If a college student asks me, “When is it acceptable to use a smartphone during a business meeting?” then I must confess that my only answer is “I have no idea … at all.”

Yesterday I offended a colleague by using my smartphone during a meeting, and it’s not the first time that this has happened. I respect and quite like this particular colleague, so I feel quite badly about the faux pas. However, the incident crystallized this question that has been floating in the back of my mind for some time now.

Before you merely label me a heathen with no sense of business etiquette, consider the facts of the case and a recent conversation with a highly successful alumnus of our program.

Students were presenting a strategic communication campaign, and their research raised a great question about the brand. The question. They cut to the heart of the matter. And sitting in the back of the room against the wall, I realized that their question was so good and so fundamental that I didn’t know the answer.

But I did know that the answer was merely a click away on my iPhone. So I set the phone on the notebook on which I was taking notes, Googled the question, and quickly learned the answer.

The volume of the phone was, obviously, off, and sitting on the notes on my lap, the physical movement of my Google search could not have been more animated than taking notes. And most people in the room were taking notes. So it could not have been a visual distraction.

Yet being on the phone was offensive in and of itself. As a behavioral scientist, I find this fascinating.

To me, information always is preferable to no information. And my data searching was subtle, especially considering that I was against the back wall behind the tripod videotaping the presentation. All eyes were, rightly, on the students.

Thus the faux pas was philosophical in nature.

I wish that I could claim complete innocence and report that as soon as I learned the answer, I pocketed the iPhone. I did not. I sent a couple of tweets about the presentation. Also discretely but less innocent, philosophically.

Industry perspective

My smartphone usage ruffles feathers more often than I would like, and because of this, the people who chafe at my usage likely would be shocked by how often I refrain from relevant searches due to feelings of etiquette.

All of this likely would merely heap shame upon me if it were not for a recent conference call.

As part of the college’s outreach, several members of our National Professional Advisory Board volunteered their time to talk with a group of advertising students about careers, success, and the industry.

When answering a student question about how to add value to an employer, one successful business-owning alumnus said that he especially values energized young employees who can put information at his fingertips when he needs it.

“When we’re in a meeting, and a piece of information will help inform the discussion, I need a person who can get that information. That person is invaluable to me, and I will always keep them near.”

OK, that is a paraphrase due to imperfect memory, but the sentiment is accurate, and the word “invaluable” is a direct quotation. And he elaborated that he was specifically referring to the employee who pulled out a smartphone and searched the information in the meeting, adding that he didn’t have time to do it because he was leading the meeting.

So out-of-the-blue, one of our most successful graduates tells a group of students that such information-gathering is invaluable, and no other member of the board on the conference call contradicted him.

Your guess as good as mine

So what to advise young people?

If this question actually were posed to me, I would hedge and say something like, “know your environment.”

I assumed that I knew what my younger-than-me colleague would think about such smartphone usage, and you know what they say about “assume.”

So I made myself look like a jerk, and I irritated someone whose opinion is valuable to me. That’s on me for not knowing the environment.

But that advice still sounds hollow to me. When I sit in Faculty Senate meetings and see our at-least-a-generation-older-than-me provost on his phone, I get it. Important stuff happens during a 90 minute meeting. He needs to attend to it.

However, it’s important to know that not only is my opinion not universal, it may be a definite minority.

I apologized sincerely, and I regret offending the colleague. But in the heart of the information age with the Millennial generation fully coming into the workforce, this issue must be addressed.

In the end, I forgot the first rule of strategic communication: know thy audience.

Photo published under a Creative Commons license from liewcf on Flickr.

We all know that the Super Bowl is as much about advertising as football, and in that spirit, here’s what I learned yesterday:

1. Copywriters Forgot How to Sell

I took some heat on Twitter for my critiques – even from ad professionals – but I stand by David Ogilvy’s principle: ads must sell.

Clearly I get that much of today’s Super Bowl advertising strategy involves creating buzz (itself a public relations function), and for more than $3 million, ads must get people talking.

But one cannot abandon advertising goals. One can entertain while still integrating brand-related messages and benefits.

I feel that Black Beetle did exactly this. The beetle (an actual bug) with racing stripes shows cornering and speed with a catchy tune and creative concept. The tease to a 2012 Turbo Charged Beetle works seamlessly, as the bug slides into a silhouette of a clearly redesigned more retro-looking Beetle.

2. Advertising still full of would-be filmmakers

I preach this to my students: if you want to write films for a living, pour yourself into that and give it a try. Don’t become a copywriter as a fall back to an even more competitive career.

Confession: I hate the Doritos ads loved by most.

Were they funny? Of course. But they had nothing to do with Doritos, really, and I believe in investment in long-term brand image even if you’re trying to generate buzz.

Doritos user-generated content is a cop out, and it came as no surprise that the producer of the Pug ad is a USC film school alum.

Creating entertaining content that actually sells is hard work. This fails. It only entertains, as one might expect from a filmmaker. Come on, Doritos, you’ve got the budget. Pay someone who actually knows about persuasion.

The Doritos ads did create buzz, but what did you think about the finger-licking ad? Gross, right? And as a memory researcher, I promise you that memory of that ad will soon fade, but the implicit affect trace of disgust might linger — even though supermarket shoppers likely will never remember.

3. Nobody remembers how to write long ads

Americans are sentimental, and it seems we loved the Chrysler ad. As ads go, it was one of the better ones.

Chrysler went out on a limb, buying a two-minute spot, which is unheard of these days. It would be akin to the football teams playing 16 quarters.

The ad starts strong with a heavy emphasis on dialog, morphs into something visual, and then provides the poignant but likely lost on most Motown theater scene, which actually detracts from the ad. It would have been a better 90 second ad.

It also generated my favorite Tweet of the day: @timlaubacher Assuming that Chrysler has cupholders for Eminem’s Brisk.

However, I have to say that it strongly called to mind the opening scene of HBO’s Hung, which called Detroit, “the headwaters of a river of failure.”

And as a colleague said, “We get that you’re saying that America’s not much associated with luxury cars anymore. Now build a product to back it up.

4. People still suckers for cute animals

It amazes me how easily people are entertained by animals.

From the Doritos Pug ad mentioned above the Bud Light ad, people seem to lose their minds when it comes to animals. They accept anything.

I thought the Bud Light dog ad was awful.

5. Sex still thought to sell

The GoDaddy ads are to be expected, and they’re awful. Perhaps more awful is their tease to uncensored Web content that is in no way shocking.

Chevy showed complete objectification of women with their interchangeable “babes” in the Camaro ad.

As, @Mandy_Vavrinak said, “So thanks to Chevy, everyone knows how bad ads get made. #brandbowl”

To me, the Kim Kardasian ad was less offensive simply because the man also was objectified, and she cast him off, providing some semblance of female power.

Mini Cooper went with the phallic reference, shoving the giant party sub in “Cram it in the Boot”, recalling images of this Burger King ad (moderately SFW).

If you don’t think it’s suggestive, check out yesterday’s Tweeted picture by adult film entertainer Kacey Jordan, of Charlie Sheen fame (also moderately SFW).

A disspointing year

The game was excellent, thankfully. As a whole, the ads were disappointing, including Pepsi throwing cans at everyone (and objectifying women). Made me think of Bud Light’s Rock, Paper, Scissors from a few years back, which I actually enjoyed.

Despite my ennui, I’m still looking forward to next year.

I’m sure most kids love straws, but my kids really love them Few beverage opportunities pass without at least a single request for a straw.

You’d say they’re a little straw-obsessed.

So this morning I’m fixing Riley a cup of water. I gave her the choice of cups, and she chose an orange see-through (i.e., translucent) cup.

Fair enough.

Then she wanted the lid.

Fair enough.

I dug through our “kids plastic junk” drawer and found it. But this particular lid necessitates a straw, and I could not find the rigid plastic straw that came with it.

And we’re out of straws.

So I started digging around, and I found some old, still wrapped, McDonald’s straws.

Mind you, there is no marking or branding on the plain white straw paper.

I know they’re McDonald’s straws due to the fact that they’re larger in diameter than other fast food straws, and the plastic is slightly more rigid.

So I unwrapped the straw and started to determine whether it would fit in the cup’s lid (it wouldn’t).

“That’s a McDonald’s straw,” Riley says.

All 2 years and 5 months of her (to the day, ironically).

What?

How could she possibly have learned that?

Seriously?

When we drove through Joplin, Missouri, and a similarly aged Piper identified Sam’s Club from the exterior sign, that impressed me.

But this?

This is incomprehensible.

The power of branding is so strong that my 29-month-old daughter can recognize and identify a straw from the world’s largest fast food proprietor.

I allow for the possibility that by “McDonald’s straw” she simply meant “fast food straw.” But this kid in neither vague nor generic.

She knows what she wants and asks for it again and again (and again).

A simple white piece of plastic adorned with a single red stripe and a single yellow stripe is sufficient to elicit unprompted recall from a toddler.

Consumers: we have no chance.

Oh, and while my wife was at the grocery store a few minutes ago, she called me. My 10-year-old says, “Tell mom we’re out of Ziploc bags … and straws.”

Shot: Canon EOS Rebel T1i w/ Canon EFS 18-55mm

1/200 sec, program (oops, I forgot and left it on), f/4, ISO 100, focal length: 20 mm

Built-in flash (fill flash)

Photoshop: auto levels, darkened sky using curves, crop

Dr. Shannon Bichard (far right) does an amazing job leading the team, which won the highly competitive NSAC District 10 in 2009, finishing 6th in the nation. With the talent they have this year, I expect more great things.

And it was good to see them busy at work on this year’s client, State Farm

A great time in low light!

Read his thoughts and some great comments here.