If you’ve been watching the Olympics, you’ve probably wondered what the heck is up with curling. Moreover, you’ve wondered where else but at the Olympics would you see professional curlers in action? Well, you might go to the World Curling Championships. But how would you know such an event even existed? Hmmmm… Maybe an ad campaign by a little agency in Boston called Conover Tuttle Pace?

Every year in the beginning of February, time stops for the most buzzed about and watched, most analyzed and beloved game of any season. This year, given a dramatically different economy and stage on which the game will be played, viewers who tune in to see the iconic ads will experience a whole new world, and one likely not without its hiccups.

As money conservation continues to be crucial, and today’s consumers continue to diversify the ways that they gather their information, companies are forced to reconsider their advertising. With lower prices for each 30-second ad spot, this year’s game will feature ads from newcomers, eager to fill the spaces left behind by those departed. We’ll also see some of the Bowl’s “old faithfuls” back for another year, and spend a significant amount of time watching CBS’s own commercials, and some political advertising too.

Some other changes you’ll see this year will include Pepsi’s decision to opt out in favor of a social media philanthropy campaign. Coke will still remain, and with a philanthropy component too. You’ll see Mars Co.’s Snickers back at it, this time with a much less controversial ad, though no clue as to what it’ll be about. Audi is presenting the green police to promote their new Audi A3 TDI clean diesel car, and the government is pushing the US Census. As if that’s not enough, the Gators’ quarterback Tim Tebow will debut his already much talked about pro-life ad; and for the first time in years, Anheuser Busch just might run a series of ads without their beloved Clydesdales.

But regardless of who’s involved, the game will still hold the same appeal, and viewers needn’t despair – they’ll get what they tune in for.

First there was Facebook, then Twitter, then Blippy – it seems society at large is obsessed with knowing where, when, why and how people spend their time and money. But the newest trend in social media is so-called ‘location-based’ applications – allowing users to track the real-world physical location of their friends within a game. Is it really necessary for people to know your exact coordinates of their co-gamers at every second? Maybe so.

Recently a string of free apps like Foursquare have been all the rage – they allow users to check-in at variety of locations around their city using their phone, earning game points that can turn into real-life rewards. Rewards are based on use, so the more a user checks in at a given location, the more likely they are to receive a benefit. Some programs offer user avatars and gadgets you can only earn through the accrual of points – encouraging frequent use.

The concept is innovative, and very emblematic of the types of interactive media cropping up so frequently in recent months. But the question remains: is it really worthwhile? Are discounts and freebies earned through your phone worth the effort of virtual check-ins? As far as I’m concerned, coupons, loyalty rewards and discounts through other mediums are just as satisfying, but often don’t require a physical effort. However, if you’re headed to your local Starbucks anyway, then I suppose there’s no harm in clicking “check-in” for some extra sweet rewards.

Game users aren’t the only ones who could potentially benefit from location-based apps. The advertising options available direct-to-consumers through phone-based media could be used by a wide variety of businesses and institutions alike. For example, say a user has checked into Starbucks. Wouldn’t it be great if at that specific location they could catch up on local news, or check out a local events calendar? And why stop there – you could then sell advertising space to nearby businesses, whose information would show up when the user was within X distance of their storefront. Users could customize the information that they’re given, making it fun for them, and completely hassle-free. And what’s wrong with that?

It’s still too soon to know the fate of these types of apps, but companies had better hope that they catch on – the rewards for both parties could be great.

But let’s be honest: the purchases most people will end up sharing will simply be staging. Consider the ways that people create an online “personae” that may or may not match reality. You know them, the Facebook friends who are always posting updates from exotic locales, while sipping the finest wine and hobnobbing with the rich and famous, heli-skiing in the Alps, or standing front row at at a Jay-Z concert. It’s stagecraft of the finest order, as will be the purchases they intend to share on Blippy. We won’t be seeing the box of Charmin bought from the local wholesale club or the Netflix order for seasons 1 through 5 of American Idol popping up on these Blippy profiles. Or will we? Time will tell.

My attention is more focused on the possibilities that present themselves when considering the viral marketing implications of such sharing. We all vote with our wallets. If someone I know has actually paid for a product - it clearly has their vote. When I learn that a friend whose musical taste mirrors mine has bought music from a new artist on iTunes, I’m going to take a closer look.

Even more interesting are the products/services whose costs are elastic, such as gym memberships. What if I find out a friend is getting a better deal at the health club than I am? Or that they’re getting hosed?

And think about the possibility for group sharing of terrific deals. I no longer have to send a tweet or email about a great bargain at Amazon. It’ll go out automatically when I buy it (along with a link), and everyone can comment on it or act on it immediately.

It has the makings of a pretty addictive sport - one that I’ll be watching very closely.

You can’t open your laptop today without reading news about the exploding popularity of e-Readers. In November, Kurzweil Technologies, founded by inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, asked us to help them introduce their new e-Reader product on January 6th at CES. It didn’t have a name. But as something that would redefine the electronic book category, it required a strong, memorable brand that would position it against the established competitors from Amazon and Sony, as well as new entries flooding the market from Barnes & Noble and others.

After researching the category, we came up with the name Blio. Simple, approachable, lively and memorable. We developed a positioning language and tag line that would immediately distinguish the product among the big brand competitors. We created a teaser website to create anticipation for the product launch, and followed it  up with a full website to field inquiries generated from the introduction of Blio at CES.

CTP’s PR team also rolled out a focused public relations campaign to create buzz in anticipation of the CES debut and establish Blio as the new benchmark for e-Readers, leading up to the climactic demo of the product by Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer at his CES keynote address.

So, we’ve been busy. But now is not the time for us to curl up with a good book - we still have more work to do. Next, we’ll be supporting Blio’s launch as a branded e-commerce technology that enables major retail chains to sell e-books online. Call it another chapter in the story of CTP.

A few years back, some colleagues and I were exchanging examples of companies that had been good or bad stewards of their brands. The usual suspects were discussed: Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Coke, Microsoft, and others. Of course Apple, fresh off the resounding success of the iPod, was cited as a company that had an uncanny ability to keep its brand at true north, constantly innovating and redefining its own category. At the time, I wondered aloud whether Apple’s success would someday become its downfall. At what point would Apple become the monolithic IBM it so famously villified in the now legendary ‘1984′ ad?

Some hairline cracks in the sleek Cupertino veneer have begun to appear, with critics citing Apple’s “Walled Garden” approach to product/software development as a primary complaint. Accordingly, Apple has made some concessions, such as the conversion of iTunes from a heavily Digital Rights Managed (DRM) model to a more portable MP3 file format. But there has been considerable hand wringing over the closed nature of the iPhone OS and the stringent rules for what can and can’t go on the phone, aiding the case for open-source challengers from Google and others. With more people turning to mobile devices as the hub of ther personal/professional productivity, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Sometimes the high degree of control that ensures a flawless product and raving fans can start to seem like an iron fist in the eyes of consumers. Just look at Microsoft. Their ownership of the lion’s share of installed OSs enabled their unequaled control of millions of desktops. When it appeared that they  were abusing that control, the damage to their brand was severe and long lasting.

Perhaps Apple has plotted a course that addresses some of the misgivings people have about their transparency and interoperability. Perhaps their next big unveiling will include an open source solution, or at least an easier path to involvement from outside developers. Whatever Apple’s intended direction, it will be interesting to see how this seemingly bullet-proof brand manages to keep itself from becoming another behemoth turned bully in the eyes of consumers.

While marketing pundits opine about the slow death of the 30 second TV spot, none of the new mediums that have emerged over the past several years -  banner advertising, search ads, social networking - has filled the unique role that television inhabits. TV remains the ideal medium for vivid story telling. It engages viewers in a way that print, outdoor, radio and, yes, even the web, can’t yet approach. TV is still the best way to communicate a richly colored brand message to a massive audience in a short time.

The downside? It’s hugely expensive to buy national television. In an economy where every penny counts, marketers are being held more accountable than ever before for the ROI of ad spends. Simply allocating three quarters of the media budget to television won’t get you there.

But the lines between the various mediums are blurring. Marketers have begun to put in place the integration that was talked about for so long, but never delivered on. TV can begin a story that is continued and enriched online, on radio, out of home and in print. The ascendance of video ad inventory on the web offers more than an opportunity to stick a pre-roll logo with voiceover in front of the online audience, or run the spot that was produced for television. It offers the ability to imbrue online advertising with the same rich story telling as the television campaign, but with the possibility of an authentic exchange with the consumer rather than a one way recitation. This is the true power of the medium and one that has not yet been fully explored.

I predict a tidal wave, but let’s hope the consumer is included in how that wave takes shape.

But why did Dawn take so long to show the public that it is making a difference?

For some companies, it’s a lack of focus. They can’t discipline themselves to focus on a single cause. Instead, their giving program is diluted by opting for a range of charities. Other brands simply fear cause marketing. They think talking about it will transform their good deeds from philanthropic to shallow. But that doesn’t have to be the case. In fact, 2009 PR Week/Barkley PR Cause survey says 91% of women (the lead consumer) say it’s important for companies to support a cause. Moreover, 83% of all consumers want to know exactly where a corporate donation is going and how it’s being used.

Focusing help on a specific area, especially one that is synergistic with your business, and getting your target audience involved in the campaign makes you not just a good marketer but also a good corporate citizen. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

So here’s the obvious marketing question. With that many apps, generating that many downloads, offering that many impressions - are iPhone/iPod apps seeing much traction as an advertising platform? Several new ad networks have emerged, signing on top-ranking developers to embed ad serving into free apps. The important question is, as always, how efficiently can an advertiser reach the right eyeballs and how effective is the platform in converting impressions? Efficiency could depend on the type of app and who it most appeals to. Effectiveness? Location or context-based apps (think restaurant or shopping guides) are probably a good bet, grabbing users in a spot where they’d be likely to redeem an offer.  But the real trick here becomes freshness. Free apps tend to get downloaded, used a few times, then deleted. There’s probably alot of churn on the hard drives of those phones. But the writing is on the wall. This category is still in its toddler years - we can expect it to become a more robust and precise ad platform in short order.

While the cost of a specific product placement can vary widely (e.g., commercial-free TV sponsorship by Apple iPod vs. a character randomly using an iPod during a scene), there are specific advantages of using this medium. Product placement is an effective channel that brands can leverage to reach a very broad audience quickly. The longevity of a message’s life is another key benefit. As a movie like E.T. is passed from one generation to the next, so is the Reece’s brand message. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the perceived endorsement of the specific product by the character and the actor or actress who plays them. This might be of particular value, since paid product endorsement is something A-list actors have traditionally tended to shy away from.

You don’t have to exhaust your thumb using the remote control to find more current examples of this trend. The current leader in this medium is Apple Inc. whose products, according to Nielsen Media Research, were mentioned over 250 times across multiple channels during a four-month stretch in 2006. Along with Apple, Fox’s “24” has Jack Bauer splitting his time between saving the free world and selling Ford Expeditions and Sprint Cell phones, while AMC recently launched the third season of its immensely popular “Mad Men” with high profile placements for London Fog and Stolichnaya vodka.

When done correctly, product placement in movies, television and music (lyrics & videos) allows brands to seamlessly bypass traditional media channels to connect with and build relationships with their target.