I’ll admit it; blogging software had me a bit intimidated. Not that the software we’re using here–WordPress–is bad; it’s not at all. Just takes some getting used to. Requires a bit more effort than I’ve been willing to invest. And somehow I’ve always had this lingering feeling that I was forever a keystroke away from breaking something. (Perhaps that’s apparent from the date of our last post?)

Then, this week, I discovered VOX. Now here’s blog software I get. Incredibly easy to use. Intuitive. Makes creating a blog, including uploading all kinds of files, as simple as composing an email. I’ve spent more time “blogging” in the past few days than I have in the past few years.

So here’s where you’ll find me, at least for now.

I’m not really a Trader Joe’s guy myself—not that I am overpaid or anything…but they obviously know something about marketing.

Meanwhile out there in the more mundane universe beyond the universe-unto-itself we know as Google, a couple of other things recently caught my attention. Specifically in the retail arena. “OK, I’m heading out to the store,” I announce last week, grateful for a break from the PC screen. The shopping list I’ve jotted has “Costco” written all over it, but I’m kind of in a hurry and decide I am going to pop in to the Smart&Final, which is a shorter trip. The shopping list doesn’t include a big screen TV, a vacuum cleaner, 12-packs of kids’ socks, or the new Harry Potter video; just food stuff and cleaning supplies, so Smart&Final seems to make sense.

Funny, the minute I decide on Smart&Final I feel a sense of…what is it? Remorse? Disappointment? I like the cavernous vastness and absurd package sizes of Costco. I feel at home there. How much am I really saving buying 100 rolls of toilet paper at a time? Who knows? I admit the one thing I dislike about the place is the often tedious waiting in the checkout line, the impatient guesswork about which line to get into based on how fast they’re all moving. Naturally, I typically end up in the wrong one…

So I enter the local Smart&Final and have to walk past the ckeckout, and as I glance up I see the little tagline on the checker’s LCD, right where it pays to be reminded: “The Smaller, Faster Warehouse Store.” So many of the companies we work with struggle to position themselves simply. They want to get to that nirvana of “one simple, repeatable idea” that not only sets them apart from everyone else, but helps the right customers love them. And there it is, sharp as “the discount broker,” or “the computer for the rest of us.” Smart&Final nailed it. And they nailed based on a need that stands out like a sore thumb, at least for a range of time-constrained customers. Get your bulk eggs or paper cups or refried beans, and get out.

Then again, does anyone even know about Smart&Final? Did their radio ads drive traffic for them? Is it on the right shoppers’ radar? And how much more do you need to pay to get “faster”? I’d have to dive into some data to find out. But “The Smaller, Faster Warehouse.” Yeah. What it is.

But as a destination for watching videos, I discovered I was actually spending a fair amount of time on Google Video. That surprised me. Here I had my defenses up, figuring I’d never be a fan–and suddenly I found something to really like about it.

When YouTube pulled down SNL’s “Lazy Sunday,” there it was on Google. Same was true for the first 5 episodes of “The IT Crowd.” Cool. And when links to the CBS story on Jason McElwain, the autistic high school basketball player suddenly dried up, I was able to find it on Google Video. There was no denying it; Google Video was becoming my go-to source for videos that I couldn’t find, or couldn’t get, elsewhere. Thought it was time to say a few nice words.

Then, ironically, just as I was getting ready to write a “here’s what’s working about Video”, what I liked about it up and broke. At some point in the past few weeks the copyright police must have caught up with Google. Lazy Sunday–gone. IT Crowd–not a trace. (The basketball story is still up there, at least for now.) And in place of the links to the videos that once worked is a page that simply says: “We’re sorry, but this video may not be available. Try refreshing the page to see this video.” Nope, that doesn’t work.

It’s not that I’m pointing the finger at Google here; they’re undoubtedly responding to the same legal letters circulating at other sites. (Although it’s a little curious that there’s not a bit more explanation as to why these things have just vanished.)

Disappointed again. Guess it’s time to check out BitTorrent.

This is the Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication. Commissioned by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, the report poses the problem of US policy in the Mid East in terms of marketing and brand management. You might have read about it before in a piece Sydney Blumenthal wrote in Salon in late 2004.

When we read it the first time we were taken aback, and maybe betrayed our own innocence when we asked “Is the clash between Islam and the West the sort of thing you should apply a marketing solution to?” The report plows ahead confidently. The Muslim world, it tells us, has to be understood as an audience to win in a war of ideas. The paper, written by some team of consultants well-versed in the principles of marketing communication, recommends going through all the classic steps to win the propaganda battle—research, segmentation of the Muslim “market,” trying out various positioning alternatives, developing a communication channel strategy, shaping policies to reinforce brand promises, and so on.

In the process of digging into real “customer needs” the report pulls no punches: “Today we reflexively compare Muslim ‘masses’ to those oppressed under Soviet rule. This is a strategic mistake. There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies — except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends.” Or: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies.”

At any rate, the report was clearly ignored by its target audience. Assuming you even want to think about this struggle in marketing terms, it finds the administration has merely paid lip service to communication strategy at home, and as a result has needlessly damaged the “American brand” abroad.

Anyway, it’s a long paper—about 80 or 90 pages. But disturbing and thought-provoking if you give yourself an evening to chew on it.

Marketing Beta versions is a creative, if somewhat risky, tactic in hyper-competitive, hyper-accelerated, impatient online markets where the notion that things are kind of dynamic and changeable anyway is already pretty well understood. Stephen Bryant and Michael Arrington can tell you and point you in the direction of most of what you need to know about the advantages and risks of Beta. But what about the branding piece?

Let’s assume for a moment something that Bryant raises doubts about: that Beta is a strategy with a customer in mind. Some companies—not necessarily Google—might be asking, “Can we get to market earlier with something that isn’t quite finished, and ease customers into the desired experience over time?” This does have the advantage of inviting customer input into the importance or execution of certain features on the road to finalizing the product—and God knows, that process is too frequently a crapshoot for too many marketers.

But this approach might also eventually lower, or at least start to change, the market’s overall expectation of product quality. You no longer have to wait until the model walks out onto the runway in all her stunning beauty. Now you can hang with her back in the dressing room and watch her getting her make-up done. And depending on the product category and the sophistication of the audience, that might be cool.

It’s less polished, less formal, more populist. And those aren’t necessarily bad things. But it also carries the risk of watering down the “promise of performance” that underpins a brand. The emerging philosophy seems to be, “Here, try this out. Maybe you’ll dig it. Tell us what you think. But we’re not making any promises about what it is ultimately going to be—or when.”

And in an even wider context, that seems to fit quite well with our times. All promises are tentative, and when they’re broken, don’t be too disappointed.

But then it struck me: The problem with Google Video isn’t that it’s beta; some pretty cool Google products still carry that label. The problem is that Google has positioned Video as a “store,” when it’s not. Google Video is a flavor of search with the option to buy what you find. VoD classifieds.

Don’t think iTunes; think craigslist, with a bit of the bargain bin at Wal-Mart thrown in.

Maybe in its desire to expand beyond search, Google would like us to believe that shopping is just another kind of searching. But I’m not buying it. Say “store” and I’m automatically expecting a whole lot more than a search box. Store conjures up the image of a place where I can navigate, browse, find, compare, preview, review, discuss, recommend, comment, email questions, authenticate, fill and empty my shopping cart, check out, and do a bunch of other things to help me find what I’m looking for and purchase it quickly, easily, confidently. What’s missing from Google Video Store is price of entry for the iTunes, Amazons, eBays of the world.

Seen through this lens, it’s no surprise that Video Store got panned.

Could it be that the company that poo-poos traditional marketing doesn’t understand that “stores” are about selling? That even if you’re philosophically opposed to merchandising, you’ve got to put some effort into displaying the wares and stocking the shelves if you’re going to set up shop? (See Truveo for a look at how it could have been done.)

The problem isn’t that the product isn’t ready for primetime; even Video’s senior product manager has gone on record saying the product is “good for users and good for content providers” and that it “shipped when it was ready.”

The problem is that they called Video a store, when it’s really just an example of Google doing what it does, giving it a new name, and figuring we wouldn’t notice the difference.

Maybe that sentiment played a role in the Larry Page’s CES keynote speech, which unfortunately seemed to leave fans and the press underwhelmed.

With his white lab coat and loose sheaf of notes, Page may have felt like a breath of fresh air in a Las Vegas landscape where hype runs amok. It left me thinking, though, that Google may be getting dangerously near the point of hubris. Because no matter how much contempt you may have for marketing, you can’t cavalierly frustrate users’ expectations too many times without risking some serious damage. Marketing isn’t about duping people. It’s about creating awareness and desire, and then meeting the expectations you’ve set.

Whether it’s arrogance or naiveté, Google’s approach to just about everything seems to be “build it and they will come.” You do that once or twice successfully, then start thinking you can do it whenever you want. But not even Google can get away with just half-building something cool like a video store, announcing it, and then basically punking its audience.

You have to wonder–and certainly Googlers will have the data—on how many potential customers hunted around for the Google Video Store and didn’t find it. (Google Video is buried under “Labs” half-way down the “More” page.) Or, if they did manage to find it, what their impressions were when they discovered homegrown clips like “Tom Cruise Kills Oprah” and “Fire Fart” instead of CSI, Survivor, NBA, Sony music videos, and the other premium content touted in the press release. CNET’s Google Blog drives home the point nicely. Even the Google Video “about page” is amazingly bereft of content; just click on any of TV channels under “Search for programs” and most likely you’ll come up with zilch.

With the press primed, Google Video Store got plenty of awareness. But the company threw away the opportunity to create big time desire, (not to mention traffic and revenue), by drawing attention to a half-baked product. Not a smart thing to do, even—or especially—if you’re flush with mega brand strength. Too much is at stake. Google should take off its “do no evil” glasses for a little while and took a look at the Steve Jobs marketing playbook on how to deliver desire.