Opinions And Ramblings By Adam Kmiec On All Things Media

Tag Archives: AdAge

It’s Interactive, Not Digital

There’s no shortage of “digital” agencies out there.  I’m glad.  They are a dime a dozen.  Our philosophy at the agency is that we believe it’s about being interactive, not digital.  An interactive agency…an interactive mindset focuses on more than just the laptop screen.  They focus on more than the 3rd screen.  An agency that really understands interactive, realizes that interactive is a horizontal proposition that works across nearly all touch points and marketing channels.  Print can be made interactive.  In-store and on-shelf marketing can be made interactive.  Even TV can be made interactive.

This has been my philosophy for roughly 6 or 7 years now and it’s something our agency fundamentally believes in.  We’re staffed that way, we hire that way, we think that way, our processes are setup to ensure it happens, our teams are setup that way and we honestly, we think that way.

Good thing, since per an AdAge article this is exactly what customers want, though they aren’t receiving it.  This quote really sums up why this isn’t happening

A “huge disconnect” between consumer behavior and marketer behavior persists — thanks largely to CMOs who have not empowered their interactive marketing teams to deliver the consumer experience, consistent across channels, that people expect these days.

This further reinforces the need to consistently be educating clients and helping them setup their internal organizations to take advantage of the full potential of interactive. Our job shouldn’t just be creating marketing plans and executing them; it should also include being their partner and helping them evolve their organizations. That’s the future. Embrace it now.

Stop Chasing Shiny Objects

I’ve complained before and pleaded that just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.  It’s true.  As marketers we want to innovate.  We want to be on the bleeding on edge.  We want to experiment and do things that have never been before.  But, the reality is you shouldn’t.  The smart marketer balances the desire to innovate, with the understanding that you have to be prudent.

The New York Times had a great passage today in an article about Barack Obama’s inability to leverage digital communication now that he’s in office.

Perhaps, though, the president’s team is over-thinking the challenge, putting too much emphasis on how to use the trendiest applications or on how to interact with voters, when what really matters is creating an authentic narrative.

Keep in mind he was the social media darling who leverage interactive to create a movement amongst the younger crowd. The passage is profound and timely when you consider how many different social platforms (eg Quora) keep popping up every day. And, as they pop up, Mashable/TechCrunch covers them, bleeding edge marketers/innovator promote it, mainstream meda (eg AdAge) covers it, the CMOs ask why their company isn’t on X, their marketing team/client asks the agency to investigate, the agency investigates and the cycle repeats. This is time consuming and often an inefficient use of dollars.

My advice to all of you (agency and clients) is to create an evaluative set of criteria for reviewing platforms. Then, when new shiny objects show up you can quickly assess their potential value. You’ll be a lot happier; I promise.

The Lunacy Of Pay Walls

It was Reagan who said,

We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

He understood that walls keep us apart. Walls exist to stop the flow of knowledge, ideas and human connection. It is the lack of walls that has fueled the growth of Facebook and Twitter, while the existence of walls has crippled Microsoft and MySpace.

Now, this is not to say that walls can’t protect us or be built to protect our treasures. Walls have a place in our society. As I wrote here, I actually applaud the idea of a wall:

I was reminded this morning of one of the best chapters in the “Last Lecture,” titled, “Romancing The Brick Wall.” Randy Pausch eloquently and pignantly writes, “Brick walls are there for a reason. The brick walls are not there to keep us out. The brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something. Because the brick walls are there to stop the people who don’t want it badly enough. They are there to stop the other people.” I couldn’t agree more.

The key here of course is that on the other side of the wall is something of value. In essence, the effort involved in scaling the wall is equal to the reward on the other side. If you will, there’s a certain mutual exchange.

It’s this concept of mutual exchange that publishers have seemingly forgotten.  Last week, I was reminded of how far publishers still need to come and how silly their approach to pay walls are.

For those not in the know, the term “pay wall” refers to the approach being taken by companies where you pay for access to their content.  Some companies take a 100% approach to this, where all the content is behind the pay wall, while others offer a hybrid model that allows for some content to be free and some (generally content considered to be more premium) is behind the wall.  This isn’t new.  Companies have been using a variety of pay wall approaches for more than a decade.  Of late, though it seems that there’s been a shift from rationale thinking and approaches to pay walls, toward ridiculous and unbalanced approaches.

Let me explain; for years AdAge.com had a great pay wall model.  Fresh content was made free to users (it was ad supported), but archived and older content required a pay subscription.  In my opinion, it was a great way to demonstrate to visitors that they completely grasped the idea of mutual exchange and wanted to create an environment where ideas, insights and knowledge would thrive.  This approach was smart and balanced.

Of late, AdAge seems to be experimenting with different thresholds for their pay wall. While this post focuses on them, let me say, there are 100s if not 1000s of companies experimenting in the same manner. Last week, nearly every piece of content on the site seemed to be placed behind the pay wall. I was perplexed.  Clearly, it had to be just me, right?  It was a cookie glitch or something.  I checked with several folks in the office and we were all having the same “problem.”

Putting all the content behind a pay wall would make sense if AdAge’s content was truly premium.  But, when you consider that sites like AdRants and Mashable, in addition to the great collection of agency blogs out there, have better and more importantly FRESHER content, how can AdAge justify this model?  This is a clear case of a company disregarding the concept of mutual exchange.  In a 24/7, real-time, always on demand world (yes, I just stuffed all those buzz words into one sentence), AdAge and the like have three options if they want to remain relevant:

  1. Provide better, fresher, more premium content – that in a perfect world offers different viewpoints and voices.  If they do this, a pay wall…heck even more of an aggressive pay wall makes sense.
  2. Keep offering the same voices and same frequency of content.  In doing so, maintain a status quo.
  3. Tear down more and more of the pay wall.  This would make even MORE of the content available and in theory attract more visitors.

Pay walls are here to stay.  They won’t go away.  They can be a good thing.  But, companies need to remember the idea of mutual exchange when they put up those pay walls.  If they forget about it, they might find themselves alone, behind a wall that serves no purpose, because no one is trying to get in.

Why The Agency Of The Future Looks Like My Fantasy Baseball Team

You know what I love about fantasy sports? I get to play the role of general manager and customize a team to my liking. I’m an Atlanta Braves baseball fan. And as much as I love my Braves, the reality is at the beginning of the year, I’m stuck with the team they’ve put together. But, when I’m playing fantasy baseball I get to choose the combination of players I want…the ones I think are best for my team philosophy…the ones who will help me be a champion at the end of the season.

Essentially, what I get to do is create a custom team. Custom is a beautiful thing. It’s the kind of thing that people are willing to pay more for. Whether it’s clothes, cars, jewelry, kitchens, houses, shoes, etc.; people pay more for custom.

But, think about the traditional client-agency model. It’s not custom at all. Client X choose agency Y. Agency Y now puts together a “custom” team to work on that client’s business. There’s only one problem. This custom team is being put together from a small pool of talent. It’s a small pool of talent because a good portion of the agency’s talent is already assigned to other clients. Most of the A level talent is stretched too thin or pre-allocated to a specific existing client. So when the agency wins a new piece of business they ultimately combine internal talent (limited pool) with external new talent (also a limited pool) to create a “custom” team.

Hmm…that doesn’t seem very custom does it? Enfatico, was an attempt to create a custom agency offering to support one client: Dell. It was created at the request of Dell, not at the request of WPP leadership. It failed. It failed miserably. It didn’t fail because of lack of effort. No, it failed because Martin Sorrell “drafted” the wrong people to put on his team. It failed because Enfatico, was owned by WPP and therefore had to leverage the WPP network for talent, operations, logistics, etc. Essentially, they shrunk the draft pool and after shrinking the draft pool they drafted horribly.

Despite Enfatico’s failure, I think they were on to something. I think they were on to what the future of agencies will look like. Dell was bold in asking for a custom agency to support their business. They saw that the traditional agency model was not going to drive them to success. But, they made a mistake in using an agency holding company as the general manager/contractor.

You’d think with Enfatico’s rapid demise, I’d be supporting the status quo. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. See, I think clients are going to learn from the mistakes Enfatico made, but leverage the strengths of the concept. Let me break it down:

  1. You’re a client. You want the best of the best working on your business. You’ve finally realized that the old way of shopping for an agency just isn’t working.
  2. You also realize that it’s time to stop nickel and dime-ing your agency partners…and if you’re willing to pay more than you have in the past, you also want something better than what you’ve gotten in the past.
  3. That means, you’re ready to pay for custom. So instead of hiring a consultant to lead an agency review, you hire a consultant that acts more like a general manager/contractor. Their role is to assemble the best collection of talent against a defined set of roles. In short, they are responsible for recommending the draft choices. Ultimately, the client gets the final say on who gets “drafted.”
  4. Now, because you’re willing to pay for top talent, the entire market is open. The draft pool is equal to the size of those people in the industry or simply interested. Everyone, is an option.
  5. So, you might score person X from Ogilvy to be your lead account person, person Y from Edelman to head up PR, people form W+K, Crispin, BBH, etc. for your creative team, and the list goes on and on. Literally, imagine a situation where you the entire universe is your talent pool, you can draft a team of high quality talent, sign them to contracts (ensures continuity), and then let them run wild on your business.

That’s the future of the client-agency relationship folks. There’s no doubt about it. Of course, future, is a loose term. It might not happen in 2010 or 2011, but make no mistake, it’s coming. Agencies that start snatching up talent, regardless of existing need, will be the ones who make it. Look how smart Edelman was to lure David Armano away from Dachis and then pair him with Steve Rubel. You could literally argue that Edelman has positioned itself as the de facto leader in interactive strategy, social business and consumer insights.

This isn’t a crazy concept.  For years this is how broadcast production has been done.  Agencies came up with the idea and then worked with the best producer, director, editing house, etc. to come up with the best execution.  In the last few years we’ve seen the same thing happen with interactive/digital production.  Perhaps my favorite example of this was when BBDO rode Big Spaceship to a Cannes Lion…and then of course didn’t credit them for any of the work.

If there’s one thing that’s always on every agency’s business plan every year, it’s the need to improve the talent. Unfortunately, not many agencies are willing to commit the time and dollars to do it…and to be honest, why should they, when clients historically have refused to pay more for that added talent.

I’ve got a feeling that’s all going to change. CMOs, VPs of Marketing, agency executives, and the like; stop reading AdAge and stop doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results.  Instead, start learning how to play fantasy baseball and pick up a copy of Moneyball. The future of your business just might depend on it.

The Right Hand Needs To Talk To The Left Hand

In corporate culture we have dozens if not hundreds of “sayings” that are supposed to demonstrate to employees how simple business is. For example, the left hand needs to be talking to the right hand. Makes sense, right?

Ok, well I love when we see great examples of the right hand clearly not talking to the left hand. Ever since I was working at ConAgra Foods I’ve had my eye on Del Monte. Recently, they’ve been in the news quite a lot. On May 18th, Doug Chavez, the Senior Manager for Digital Media at Del Monte participated in a simulated contest at the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s Social Media Conference. The simulation enabled “sellers” like John Battelle to pitch a “buyer” like Chavez with ideas that leveraged Social Media.

As you all know, I’m not a digital evangelist. In fact I’m more of a realist. I’m the guy who tells people, “hey it’s great that you like twitter, but it doesn’t fit for this project.” But, I’ve also been around long enough to be forward looking. I was amazed at Chavez’s response to the proposals and social media in general. Specifically, here’s what he said:

“How we pulse (social) media though the year and how we track that is a challenge for us, because at the end of the day, what did you do for market share — what did you do for sales volume?”

I could go on and on about how you can’t PULSE social media, but that’s a conversation for a different day.

Look, I’m all for ROI. When you’re client side you hear a lot about ROI and in digital you hear about it every day.  Thankfully, I was fortunate enough work for Joan Chow at ConAgra Foods. She introduced the concept of ROMO, the return on marketing objective. Sometimes things are about the marketing objective. For example brand awareness is a marketing objective not a sales one. In theory higher awareness leads to sales, but not always.

Perhaps my favorite example of a company starting out with a ROMO plan that ultimately become a huge ROI story was Nike’s Live Strong brand. The goal of live strong was not to make a profit it was to raise awareness about cancer and Lance Armstrong’s support for cancer research. Suffice it to say, Live Strong evolved into a massive worldwide movement.

If all you care about are immediate sales, just drop a bunch of FSIs. Companies have been doing this for years.  But, that’s not the answer either.  According to Chavez, he doesn’t really care for the coupon. He stated, “How do you go from someone just getting a coupon to go beyond that and becoming a brand loyalist?”

Great question. We all want loyalty. It’s the holy grail of marketing. Oddly enough, Del Monte is leveraging social media to make this happen. At the very same conference, but at a different event, Josh Bernoff, of Forrester and author of Groundswell shared how Del Monte tapped into social media to drive the development of a new product. Check out the 3 minute video here.

Del Monte, crowd sourced the development of a new product.  Brilliant.  They created a community for dog lovers. The community become a great real time focus group.  Through that community they were able to source feedback and give the people what they want.  That’s how you get from social media investment, to awareness, to sales, to loyalty.

This is also a case of the  left hand not talking to the right hand. We have one person at Del Monte seemingly opposed to social media, while we have another group fired up and getting involved.

I point this out, not to make fun, chastise, or to be mean. Quite the contrary. This situation is exactly the type of disconnect taking place at companies (client side and agencies) across the world. With one hand we’re demanding results from a concept that’s less than 18 months old. And with the other hand we’re investing, because we see potential and realize if we don’t invest now, it’ll be too costly to play catch up later.

Buying into social media is as much a cultural shift for companies as it is a marketing shift. These two examples from the same conference highlight we still have a long way to go.

Please note, I did not attend the IAB’s conference in person. The quotes from Doug Chavez come directly from MediaPost’s coverage of the event here.

The Next Evolution Of Publishing – Or How I Can Save Traditional Media

You know that scene in every action movie where someone says, “you know, it’s so crazy, it might work.” Well, this is one of the scenes. Tools like WordPress, Blogger, and Drupal have empowered everyone to be a potential publisher. That’s right, YOU, can make and report on the news…or just about anything for that matter.

News networks like CNN have even created programs that let the public create the news.  The day Google News started including blogs with traditional news publications (eg WSJ and NY Times), it was clear something was changing…or maybe it had changed. Individuals were now being given near instant credibility by Google. Very cool.

The media outlets like Fox, MSNBC, and Tribune Co. continue to have their journalistic credibility questioned. This happened throughout the 2008 presidential election. Hell, it’s still happening if you listen to the jokes at the White House Correspondence Dinner.

OK so we have:

  1. Technology enabling people to become self publishers
  2. New networks leveraging people for stories
  3. Individuals being given near equal credibility to long established publications
  4. A certain level of public mis-trust of the media

So what am I missing? Oh, two other things:

  1. The concept of personal branding is at an all time high
  2. Newspapers are closing down left and right

This is the part now, where I lean in, and almost with a whisper say, “I’ve got an idea so crazy, it might just work.”

I want to turn the publishing model upside down. I think people would pay publishers to let them have a daily, weekly, or monthly column. Yeap, that’s right I think people would pay the NY Post to have their name seen in ink. REAL INK. Not just digital ink, but real ink on paper.

Think I’m crazy? Ok, walk with me for a second. Companies are always pitching publications for a chance to have a featured column. Really. Companies kill themselves trying to get 1,000 words. You know why? Because their name and their company in a publication carries clout with the industry, analysts, clients, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s a mutual exchange taking place when it actually happens. AdAge for example gets great content from Steve Rubel, that their readers want to read. In exchange Steve is able to build his brand and Edelman’s. Seems like a fair exchange.

I think this could work. It’s a win-win. People build their personal brands, the publications/newspapers/etc. get fresh content and a revenue stream, and the public hears from real people.

So that’s my plan. Wall Street Journal – I’ll pay you $12,000 annually for a weekly column. You game?

The Non Popular Question About The P&G Digital Night

Long story short:

  1. P&G hosted an event called Digital Hack Night.
  2. The event was designed to immerse, educate, and demonstrate the power of digital marketing to it’s marketing directors
  3. The brought in sharp minds like David Armano, Peter Kim, Kelly Mooney and leaders form Google, MySpace, Facebook also attended. Note, Twitter did not attend.
  4. The backbone to the event was a contest to raise money for charity by selling t-shirts. The combination of P&G Marketing Directors, famous peeps, and leaders were split into 4 teams. Each team competed to see who could rake in the most cash.

That’s all I’m going to cover about the event. Other people have given it better and more thorough coverage. You can read about it here, here, here, and here.

I’ve found most “leaders” to rarely establish a serious position, rock the boat, or be controversial.  Instead they focus on being “politically correct.”  By politically correct, I mean not choosing a side – instead opting to find pros and cons with both sides.  Since no one else will ask the difficult questions, I felt I should.  That’s my style.

What I want to focus on is this quote from Peter Kim

At the end of the evening, P&G’s CMO Marc Pritchard remarked that in the future, all employees should get involved in activating connections similar to what had just been witnessed.

I posted the following on Peter’s site:

Peter-
Nice recap. If the future is that all employees should be involved in activating their connections 3 things must happen:

  1. Employees should be rewarded for the impact they make – this changes compensation structures
  2. Personal brands must be embraced and supported; with rules needing relaxation so that employees aren’t being stifled – can a corporate company really embrace this?
  3. Partners will need to be held accountable as well. – If employees are expected to do this, shouldn’t their agencies, packaging suppliers, etc.

At the and of the day the question I want to pose to the community (though few will actually answer) is at what point does this simply become just a very large pyramid scheme, that’s backed by one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world? Is this the future of marketing?

There’s been a lot of debate lately about personal brands. Specifically, the question has been raised about how important they are and if people should put their name (aka their brand) first or their companies. Make no mistake, the digital experts that were brought to Cincinnati for the event leveraged their personal brands big time.

P&G in effect is asking for people (albeit indirectly) to establish personal brands, grow the size of their virtual and real rolodexes, and leverage their personal brand in combination with their network size for the GREATER good of the company.

One part of me says, right on, EXACTLY. After all shouldn’t you support the company you work for? When I worked at ConAgra Foods, I traded Heinz Ketchup for Hunts and Nathan’s for Hebrew National. In general I embrace the brands I work on. I now work on Rite-Aid. You can be sure I’ll be getting my prescriptions there and not anyone else.

Here’s the million dollar question. Should employees, vendors, and partners be compensated for doing this or should it simply be part of the job?

Think about it. You are leveraging your personal network and brand for the greater good of your client and company. That’s not exactly in the job description :) It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it, but it begs the question, no?

Let’s say I work for BMW and I convince 10 of my friends who were leaning towards Lexus to buy a BMW.  Let’s take a round number like $50,000 and call that the value of each car.  In effect, didn’t I generate $500,000 in sales for BMW?  Didn’t I do the job of the dealer, the ad agency, the TV spot, the web site, etc.?  Yet, in most cultures I’d never be compensated for extending myself.  What happens if person #2’s BMW has a boat load of problems.  It’s my reputation that gets sullied.  Remember, I convinced him to go BMW over Lexus.

This isn’t that far fetched.  Do you know how many people I got to switch to Peter Pan peanut-butter (subsequently people were pissed at me after Peter Pan announced it had salmonella) or choose Nikon over Canon when I worked on those brands?  100s if not 1000s.  If companies are going to want people to become brand advocates that establish brands, grow personal networks, and ultimately tap that network for the good of the company, there needs to be a change in how we compensate our employees.  At least that’s what I think.

Where do you stand?

2008 Top 10 Pieces Of Advice For 2009

We’ve come to the end of the road.  Starting on the 22nd of December I’ve been providing 1 top 10 list every day.  The lists have been a lot of fun and a lot of work to put together.  Until now, all of the lists focused on 2008.  For example the top 10 commercials in 2008.  As we get ready to close out 2008, I thought it only appropriate to look forward to 2009.  Here are my top 10 pieces of advice to marketers in 2009.

  1. Embrace Data: I love watching my creative team looking at Google Analytics.  Data, reporting, metrics, and measurement aren’t one person’s responsibility.  It’s everyone’s, because we’re all accountable for the end result.  Don’t be afraid of the data when your campaign/site/program isn’t performing as well as expected.  That’s the beauty of data; it tells us exactly how we’re doing.  The key though is to make sure you’ve set aside time and dollars to optimize.  It’s never a good thing to know your site is underperforming and not be able to fix it because of limited funding.
  2. Remove The Buzzwords: It’s not about baffling with bullshit.  Really, its not.  Clients are getting smarter.  Heck, all marketers are getting smarter.  There’s no need to dumb down the conversation.  When we use buzzwords, do you know what we sound like?  We sound like we don’t know what we’re talking about and that our only knowledge comes from AdAge.
  3. Extend Interactive Marketing Beyond The web: The nice thing about 2008 was that we got to see technologies like Microsoft Surface offer a glimpse about what INTERACTIVE can really mean.  Interactive marketing is no longer just about emails, banners, and web sites.  We’ve evolved.  Digital billboards can be interactive.  Television can be interactive.  We need to think beyond the web site and start thinking about all the other ways we can bring interactive to the people.
  4. Nail The Fundamentals: The web is old enough that we should never ever miss the fundamentals.  Please buy multiple variations of a URL.  Make sure you have a paid search campaign in place when running TV.  Ensure tracking tags are in place.  The list goes on and on.  It amazes me that marketers continue to overlook the basics.
  5. Educate Legal: It’s really easy for legal for shoot things down, appear uncooperative, or seem difficult when they don’t even understand what they’re reviewing.  My personal POV is that legal should never make a decision; they’re role is to advise.  However, many brand managers don’t view things that way.  Legal is a security blanket that often has far too much power.  The best way to leverage that power is to influence it.  The easiest way to influence things is to educate.
  6. Leverage All 5 Senses: For too long we’ve focused on just site and sound.  The iPhone brought us touch.  While the ability to actually taste and smell through a flat screen monitor is a few years off :) it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to delight all 5 senses.  There’s plenty of research to show how visual stimulation can impact taste and smell.  As digital progresses, figuring out how to connect with me through all my senses will become a game changer.  Yes, I used the buzzword game changer.  Do you see how dumb I just sounded?
  7. Hire Well, Retain Talent, Compensate Fairly: It’s not easy to find solid talent.  When you do, hold on to that talent.  Don’t let it go.  If you lose good talent to a competitor it’s a double whammy.  Compensation is always tricky…well unless of course you abide by the golden rule: pay people based on their value to the company.  Let’s say person X is making 50K, but the market puts his worth at 70K.  If person X is a great performer and you won’t give him/her market value or close to it, you’ll lose person X and have to pay 70K to an unknown.  Think about it.
  8. Don’t Wait For Nike And P&G To Do “It” First: When I was working on Kellogg’s, Similac, Healthy Choice, and just about every other consumer packaged goods brand our recommendations for new, different, and innovative ideas would be met with stone walls.  That is, until P&G or Nike did exactly what we were recommending.  It seemed that once P&G or Nike did something it opened up the door for other brands to do “it.”  You can be innovative.  You can do things first.  Often times losing out on first mover advantage can set you back years or in some cases, you’ll never get any traction.
  9. Look Beyond The Usual Suspects For News: AdAge, AdWeek, Wired, and Fast Company are great publications.  But, if those 4 and some of the other publications that everyone is reading are your go-to reads, you have a problem.  This world moves to quickly to wait for a weekly or monthly update.  Real time information is where it’s at.  Places like TechCrunch, Engadget, and iMedia give that and more.  Broaden the horizon…your competitors already are.
  10. Get Involved: Start a blog.  Join Twitter.  Engage in a message board.  Create a Facebook account.  Build your own social network on Ning. Many of these things are simple to do.  Once you starting joining in on the fun, you’ll start to see the marketing possibilities.

Hypocrisy of Attractive Women in Advertising

AdAge published something useful.  I know, I know, well it happens from time to time :)  “Researchers Find Thin Models Make Viewers Like Brands More, but Themselves Less.” Are we really shocked by this? I feel like it’s something we’ve known for years, but we don’t want to admit.  Personally, I think there is some value from showing thin models.

For example, according to the study, “Seeing thin models also made college-age women far more likely to turn down a snack pack of Oreo cookies offered as thanks for their participation in the study, or to opt for a reduced-fat version. Women who had just seen thin models were nearly four times more likely to say no to Oreos than women who hadn’t, and 42% more likely to opt for reduced-fat cookies if they did indulge. ”

 

Oreo
Oreo

 

 

That’s a good thing.  I know I can use a few less Oreo’s.