Sports who gave me an opportunity to test drive this baby free of charge.

Second, I’ll admit that I’m not the biggest Fantasy Sports guy. Yes, I’ve dabbled here and there with baseball, football, even the international sports like soccer, F1, rugby and yes, even cricket. But strictly as a casual player.  So my analysis of the product will be from that perspective. Do I think a hard-core fantasy player should check it out? Yes, but if you are just a casual player that may change thanks to Bloomberg Sports.

Why? For me the main issue is the user interface. It’s really fantastic. Great photo depictions of the players, not just their names; easy to understand graphics that were richly brought to life; and all available from a single dashboard. When I think of my most recent experience with NFL.com’s Fantasy Football offering, you have to click through pages and pages to find the information you are looking for. Perhaps it’s an apples to oranges comparison – free football game v. top of the line baseball service, but now I see what the difference can be.

Of course being fantasy baseball you expect a ton of data and Bloomberg Sports doesn’t disappoint. But again, I was blown away by the interface. It felt more like stock analytics, with trend charts, bar graphs and a whole host of other data visualization enhancements. Just a ridiculous amount of data, but it was laid out so smartly that I never felt overwhelmed. It would certainly take a novice a day or two to discover all the amazing ways to slice and dice the info, but once you learn the system you’ll spend hours analyzing and comparing players in more ways that you can imagine.

What’s the cost? You can get both the draft kit and the in-season tools for around $30. That seems like a no-brainer if you are half-way serious about playing Fantasy.

I encourage more die hard fantasy players to check out what’s being said about Bloomberg Sports over at The Baseball Analysts. The Biz of Baseball also has a good overview.

Yesterday one of the great traditions in college sport took place as the field of 64 (ok, 65) teams was set for the NCAA men’s college basketball championship. Of course, any time you are selecting a certain number of teams, others are going to be left out. In the weeks leading up to Selection Sunday, we hear about the last four in, and the last four out. These so-called Bubble Teams represent one of the most intriguing parts of the whole experience, as jubilation and heart-ache are exposed and fans witness the raw emotion of 19-year old kids going bananas when they make the torunament. Here’s Baylor from a couple of years ago:

Of course some deserving teams, or teams who feel they are deserving, are left out so every year there is a call for a system that will eliminate the subjective nature of the selections. More metrics, more data, more rules.  Interestingly this is a very similar argument to the cry in college football for a playoff system. In both cases these calls are misguided.

With the possible exception of a thrilling championship game, almost nothing creates as much discussion as “who’s in, who’s out?” in college basketball and “who is really number one?” in college football. Finding out the definitive answer to these questions should be the last thing the NCAA is worried about.

Injustice begets emotion and from that you have passionate discussion. Why would you want to try to squeeze that out? Now, I’m not ready to give the NCAA credit here, I think rather unwittingly they have stumbled upon a key tenent of good Social Media engagement – give people a reason to discuss something they are emotionally invested in.

Now this is different than pro tennis or the NFL using instant replay. I’m all for that use of technology. Nobody wants to see a game or match settled by an inaccurate call. But ranking or selecting teams is entirely different. How can you know, even using all sorts of sophisticated computer modelling, if the 3rd ranked team is really better than the 4th (or 5th), especially if they never played each other? You can’t. What about the 72nd best team as opposed to the 63rd? No way.

The lesson here is, don’t get focused on definitively solving every issue with science. Injustice, anger, joy and heartbreak. Let’s the passion and emotion felt by your audience pour out, and figure out a way to own that conversation and extend it.

Tremendously interesting event yesterday at Pratt. The star-studded panel lived up to its billing and a spirited give and take with the audience of Pratt students, alumni and teachers could have gone on for another hour.  The event certainly left me with several key takeaways that will help to further shape my thoughts on crowdsourcing. Here are some selected (paraphrased) quotes from the panel, along with some of my own personal key learnings:

First, we need to start refining the term ‘crowdsourcing.’ It is currently being used to refer to a whole host of different activites, tactics and executions, some of which are wildly divergent. I heard terms such as co-creation and mass collaboration used and I thought those were interesting. I’ve toyed with the word ‘expertsourcing.’ Better definitions will lead to more clarity.

Chris Clarke, Chief Creative officer of LBi, cautioned the crowd that you can’t make money off of a mastery of technology. By that he meant, knowing how to use tools isn’t enough. This would be a recurring theme.

Ben Malbon of BBH Labs urged people to recognize that the horse had left the barn and rather than fight against crowdsourcing, you should be learning how to master this concept before your competitors do.

Adam Glickman of ideaLists pointed out the importance of filters when utilizing crowdsourcing. This was also a repeated theme from the panelists. In fact, that’s where Clarke saw the opportunity for more traditional agencies as it relates to crowdsourcing. John Winsor of Victors & Spoils agreed that curation was important, and also noted that managing the size of the crowd was an important element.

Mike Samson, co-founder of crowdSPRING, felt that crowdsourcing is a great opportunity for smaller, even local companies and brands to get high quality work at an affordable price.  My takeaway here is that if smaller, even mom & pop shops are starting to get great looking design, that raises the bar across the board. Now everybody is going to have to have great design and now more design jobs and all levels are being created.

Great stat from Ric Grefe, Executive Director of AIGA: About 1 million design students in China, compared to about 40,000 in the U.S. Implication: your competition for jobs is about to expand exponentially. Welcome to the flat world.

This led to the number one takeaway of the evening for me: The difference between design and commercial art. If you are entering a logo design contest, that’s commercial art. Nothing wrong with that, but you’re going to be in a race to the bottom. Design is about problem solving and working intimately with a client.

Craig Kanarick echoed this with his comment that commercial art is a commodity, but design has real value. The best design is a collabortion he said, not in the crowdsource sense, but between client and designer/artist.

Clarke characterized the ‘old brand’ as focused on “guidelines” and the ‘new brand’ focused on “vitality.”

Grefe again highlighted the issue that the real value of design is that of a service, of problem solving, or doing the research. Those are ‘high-touch’ activities that aren’t going to be commoditized.

Samson spoke of crowdsourcing from a supply and demand standpoint. The supply is currently outstripping demand, so compensation for things like logo design is going to be low.

Kanarick circling back on the point of value creation spoke of creating design tools, not the designs themselves as an opportunity.

Samson hit upon the notion of professional v. amateur, saying that technology has obliterated that distinction.

Grefe took on the touchy subject of spec work, noting that the younger generation are collaborators not joiners (or organizations) so for them holding to the no spec position held by design associations may have less meaning.

The issue of spec work was a real hot button issue. The argument was made that many industries deal in spec work, but that perhaps now the risk is shifting more from the agency to the individual. Grefe noted that with communication design, the spec work, let’s say a logo, is often the final output. A spec TV script could lead to years of work for a writer.

Samson noted that many crowdSPRING contest winners often get follow on work from the client.

In all a really terrific evening of conversation. Many in the crowd, especially Pratt faculty were very disturbed by the notion of crowdsourcing, feeling it devalued the work and the worker. Their arguments seemed to focus on drawing a ‘no spec’ line in the sand. While I see their point and sympathize with their position, it seems misguided. We can’t “unsee” crowdsourcing. It’s here. The question is, how will agencies, designers, freelancers and everyone else learn to harness crowdsourcing, but also bring additional value to the process and figure out how to get paid for that?

My descent into the world of crowdsourcing continues tomorrow as I’ll be at the Crowdsourcing & Disruption event at the Pratt Institute. This figures to be another quality gathering by the looks of the panel, which includes Ric Grefe, Executive Director of AIGA; Craig Kanarick, Founder of Razorfish; and FoE (Friends of Eyecube) Ben Malbon from BBH Labs and John Winsor of Victors & Spoils.

For those of you unable to attend, I reached out to organizers James Tung and Alexander Smith and hit them up with some questions. Here are their takes on the state of crowdsourcing today and in the future. First up, James:

James Tung's poster for Crowdsourcing & Disruption

Eyecube: For students or creatives early in their careers, does crowdsourcing offer a great opportunity, or is it devaluing the creative product?

James Tung: Crowdsourcing’s initial proposition does suggest greater opportunities for students and people early in their careers, but upon closer examination one realizes that there are some issues: 1) the opportunity is open to a broad range of different kinds of people in all stages of their various careers and 2) the reward (usually monetary) is singular in nature.

While a tiered reward system may be implemented, the situation where everyone involved may also be rewarded seems highly impractical. The time that one applies toward this opportunity may, indeed, go unmerited and it is with this understanding that perhaps the opportunity becomes a risk where there is no gain.

The democratic nature of crowdsourcing suggests elimination of traditional classifications. Does it make sense to talk about students, creatives early in their careers, mid-level creatives, veteran creatives, retiree creatives, or even creatives in general when a project is open to everyone and anyone?

I see the creative process as equally valuable if not more valuable than the end results sometimes. In an ideal situation this creative process is unique and benefits both the creator and the client requesting creative work. I am unsure of crowdsourcing’s role as creative process. I see it as an attempt to commoditize creativity. Is there such a thing as a generic creativity? I don’t think so.

Eyecube: Can 3,000 amateurs produce higher quality work than three or four pros? Can they do it once, or consistently over time?

James Tung: There is a possibility that 3,000 amateurs may produce higher quality work than three or four professionals, but I think the question is misleading. It implies that 3000 amateurs are working together collectively when in reality it is 3000 amateurs working individually. In my experiences with such an experiment, the output was tremendous and wide ranging, but the quality of the work was underwhelming. I can see a client becoming very overwhelmed with so many options. The output of three or four professionals may seem small, but if it is the right three or four professionals the work will be informed. I offer the following historical exchange:

John Ruskin: “The labour of two days is that for which you ask two hundred guineas?”

James Whistler: “No. I ask it for the knowledge I have gained in the work of a lifetime.”

Eyecube: From a consumer standpoint, does it really matter where the creative comes from? I mean does it matter whether a 30 second Doritos ad was made by your neighbor or by CP+B?

James Tung: It depends on the consumer type you are speaking about. Not all consumers consume creative in the same way. Some people enjoy movies without being interested in who makes the movies, whereas some people are devoted to certain filmmakers and sit through the end credits.

There is most certainly something to be said about consumer generated content. However, I think this requires someone, somewhere to recognize that such content has creative merit.

Eyecube: It’s 2015. Is crowdsourcing the go to creative platform or has it been discredited? (no points for hedging!)

James Tung: I do see value in crowdsourcing as a process and I don’t see crowdsourcing going away in 5 years time. As for its role in certain creative fields, it is already a reality. Do I want it to be the go-to platform for creative work? Not really. (Did I cheat? Probably.)

Thanks James, now, same questions for Alex…

Alexander Smith's poster for the Crowdsourcing & Disruption event

Eyecube: For students or creatives early in their careers, does crowdsourcing offer a great opportunity, or is it devaluing the creative product?

Alex Smith: Students and creative professionals in the early stages of their careers have always been presented with many offers to do work for little or no compensation. These are usually framed as excellent opportunities for the young designer to get some exposure or develop their portfolio, but in the end the only person for whom they are great opportunities is the one commissioning the work. Still, sometimes it turns out to be worth it for the designer. Those just starting out have to go through the process a couple of times before they can judge how much they are getting taken advantage of.

Eyecube: Can 3,000 amateurs produce higher quality work than three or four pros? Can they do it once, or consistently over time?

Alex Smith: Can one million monkeys pawing at a million typewriters for a million years bang out the complete works of Shakespeare? I just looked this up on wiki[pedia] and it turns out the chances are very low. Miniscule in fact, but not zero. The irony of the fact that I used a crowdsourced encyclopedia is not lost on me, though to be fair the models are quite different.

The actual answer is, it depends. It depends on who those amateurs are and what the problem they are working on is. Not all crowds are created equally, some crowds are in fact curated or pre-filtered. As I understand it, this is the idea that Victors and Spoils built their business model on. Furthermore, some problems lend themselves to crowdsourced solutions. In fact sometimes crowdsourcing IS the solution itself. Still, for all of that to work there needs to be a firm hand on the tiller somewhere upstream.

Eyecube: From a consumer standpoint, does it really matter where the creative comes from? I mean does it matter whether a 30 second Doritos ad was made by your neighbor or by CP+B?

Alex Smith: It probably matters less for a Doritos ad than it does for a Mercedes Benz ad. Or, from a consumer standpoint it seems unlikely that your neighbor’s ad will have the kinds of high value signifiers that one might look for in a brand message about luxury, quality and craftsmanship.

Eyecube: It’s 2015. Is crowdsourcing the go to creative platform or has it been discredited? (no points for hedging!)

Alex Smith: Crowdsourcing will still be around in 2015. It will have spawned some sub-species by then. The curated crowd, or the pre- qualified crowd being the most obvious of these, but I expect there will be other more exotic forms as entrepreneurs work to create different facilitating platforms. Serious brands will continue to work with professionals with whom they have on-going relationships because in the end good design is structural rather than surface driven and its execution requires a talented and passionate professional.

This should be a terrific event if the thoughtfulness and strength of viewpoints exhibited by James and Alex is anything to go on. I’ll have a follow up report on the event later this week.

While Everyone Is Illuminated focused on crowdsourcing, the initial impetus was how crowdsourcing was gaining prominence as agency models were being questioned. I continue to dive into this question and came across Guided Collective which is officially opening up shop on March 8. You can check out their website now and view a slick animation that describes their process. I caught up with Sam Reid, one of the Directors of Guided prior to their launch and asked him to give me his take, and Guided’s approach, to agency models and crowdsourcing:

Eyecube: First, give me your interpretation of the word “crowdsourcing” and how Guided fits in.
 
Sam Reid:  The Internet is analogous to a global nervous system and it’s now in a good enough shape to starting thinking of newer possibilities. Tasks previously never possible, feasible and practical can now be tackled by the power of collective intelligence. We now have a massive opportunity for collaborative problem solving. There are varying degrees and functions but in essence we’re now a connected colony capable of incredible things.
Improved technology means it’s easy to identify talent and then have them collaborate. Collaboration across disciplines is where completely new insights are gained. The potential is enormous.
However the word crowd refers to an unruly mass of people, and that’s not Guided. We’re a defined collective so perhaps the crowdsourcing term isn’t so applicable. We’re a hybrid that curates ideas from a selected walled garden of professional talent. We’re simply using technology and social sensibilities to evolve a new approach which is hopefully more suited to the new media habitat.
 
Eyecube: It’s a crowded (no pun intended) space right now, how is Guided unique in their offering, both to prospective clients and prospective creatives?
 
Sam Reid: We believe that crowdsourcing on its own can’t handle complex marketing problems. Guided has taken some crowdsourcing principles but adapted them to make them more practical and relevant, for example joining our collective is by invitation only and it is limited in number. Individuals have a strong chance of being rewarded at multiple stages of a project process. Also clients need solid strategy and experienced account servicing. In any transitional time a safe pair of hands is essential, so we keep those components in house, which means the client experience is much like they’re used to.

Our collaborative process works in parallel so ideas are integrated and relevant to each other, where creativity informs the media, and not the other way round.

The collective are professionals and have range of backgrounds much wider than traditional advertising, and when this cross fertilizes, very exciting stuff happens.

Our aim with Guided is to create stuff that people want and need. We say to clients ‘do you want to be seen or do you want to be talked about?’ If it’s the latter a creative resource which is culturally grounded will help achieve this. You need people who create talked about stuff alongside those who know how to create value for clients. A balance.

Eyecube: If you ran a massive, traditional ad shop, how would you try to embrace this new model?
 
Sam Reid: Maybe look to creative resources like Guided to plug into for new thinking and alternative creativity. To become nimble will probably take most big shops some time and substantial deconstruction. Consumers still need to be informed about stuff quickly and big shops are very good at the awareness game in ATL.

But we can do that too. We can also solve complex and word of mouth marketing problems, through innovative use of API’s and platforms like the iPhone, and whats more we can make it work in tandem with traditional campaigns by working in parallel instead of in (silo’d) series.

Also organsations like ours will pair with other disciplines to form expansive modular networks. We are currently reaching agreements with a couple of independent businesses who can provide services we cannot. It then flips the other way around and offers them a rich pool of talent for their clients to tap into.
 
Eyecube: What one client, or category, would you most like a shot at with the Guided concept?
 
Sam Reid: We aim (and I use this loosely but it make sense for our setup) to focus on Digital & Experiential engagement, with PR informing strategy upstream. The more we progress towards a life of 1’s and 0’s the more important it is to counterbalance this with real life events and tangible relationships, and we see social as the connector.

As for clients. We’re working with a range of people currently from a high end fashion retailer to a global financial institution. They couldn’t be more different problems we’re working on. The commonality is where the messaging has a value for their potential consumers beyond an attention speed bump.
 
Eyecube: Five years from now, how will crowdsourcing have changed the ad shops and creatives work?
 
Sam Reid: It could be that advertising agencies will start to divide into 2 types, possibly more. On one side you’ll have more DM/Production focused, and on the other diverse creative resources, with larger talent pools working remotely (like Guided). The two will work in conjunction together to meet the needs of clients; one side (DM/Production) making stuff that needs to be said loudly and quickly and on the other (Diverse Creative) it’ll be more brand building and value exchanges.  ‘If you want me to pay attention, what are you going to do for me?’ will be the starting point for creative messaging maybe? People don’t like advertising they like culture. Brands have the opportunity to become the benefactors of culture by getting the right talent to produce it and then letting it be shared by their potential consumers .
 
In addition they wont have to buy media for it to exist on, so they can perhaps look at creating lots of things instead big & expensive one offs. It’ll be the cumulative effect of lots of transmedia pieces of great content which will equate to a positive brand glow.

Pure crowdsourcing itself will be become fundamental to product development by engaging consumers on a co-creation level. Those who begin to understand the mechanics and psychologies of harnessing crowds will be in a good position to hone this and design demographic specific CS models. Incentivisation is the thing to nail. Why should someone let you tap their thoughts? What are you offering them first? Perhaps this has been the problem with interruptive based adversing; no one enjoys having their time stolen, so don’t steal, and try earning it instead.

Brilliant stuff Sam, and best of luck to you and the Guided team. For further reading on crowdsourcing, read Sam’s post The Need for Science in Social which highlights this essential read, entitled, Harnessing Crowds: Mapping the Genome of Collective Intelligence.

Christiano Ronaldo Real Madrid adidas and Bwin - Top of the charts

Earlier this week I read an interesting post on the 20 Best Known European Football Brands on The UK Sports Network site. The article referenced a Sport+Markt 2009-2010 study of brand recognition among football fans in the top five markets (UK, Germany, Spain, France & Italy). You can read the report yourself here.

I thought it might be interesting to look at this data and try to extrapolate from it which club brands were the most powerful. Unscientific of course, but I wanted to see to what degree being aligned with a specific club (or clubs) is a factor, in addition to sponsoring tournaments like the FIFA World Cup, UEFA Champions League or UEFA European Championships. So, let’s take a look. Here’s the 2009 Delloitte & Touche Money League of clubs* along with the brands listed in the Sport+Markt survey (and the brands ranking in that survey) associated with them:

1. Real Madrid – adidas (1), Coca-Cola (5), Audi (8), bwin (9)

2. Manchester United – Nike (2), AIG (6), Audi (8),

3. FC Barcelona – Nike (2), Audi (8), Unicef (15)

4. Bayern Munich – adidas (1), Coca-Cola (5), Audi (8)

5. Chelsea – adidas (1), Samsung (10), Heineken (20)

6. Arsenal – Nike (2), Emirates (5)

7. Liverpool – adidas (1), Carlsberg (7)

8. AC Milan – adidas (1), bwin (9)

9. AS Roma -

10. Inter Milan – Nike (2)

11. Juventus – Nike (2)

12. Olympique Lyonnais – Umbro (16), Orange (18)

13. Schalke 04 – adidas (1)

14. Tottenham Hotspur – Puma (3), Carlsberg (7)

15. Hamburger SV – adidas (1), Emirates (5)

16. Olympique Marseille – adidas (1), Orange (18)

17. Newcastle United – adidas (1)

18. VfB Stuttgart – Puma (3), Coca-Cola (4)

19. Fenerbahce – adidas (1), Audi (8)

20. Manchester City – Umbro (16)

*I looked for the list of official club sponsors on official team websites as of February 2010.

Who from the Sport+Markt list weren’t represented by a club from the Delloitte & Touche Money League clubs?

11. Reebok

12. Opel (Read this Sport Business story from 2001 calling them the ‘most successful shirt sponsor’)

13. Vodafone

14. Ford – Champions League

17. MasterCard – Champions League

19. Sony – Champions League

Wayne Rooney, Manchester United, Nike and AIG - winners (ok, not AIG)

So, the two odd men out appear to be Reebok and Vodafone. Now, Vodafone is a massive sponsor of sport and had a run with ManU a while back from which they may still be seeing a halo effect. Reebok sponsors Ryan Giggs (ManU), Thierry Henry & Iker Casillas (Barca) and formally kitted out Liverpool and Man City. AS Roma are the only club in the top 20 not aligned with a big sponsor.

I think a big winner here may be Audi. Not a name I immediately associated with big time European football, I was surprised to see them so high. But they have a variety of partnerships with leading clubs, allowing them to also create the Audi Cup in July 2009, which featured ManU, Bayern Munich and AC Milan along with Boca Juniors of Argentina. I don’t think they’ve spent the same type of money as some of the other top 10 brands, bet I suspect they are reaping rewards from their associations.  Look too for Umbro to move up the charts if the English National Team can make a run in the 2010 FIFA World Cup this summer.

Two Notes:

#1 – This post uses last year’s Delloite & Touche Money League information. The new league table just came out yesterday I believe, with very little difference. Just wanted you to know I saw it.

#2 Much more importantly, this post can also be found over at The UK Sports Network, a group I am pleased to now be writing for. Well worth checking them out if you have any interest in global sports.

Let’s put aside the quality of the first episode of NBC’s “The Marriage Ref” for a moment (ok, one comment: the show was so mind-numbingly pedestrian it made me contemplate the entire Jerry Seinfeld oeuvre.). Rather let’s look at this production through the lens of a Chief Culture Officer.

What's the deal with famous people goofing on regular people?

Now, as Grant has pointed out in the past, NBC desperately needs a Chief Culture Officer. Last night was a pretty good case in point. We’ve got the closing ceremonies of the Winter Olympics, which come around once every four years. That alone says it’s a pretty special event. Now take into account the purpose of the ceremony – a celebration of sporting competition, diverse cultures and a triumph of the human spirit. Pretty good inspirational stuff as our neighbors to the North pull out all the stops. So NBC decides to cut their coverage a little short so they can bring you The Marriage Ref!

Hmmm.

Again, I’m not going to dive too deep into the quality of the program, you can check that out via the NY Times and Gawker, but conceptually I think it is worth looking at and trying to understand what exactly NBC read in current contemporary culture that made them think this show was a good idea.

The basic premise of the show is: Rich, famous celebrities make fun of ordinary people.

Not as stiff as The Marriage Ref

Yeah, not feeling it right now NBC. I’ve spent the last several years being betrayed by rich, famous people. I’m not sure I want them passing judgement on me and my neighbors. Experts – whether it be in fashion (Queer Eye), health (Biggest Loser), finance (Suze Orman) or even relationships (Dr. Drew, Dr. Phil) ok, I can buy that. But rich, famous actors?

It was one thing when “civilians” marched into Donald Trump’s office and were belittled. First, it’s Trump, we expected that, and second we were on his turf. But to have Alec Baldwin mock my marriage by peering into my living room from the comfort of the studio set? Really?

Right after the closing ceremonies is when you do an uplifting, family focused show (see Home Makeover, Extreme), not this:

But if this is the way you want to go, here are three ways the concept could have been slightly tweaked, but that would have been less about laughing at the average person:

• Flip it and have real couples settle the disputes of famous people’s marriages.
• Have famous people settle disputes of other famous couples.
• Have a Dr. Phil-type settle disputes of celebrity couples.

All of those examples would have been potentially just as entertaining, but we’d be laughing at the celebrities, not regular people.  On some level the show reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where, after being heckled on stage, Jerry goes to the office of the heckler and heckles her. So, I get it, after reading about and exposing celebrity marriages via People Magazine, TMZ and others, Seinfeld is turning the tables on us.

Maybe at another time that works, but right now, when for so many people their marriages, as weird as they may be, are the only thing they’ve got, this idea needed to be rethought. A Chief Culture Officer would have helped.

Quick, who was Chuck Taylor? You have no idea, but you’ve probably worn shoes named after him, haven’t you? In 20 years, will kids know who John Madden is? Probably not, but they’ll still be playing the video game named after him.

Be like Mike

It’s been seven years since Michael Jordan stopped playing basketball, and according to this brandchannel story he may be headed along the same lines as Taylor and Madden.  How far has the Jordan Brand gone? Recently the North Carolina Tar Heels basketball team wore a special uniform to commenorate the 25th anniversary of the Jordan shoe (see picture). Ok, that Mike’s alma mater, so that makes some sense. But Cal and Georgetown (who Mike and UNC beat in the NCAA Championship game!) will also wear special Jordan Brand uniforms.

So, how does the Jordan Brand keep rolling? By making it more than just being about Jordan. Check out the Jordan Brand website, there is a lot going on.

Two recent faves: Street artist WK Interact creates a Dwyane Wade masterpiece in NYC:

And an old skool throwback, the iconic Mars Blackmon (Spike Lee) is back. Great shoes and opportunities to engage with the brand.

It's gotta be the shoes.

The take-aways for me that speaks to why the Jordan Brand is successful is that they continue to evolve the brand. This is not simply a heritage play to try to squeeze every last dollar out of Michael Jordan. They’ve added athletes and kept things fresh creatively. From the aforementioned Mars Blackmon to adding players from different sports, the Jordan Brand now stands for more than just the G.O.A.T. 

Mike’s legacy on the court is unquestioned, even if his off-court basketball related activities have been spotty. But ultimately his longest lasting legacy may be his partnership with Nike.