Measuring Up

“You’re not an artist. You solve problems.”

Those are the words Sterling Cooper’s Don Draper exclaimed to his young copy writer protégé, Peggy Olson. To anyone who isn’t a fan, I’m referring to AMC’s smash hit television series ‘Mad Men’. Draper is the lead character and creative director of this fictional early 60s ad agency. But, the meaning behind this phrase is oh so real.

Here’s a little background on it. Two episodes ago, Peggy was given the challenging assignment to create a breakthrough ad campaign that would entice the female masses to purchase a new concept— diet cola. The opening of this episode begins with Peggy and her colleagues (all men) watching a clip of Ann Margaret’s 1963 sexy performance of ‘Bye, Bye, Birdie.' While all the men are enraptured with raw sexual excitement as they watch Ann flirt shamelessly with the camera, Peggy is visibly offended at the office dynamics.

Fast forward to the next important part. Peggy is pretty much forced into trying to utilize the likeness of this famous movie scene into her creative campaign. She tells her boss (Don Draper) that this would only offend woman (showing her obvious disdain for the idea,) instead of achieving the opposite goal of appealing to calorie conscious females everywhere. As she’s about to suggest another, more cerebral, possibly less offbeat strategy, Draper interrupts her with an oldie but a goodie in the advertising world, “It will work because men want her and women want to be her.” He then reminds her of the headline above. (You’re not an artist. You solve problems.)

So, what’s my point (you may be asking)? This show is wonderful to me because it’s truly grounded in the real issues/challenges that agencies go through each and every week. It’s fascinating that the styles and specifics might have changed in 40 years, but the same annoying dilemmas remain the same.

I’ve worked at two very large ad agencies. In both cases, I’ve met many creative executives who just could not figure out that they are really supposed to be problem solvers. Instead, their prima donna, egotistical attitudes turn what should be results driven campaigns into “I need to dazzle the client with the most breathtaking creative possible.” Many times, the allure of big awards and celebrity status within the ad industry get the best of them. And, the worst part about it as that some of them are so stubborn that they just won’t back down… even if the strategy doesn’t follow a clear and concise strategy of where the campaign should be.

One clear memory I have is when a top creative at my former agency developed this hip, very stylish (almost outlandish) annual report for an insurance company client. The problem was that this insurance company was/is incredibly conservative and even dull. The senior account person in charge of the business begged the creative director to change the strategy to come across as smart and seasoned versus hip because that’s what the client wanted and (more importantly) that’s what would resonate with this company’s investors. But, the creative director would have nothing of the kind. I think his words to the account person were, “I hate this type of boring creative concept. Insurance companies need to change their images with more provocative advertising. No one wants to see this tired look anymore.”

This battle soon became a war that I had to step into to calm everyone down.  And, it was all because a creative director wanted to march to his own beat, not having a care in the world about what problems he should be solving (versus creating.)

In this case, is Draper right? Who knows… there is a lot of gray in every creative campaign. But, his simple strategy seems to make sense (at least for those times.) The key point here (though) is that Peggy completely loses her focus around what might be best for the client (vis a vis a good strategy that can solve problems.) And instead, her only thought is about personal preferences (in this case that the svelte and sexy 60s star is offending her senses.)

This show is just chock full of real situations that continue to happen in the 21st century agency world. I’ll save my next case in point (about the Madison Square Garden account) for another post later this week.

I Want (Hard) Candy!

Guest Post from Laura Mills

I bought my first bottle of Hard Candy nail polish nearly a decade ago at Saks 5th Avenue.  It was a metallic turquoise shade (I think it was called Mermaid) and I begged my mom for it.  At about $15 a bottle, she thought it was excessive, but the color was perfect for my Prom shoes and we rationalized the splurge on the special occasion. 

Hard Candy is a luxury cosmetics brand that peaked in the late 1990s.  During its heyday, it was extremely popular among teens and young adults, with Alicia Silverstone hocking their signature nail color while promoting the movie “Clueless” on David Letterman.  Since then, the brand has steadily declined from displays at Saks to disappearing into Sephora’s cosmetic abyss.  I don’t remember the last time I found, or looked for, their product line.  Like most consumers, I gravitated to brands readily available.

Imagine my pleasure when Wal-Mart announced last week that it was resuscitating the brand at a reasonable price point.  Engaging Hard Candy loyalists and new users while potentially stealing market share from their design conscious competitor, Target – it’s destined to be a hit!  Or is it?  I can debate either way.

First of all, the typical mass merchant shopper is ultra budget-conscious, especially in this economy, and in price-sensitive categories like cosmetics.  Consumers who want trendy, high design products tend to shop elsewhere.  Further, Hard Candy as a brand appeals to tweens and teens, right down to the plastic ring hugging the top.  The brand’s biggest fans are people like me - who remember the heyday but are now adult professionals in their late 20s and early 30s.  We don’t shop the teen aisle anymore.  And, as for today’s tweens and teens, open an issue of Teen Vogue and you’ll be quickly overwhelmed by the hundreds of brands, celebrities and entertainment properties that the age group already embraces.  Hard Candy faces a new world of brand clutter.

It’s an uphill road for Hard Candy to break through the brand clutter in today’s market, but not impossible.  Many fashion brands have re-emerged as licensed product, occasionally generating higher sales than their original run.  Mossimo.  Jordache.  Op.  The list goes on.

With any re-launch there are potential benefits and risks, but it’s nice to see a powerful retailer involved in the revival of a brand that generated such passion.  At the end of the day, it’s the consumers (and their purchases) that will prove whether the risk pays off for all parties involved.  For the sake of my future pedicures, I hope it’s a great success. 

A few things definitely get a whole lot better with age

No, I’m not speaking about my body. Now, that I’ve officially hit my middle age stride, aches and pains are the norm for me after any sort of physical exercise. That’s not fun.

I’m actually referring to wine. And for the purposes of this post, let’s not focus on the obvious point that the older the wine, the tastier it is.

My spin on this is different. Every month, I find myself appreciating newly discovered bottles of wine that much more. In fact, I can honestly say that these days I’m much more excited about speaking to a sommelier at the onset of a fine dinner out, then actually looking at the menu. And, I just love finding a new bold and beautiful red that tastes like heaven in a bottle. Last night, I tried a 1994, Heitz Cabernet. It was simply divine. This recommendation came directly from a very knowledgeable sommelier at a place called The Washington Inn in Cape May (a little advertising for him can’t hurt). The other day, a friend told me to try a 2003, Baldacci Cab. This is a not so well known private vintage of Stag’s Leap Vineyard. Boy, does my friend have great taste. A glass of this full bodied and colored wine went down so well (a bold start with a smooth as silk finish) with my steak dinner. I highly recommend Baldacci to everyone who is reading this.

Here are two key thoughts that might be interesting:

1) When I was in my 20s, I couldn’t tell the difference between Ernest and Julio Gallo and Robert Mondavi. Wine, beer, cordials…whatever. I had no appreciation and my palate had no taste (literally and figuratively). My thirties came along and like most, I started to drink some whites (I think the oaky/buttery chardonnays and 500 types of Pinot Grigios were big then (yuck, personally I hate them all now). I also was first introduced to reds by my wife (who has always had a good wine sense). But, the reality is that one wine pretty much tasted the same as the next. My palate still couldn’t discern between subtle flavors and even the obvious nuances that separate a Pinot Noir from a Merlot. Or, a Syrah from a Bordeaux.

Now that I’m in my 40s (and for the last few years), I’m realizing just how wonderful a great bottle of wine is. And, the older I get, the more enthusiastic I am about trying new blends and types of wine (almost always red) that are recommended by others. Clearly, my palate has matured (at least in the wine tasting sense). I’m having fun because with each new bottle, my sense of taste is exploring and learning to appreciate and savor entirely new aromas and flavors. Learning throughout life is so important to being fulfilled…I think wine is filling up at least a small piece of that fulfillment box for me.

2) Wine is one of those consumer products that can (and should) leverage viral, word of mouth marketing (like none others) to be successful. While wineries need to have great distribution to wine stores and restaurants for consumers to actually enjoy their products, a great recommendation from some trustworthy source will push the masses to purchase and try it.

Most of the larger, high end wineries like Mondavi, Caymus, Silver Oak and Opus One really don’t have to worry about this. They have fantastic distribution and are also continually rated by the leading wine publications. These vineyards typically have something like Wine Spectator “91” next to a given brand and year. That ensures credibility and appeal by the masses. These “big guys” have it made.

It’s the little known, or smaller wine makers who need to have advocates spreading the gospel about a particular vintage that is truly special. With social media tools like Twitter and Facebook, these smaller players can learn how to leverage the playing field to create visibility for their brands and real fans in their products. In truth, all they need to do is find a bunch of real consumer evangelists who have fallen head over heels for their tasty grapes. They’ll do all the necessary work and it will be completely organic and transparent.

There isn’t much that I like about growing older. Becoming a wiser wine connoisseur ain’t half bad, though.  

The Business of Michael Jackson Benefits from a Long-Term Outlook

Today's guest blog is by Michael Dresner, CEO Brand2 Squared Licensing, A Division of Peppercom.

Since his death on June 25th, the business press have not only speculated on the economics of Michael  Jackson merchandise, but also reported on attorneys worldwide chasing down purveyors of t-shirts, posters, baseball caps and calendars commemorating the King of Pop without a license. Such legal pursuits are legitimate. Celebrities can generate millions of dollars annually in royalties from recordings, wearables and novelties, posthumously, supporting generations to come. Indeed, the Michael Jackson Estate claims $80 million in new film and license agreements have been created since his death.  If these partners follow the law and pay royalties to the Estate, why should street vendors and websites be held to a different standard? 

Having spent a career in licensing, I am about to forswear the cardinal industry rule of piracy protection. My message to the Michael Jackson Estate: give the street-side vendors some breathing room. Keep the smackdowns to a minimum. Over the long haul, the Estate will get what it deserves. 

If you search on-line or walk down 7th Avenue in Manhattan, you’ll see every type of Michael Jackson paraphernalia imaginable. And there is a consistent attribute among the offerings: they celebrate, honor and mourn, with images of admiration and respect. Every piece of merchandise I’ve seen sold from boxes on the street fortuitously follows this guideline. No mockery or reminders of the bizarre behavior adorning covers of the NY Post– just the positive impact his music has had on millions of lives across decades. My first concert experience was The Jackson Five in 1971.  For many others, their first musical experiences were watching the “Beat It” and “Thriller” videos on MTV again and again. In recent years he was frequently inexplicable and frightening. But those concerts and music videos were fantastic, and can forever stand the test of time. Perhaps the ‘illegal’ merchandise, as designed, is helping to reposition Michael Jackson for the long-term into the amazing performer that he was, rather than the oddities for which he became known. The Estate must keep the importance of this in mind. 

This strategy is more lucrative than chasing a few dollars that the Estate would otherwise compromise in 2009.  The classic case study is Elvis Presley, who died prematurely as well, at the age of 42. Three decades after his death, Elvis Presley Enterprises generates $ 250 million annually in retail revenue (incredibly, that excludes music sales) across 220 licensees – and is defined by merchandise that focuses on his unparalleled cultural contributions, not on the self-created controversies. Elvis Presley had a reputation for philandering, drug and alcohol abuse, rapid obesity, absurd financial mismanagement and self-destruction. He shot television sets in hotel rooms, rented amusement parks to visit at night by himself, was commonly incoherent and once collapsed on stage. Today’s merchandise collection– brought to market by manufacturers willing to pay a 10%-15% royalty– succeeds despite those controversies, with no hint that those controversies ever took place. The product is all about the entertainment. 

The Michael Jackson Estate needs to look decades into the future, in the same way Elvis Presley Enterprise has, when all that remains are the images, content and memories of years past.  It is the memory that dictates long-term economic value.  And today’s street side vendors are helping to direct those memories in a dignified way.  Three decades from now, the enterprise managing the Michael Jackson brand may be liberated from the lawsuits, the operations, the prescription drugs – liberated to generate income purely from the artistic brilliance he brought to the world.  Maybe, just maybe, the t-shirt vendors on 7th Avenue are helping further that effort.

POST-SCRIPT:  One key strategic reason for legal pursuits is protection for the manufacturers and studios that ARE paying royalties.  Do they have an unfair competitive disadvantage?  For those companies following the legal route today: have little fear. The traditional, volume generating distribution systems– from mass merchant retailers to movie theater chains to iTunes– will only solicit 'officially licensed product' for fear of similar cease and desist consequences. 

Who's really to blame for our healthcare mess?

Take a look in the mirror. It may be you.

That is, if you're one of the millions who are considered obese, then you're also playing a role in the whopping $147 billion annual cost to our health care system. That translates into $1,250 per household. And, it's mostly accounted for in taxes and insurance premiums... which we all have to pay for.

Let's face it.  Our American society is fat. And, this single factor alone is bending our healthcare system to a near breaking point.

So far, the debate over healthcare reform has revolved around how insurers, drug companies, doctors, nurses and politicians/bureaucrats should be persuaded to change their behaviors (and costs) for the common cause. No doubt, some of that is needed. But, I find it interesting that very little is actually said about how those unhealthy, obese Americans should be forced to change theirs as well.

We all know that too much extra weight is a sure fire cause for diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. All of which cause early deaths. But, did you know that the Institute of Medicine has estimated that while genetics is responsible for 30 percent of these early deaths, the biggest contributor (at 40 percent) is behavior?

So, if this is the case, should we expect Americans to take on more personal responsibly for staying fit and keeping our healthcare system... healthier?

It seems only logical to me.

The problem is that obesity isn't viewed like other vices such as smoking or drinking alcohol. When either is consumed (or smoked) in excess these days, our societal norms typically force moderation (family, friends, etc.) to set in. If that doesn't happen, certain rules (i.e. being able to get life insurance) and/or laws (i.e. not being able to smoke anywhere in public these days) often provide the same outcome.

Go visit an all you can eat country buffet in rural West Virginia at dinner time. You'll see that the exact opposite norm exists there. Customers are encouraged to pile their plates three or four times with the most fattening of foods, and, that's true just about everywhere you go across middle America.

I don't have a healthcare protocol solution for this problem. And, I certainly am not advocating making anyone who is overweight pay more for his/her own healthcare. (Maybe a positive financial incentive would actually work better.) But, I would suggest that our society has to change what we now consider acceptable norms (i.e. over eating) pretty quickly.

To improve both their health and well being and to play an important role in fixing our broken system, it's time that we outwardly frown on these behaviors that elicit this outcome.

This means that a whole lot of self control has to take over as well. Normal sized portions of meals, learning to actually work out to burn off excess calories and eating better and, healthier foods are the ways to go. Although it might throw a monkey wrench into the unhealthy lives of millions, at least they will be alive to complain about it.

This is just plain silly…

The backlash against those institutions receiving TARP money has taken on an entire new  level of absurdity.  According to today’s article (Corporations Take a Low-Key Approach to Event Sponsorship), a number of large financial institutions were sponsors of the US Open, but no one really knew because they kept it a complete secret. Yes, that’s right. They spent hundreds of thousands of $$$ to bring important clients and prospects to the event, wine and dine them at corporate sponsor tables and more, but only on the condition that their name never appear anywhere as an actual sponsor.

So, for example, guests of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America sat at $50,000 sponsored dinner tables, but no sign was posted as to whose table it actually was. Those attending the dinner were left guessing who the covert benefactor was. Wow… feels like a CIA operation.

Let’s be serious about this for a minute. Yes, any company that has received TARP funds needs to scrutinize its expenditures and should be made accountable by providing provide ongoing updates on its finances. But, this has really gone too far. When companies are forced to compromise the value of brand building efforts through paid for sponsorships (i.e. they can’t promote their brands at these events,) then the principle of what should be happening  has become completely lost.

We’ve always done lots of work for financial services companies. It’s a fact that they win lots of business and earn more $$$ by wooing prospects and clients through these high level, prestigious professional sporting events. Like it or not, this is (and always will be) an important new business strategy for them. I think that Congress and the public at large needs to take a chill pill and back off on this issue because it isn’t helping anyone. By taking away the ability to promote their brand and name at these events, these companies waste a large chunk of the dollars they are spending. So in essence, because they live in fear of being singled out by Congress/the public, they are leaving a lot of value on the table. Thus, we are forcing them to throw away our money.

I know that I simplified an issue that is much more complex. But, hopefully my meaning is clear. We shouldn’t be forcing TARP funded companies to change their tried and true approaches to doing business (which, by the way, generates much needed income that will help them get back on solid ground.) I completely believe in accountability and transparency of where the money is going and how much is being spent. But, there is a big difference between corporate boondoggles that simply pamper the senior executives of these broken companies versus legitimate sales and marketing programs that truly generate business, goodwill and some ongoing brand rehabilitation.

It’s too bad that those who influence public opinion about these companies (like our politicians) pretend that this is a black and white, negative issue. Shame on them for not properly educating the masses versus continuing to fan the flames.

Bring the Hipsters to the Yard… Harvard Yard

Today's guest blog is by Laura Mills, Account Executive, Brand2 Squared Licensing, A Division of Peppercom.
I giggled when I read this recent post from Perez Hilton: “Harvard University Launches Fashion Line, Confuses Everyone,” thinking of my old college sweatshirt at home.  Licensing is a great source of revenue and marketing for universities, but the idea of a stuffy, Ivy League institution lending its name to a fashion apparel manufacturer seemed ridiculous at first.  However, it might actually be brilliant. 

Generally, collegiate licensing is pretty straight forward.  Most schools stick with their name, colors and mascot, licensing assets under strict visual standards to apparel, paper products, tailgate paraphernalia and other tchotchkes.   Merchandise often targets sports fans with products to wear and use at athletic events, as alumni are life loyal to their schools.  You can’t go anywhere in the world without seeing “Penn State” emblazoned on someone’s chest or cap.  It’s an effective strategy and no college or university has broken this mold.  Until now. 

WearWolf Group will launch a contemporary men’s fashion line called Harvard Yard, inspired by photos of students on the famous lawn in the 1960s.  In this case, both WearWolf and Harvard carve out a fashion niche that the University can own, strategically steering clear of both the tailgate aesthetic and the preppy look of Vineyard Vines.  Instead, it appears to be the menswear extension of Dan Humphrey, the resident hipster on the WB’s Gossip Girl.  As Time magazine eloquently writes in a recent profile of the hipster movement, “instead of creating a culture of their own, hipsters […] borrow from trends long past. Take your grandmother's sweater and Bob Dylan's Wayfarers, add jean shorts, Converse All-Stars and a can of Pabst and bam — hipster.”

Hipster is rapidly turning mainstream, as mass merchants like Urban Outfitters capitalize on what the Time article calls “hipster chic.” Bringing the photos from the ‘60s into the equation, the concept ties the University to the style and, by default, the current trend.  Not only is Harvard taking a new direction from traditional, sports driven collegiate licensing, but it’s doing so with the legitimacy of a really hot trend.   While I question its price positioning ($165 for a pair of pants), Harvard Yard could prove to be wildly successful and provide its “alma mata” with the significant, incremental revenue that goes with that retail success. 

You need to "live it" to get it

This morning, I read about Rupert Murdoch's bold prediction to stop the flood tide that is swiftly forcing almost all online media/content to be free. More specifically, Mr. Murdoch announced that he intends to charge for all of his company's news Web sites. And, he confidently believes that this will create a counter revolution, allowing for all other media to follow suit.

Rupert Murdoch is one smart dude. He's established a global media empire in the shrewdest of ways. There should be an entire class in business school offering case studies of how this man successfully built the News Corporation from the ground up.

But this time, I think he's finally lost his golden touch. You see, from everything I've read, it appears that Mr. Murdoch has only actually been on the Internet once or twice (and never by himself.) So, it just seems kind of crazy for a man to think he can be the force that halts the Internet's natural evolution towards providing free content and actually find a way to reverse current consumer wants and demands... when he clearly hasn't even experienced what it's all about.

Free. Yes, we've all heard it many times. Free is the optimal word now for news and information online.

Why?

Well, it's pretty simple. There are just too many free blogs, information sites and knowledgeable Web columnists with opinions for the masses to read. And, when almost any news story (or opinion about that story) can be searched in a second and clicked onto for free, why in the world would consumers pay to receive it, even if it's coming from a newspaper that they subscribe to or read every day?

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. Some folks like and need the special alerts, feeds and other information that can provide up to the minute news. Thus, any number of trade magazines and even internationals such as The Financial Times do make revenues from real subscriptions. But, those are anomalies (and we're not talking about a lot of money generated, either.) The fact remains that the media industry has never found a way to create a sustainable revenue line from consumer subscriptions. And these days, many are facing real uphill battles maintaining their only real source of income -- selling advertising.

Maybe Mr. Murdoch's entertaining announcement is nothing more than a blustery (but weak) attempt to bridge attention away from his weak earnings (off more than 30 percent this quarter.) Or maybe, he has some grander scheme in mind to prop up one or more of his media properties in the hope of catching the eye of a suitable buyer.

Either way, it makes no difference to me. It just feels like his provocative prediction would prove a tad more credible if the man actually put himself in the shoes of today's consumer by actually "living" on the Internet for a while. Lord knows, he'd certainly have a better understanding of the subject at hand.

It's déjà vu all over again

That's one of my favorite Yogisms (Yogi Berra that is). I truly lived this redundant cliché last week as I dropped my oldest son off at sleep away camp.

 Camp Jewell is a fantastic YMCA sleep over camp in the Berkshires. I spent a large part of my childhood and teenage summers there (over 10 years in total) as a camper and then counselor (Pictured at age 8). My brother did the same.

So, it was a surreal moment for me when our family drove up to the camp last Sunday to drop our oldest son off for his first sleep over adventure. Déjà vu (in spades) is the only word to describe how I felt as we drove up that long camp road, registered him, brought Josh to his cabin (which was also my first at 8-years-old), unpacked his stuff and then made his bed (yes, I actually did that the way my mother used to make mine).

I spent a few minutes getting to know the new executive director of the camp, as well as his counselors. Naturally, I told them that many moons ago, I was a given fixture at Camp Jewell and it's hard to believe that my son is now taking the second generation plunge as well. That brought about a few accepting smiles and nods, but not much more (I guess they've heard that one before).

The counselors seemed nice, but could only offer up a lot of blank stares and camp speak as I asked a variety of questions about what Josh would be doing this week and how things have changed. I'm sure that I did much of the same to other inquisitive (and possibly annoying parents) over 20 years ago when I stood in their shoes as well. After all, their job is to provide us with an immediate comfort level (that our kids won't be living a disaster for the next week or two) and then to clear us out as soon as possible (because home sickness often sets in, if not).

As we said our goodbyes and gave our hugs to Josh (he was clearly ready for us to go) and we started on that long drive back, a few thoughts occurred to me that made me feel good and brought a smile across my face. Over the last few days, three larger themes emerged for me about this experience that I wanted to share in this post:

1) Life moves on, but some things never change - It's more than 20 years later and Camp Jewell has been updated with more infrastructure, better facilities (I think the wiffle ball stadium is pretty cool) and I'm sure even more effective ways to teach and have fun with kids, but I can tell that the overall mission and philosophy behind the camp is exactly the same. These first-time campers are there to experience life without their parents (many for the first time). And, that means taking on new responsibilities (like caring for themselves), as well as experiencing all new ways to have fun that are outside their normal comfort zones. It's also about fostering team work and living new social norms because they are living with 11 other boys in a small cabin for the first time.

All of that was great in molding my character early on (although some would say I still had a long way to go). And, I have no doubt that it will do wonders for my son as well.

2) So many options now, but there's nothing like a no brainer, sure thing - These days, kids have a thousand and one day camps and much more expensive sleep away camps (many cost upwards of $10,000 per month) to choose from (as well a host of ongoing sports, theater and other summer activities to choose from). That's much different than when I was a kid. With so many options available, going with the easy decision, which is often closer to home, is the typical conclusion made by most parents.

But, my theory has always been stayed the same. If something works (or is a great experience in this case), why change? And, with Camp Jewell, I think (or hope) that Josh will love it just as much. On that note, we already received our first letter from him and he seems to be having a great time (except for the faulty shower that he focused on, that is).

3) Passing on a tradition that becomes a legacy to your kids is truly great - This is probably the one that makes me feel the best. My brother and I went to camp with two family friends (our ages) who lived in Brooklyn. When we moved away to Connecticut, it was a way for us to stay close as we grew up, even though we lived over two hours apart. Josh is lucky enough to do the same with his best friend (the oldest son of my good friend and college roommate). We're both hoping that this yearly experience continues to keep them close as the years move on.

More importantly, I've kept any number of friends from my camp days and the dozens of stories and memories still remain intact with me today. Passing on this tradition to Josh (and maybe my other kids in a few years), makes me feel like I am giving something wonderful back to him...a legacy that will carry on from one generation to the next.

From a metrics guy, that value is almost impossible to measure.

Notarize this

I hate having my time wasted. (Who doesn't?) Yesterday I wasted an hour trying to find a notary to sign and stamp some building permits for construction work on my condo. Last month, I was forced to squander away about 90 minutes of my time (and that of my former office manager, who is also a notary) notarizing six copies of mortgage papers for a property I was buying.

In each case, all the notary did was to sign and stamp, sign and stamp, sign and stamp... so, I asked myself last night, what is the relevance of having documents notarized today? I'm still searching for the answer.

Yes, I know that notaries are supposed to act as the universal, unbiased third party to ensure that legal documents are prepared and signed correctly. Theoretically, that seems like an important need. Realistically, all I've ever seen them do is sign and stamp. And, for the end consumer (that's me right now,) it just causes a lot of time, and sometimes extra money to pay for their services which seem irrelevant today. To this point, what high ranking official really cares enough to check up to make sure that anything that is notarized is officially done the right way? More importantly, why does a small time town permit allowing me to rip out tile and put in new toilets really need a notarized signature? Seems like something that just isn't needed.

To truly understand this topic of the day, I did a little research on the subject of notaries. For those of you who don't know (and want a little history lesson,) the history of notaries can be traced back to the days of ancient Egypt. At that time, a notary acted as a scribe whose duties included transcribing state papers, supplying magistrates with necessary legal forms and recording public proceedings. As history progressed, notaries became a staple in most legal systems as those who wrote legal and public documents. As a result of writing all these documents, the authority of the notary public increased.

Of course, as a new age dawned (with a largely literate populace), the need for a notary to write legal documents largely decreased.

So, here we are today. The American legal system continues to rely on the need for a notarized signature for almost everything legal. The main purpose is to check the identity of any signing party so that cheats, scammers and crooks cannot take advantage of our system. But, how relevant can notaries actually be now that John Hancocks can be signed electronically (as my assistant so deftly pointed out to me)? And, as we continue to move towards leveraging the Internet to conduct legal transactions and sign our names away in the digital world, won't the usefulness of a notary start to fade away completely?

I'll come back to my original question. Does a notarized signature really matter anymore on the types of documents I highlighted above? My guess is that the only one who actually cares these days, is the notary himself.