Conventional thinking in regards to Charlie Darwin’s theory of evolution is that biological change is the cumulative result of slow, continual and incremental processes. Think of changes happening in several, barely-perceivable units.

Another change model, punctuated equilibrium, states that species exhibit little change for long periods of time (stasis) interrupted by sudden and radical clusters or bursts of change.

Punctuated equilibrium has been applied to explain how change occurs in economics, organizational behavior and politics. And while an esoteric thought, it certainly seems applicable to the advertising business right now. Technological advances are revolutionizing the way people consume information, and those tasked with creating content for consumption are having to figure out how to adapt. Profoundly and at lightning speed.

Just a thought.

Does one have to be a lunatic madman to be an entrepreneur? Are all visionaries nutjobs? Highly debatable. However I recently happened upon two pretty compelling pieces of evidence that point firmly to “yes.”

The documentary film We Live in Public chronicles the rise and fall of Josh Harris, the most famous (and incredibly eccentric) Internet pioneer you’ve never heard of; in 1992, he predicted much of what the web has become:

The Internet is like this new human experience. At first, everybody’s gonna like it, but there will be a fundamental change in the human condition.

The film highlights Harris’ social experiments and how they ultimately predicted the exhibitionism that marks social media today. We do live in public. Harris called that shot years before YouTube, Twitter or Facebook.

And in Sunday’s New York Times, there was a feature on Seth Priebatsch and his start-up company Scvngr (pronounced “Scavenger”). The story focuses on the 21-year-old wunderkind who wants to “build the game layer on top of the world.” Huh, right? That sounds crazy, but so did the premise for all of the other sites that millions and millions of people use every day.

Recently I read a quote on the stages of a visionary, world-changing idea: silly, controversial, progressive, then obvious. When you think of it that way, crazy starts to make a lot of sense.

The kids at the Square have been nose-to-the-grindstone this past month, and our blog has suffered because of it. Sorry about that. But we promise to share all kinds of stuff quite soon. You’ll see. You’ll see we haven’t been slackin. Nuh uh. No sir.

Campaigns will be launched, news will be released and minds will be blown. Consider August an incubation period.

In the June 5th Wall Street Journal, a question is posed:

Does the Internet make you smarter or dumber?

The argument for the former is here, and the argument for the latter is here. Each article makes sense and contains some valid points. What do you think?

The simple answer to the WSJ’s question is: yes.

I don’t have an iPad yet. Reason one: Apple develops product in market. So an improved iPad will be out in a few months and will cost less. Reason two: I can’t figure out where it fits into my digital life. I have a MacBook. I have an iPhone. Why do I need an iPad?

That being said, Apple sold about 700,000 units yesterday when the device made its debut. So a few people, who presumably have laptops and smartphones, felt the device serves some purpose.

From the half dozen reviews I’ve read, iPad isn’t any good at making stuff. But it could change the way we consume stuff: books, magazines, newspapers, music, TV, movies, photos, the web and email.

There’s something innately attractive about the tactile nature of the iPhone and now the iPad. That, along with incredible industrial design and user interface. WSJ technology guru, Walt Mossberg, points out:

It could even help, eventually, to propel the finger-driven, multitouch user interface ahead of the mouse-driven interface that has prevailed for decades.

No question, media consumption will continue to evolve. And people who make media content, including advertisers, had better pay attention.

Just a heads up.

UPDATE Monday 4/5: Adweek ponders the iPad this morning. As does AdAge. Both good reads.

This photo, from a presentation I recently attended, speaks the truth. And you know what they say about the truth:

1.) It hurts.

2.) It will set you free.

Today, brands need to focus on engagement and connection. People don’t like advertising for a reason. I see this as an awesome opportunity.

The recent dustup over NBC’s The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien has been nothing short of entertaining. Show business aside, this little episode of popular culture offers a unique opportunity to witness challenger brand positioning and public perception unfold on a grand scale.

What I’ve found particularly interesting is the inordinate amount of public outrage at NBC (and Jay Leno) and the beloved, nearly deified status that Conan has attained with even the most fair-weather fans. I think it boils down to a couple of things: the public has an innate sense of fairness, they gravitate almost uniformly to the underdog or challenger, and they love it when the underdog exhibits real backbone.

Would I necessarily call Conan O’Brien an underdog? Probably not in a vacuum. In fact, Michael Ian Black articulates quite well the irony of feeling sorry for Conan in his blog post, Norma Rae:

How did a Harvard-educated, multi-millionaire late night talk show host magically transmogrify into a guy who got laid off at the local car plant? The overreaction to Conan’s departure has been kind of astounding; as a nation, are we really that concerned about who hosts “The Tonight Show,” a television program that stopped being culturally relevant around 1986?

When you consider the Conan brand in the late night television competitive environment, maybe he is a challenger brand. Rob Sheffield, in the latest issue of Rolling Stone, describes Jay Leno as the Godzilla of late night TV:

Leno’s got the stomach for fights. Like Paul McCartney, another nice guy wrongly dismissed as a cream puff, Jay made his bones in the sleaziest, nastiest showbiz shark pools on earth. He plays nice for the old ladies, but his street-fighting instincts are off the charts. He’s left plenty of carrion on the late-night highway. Arsenio Hall, Chevy Chase, Magic Johnson — Jay knocked them all off the air, and you can bet he still savors the memory of their death cries.

Whether Conan’s ratings would’ve been better had NBC not led in to his show with a watered-down and (in my opinion) not terribly funny hour of Jay Leno will never be answered. NBC’s decision to revert back to Leno is seemingly the late night equivalent of Coca-Cola’s decision to yank New Coke off the shelves. The experiment didn’t work. However, that logic doesn’t hold up because, unlike New Coke, Conan has cemented his iconic status with existing fans and endeared himself to millions more.

The public realized he was getting a raw deal. They saw Conan as a put-upon underdog, and they cheered when he pushed back with weeks of (in my opinion) hilarious barbs at his bosses at the network. The fact that Conan’s exit speech was heartfelt and genuine sealed his canonization:

To all the people watching, I can never thank you enough for your kindness to me, and I’ll think about it for the rest of my life. All I ask of you is one thing: please don’t be cynical. I hate cynicism — it’s my least favorite quality, and it doesn’t lead anywhere. Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you’re kind, amazing things will happen.

It’s simple. People love an underdog with tremendous heart and nothing to lose. And that’s Conan O’Brien. The patron saint of failed late night programming.

We go big for the holidays. “Why go big for the holidays?” you ask. I’m happy you asked, because I’ve been thinking about it. There is intense pressure to one-up the previous year’s effort, and let’s be honest: we’re in advertising, so we’ve been working on holiday promotions and campaigns since August or so.  That’s an unfair jump on the rest of the population.

Before you cry foul, consider that by the time you are enjoying your white-chocolate-peppermint-mocha latte from Starbucks, we’ve moved on to Spring campaigns. We’re in a constant state of seasonal confusion. It’s the price we pay for holiday glory.

Stay tuned for our 2009 push. Should be entertaining.

Kate wants to draw your mixtape. I love this idea.

I love it for many reasons. What’s nagging at me and is hardest to articulate is this: you can’t draw an iTunes playlist. Which leads me to a bigger thought: what happens when there is no more tangible media?

Photographs, records, mixtapes, all of that stuff that now resides on your hard drive.

I went to a Yankees game in the new stadium this summer, and the tickets were print-outs from my email. I can’t wait to share that with my grandson.

Is it me or does lo-fi have more soul? Is the iLife lifeless?

Note: I realize writing this on a blog is ironic or hypocritical or both. Just a random thought on a Tuesday night.

Somewhere along the way advertising people have completely butchered the meaning of the word value. It’s been changed by overuse to mean “cheaper,” or at the very least, “less expensive.”

Value means worth. It’s the inherent or intrinsic worth of a good or service.

Just a thought that’s been tossed around the agency recently.