Just read an article by some crack designer (http://iampaddy.com/lifebelow600/) telling me that it’s no longer “de rigeur” to worry about keeping web content ‘above the fold.’ People will scroll without a problem; so longer web pages are fine… fine, I tell you.
I’m about to blow a gasket.
For years… years… every tin pot designer and web expert has been SCREAMING about keeping copy above the flippin’ fold. That line was Gospel. I think Jesus said as much at The Sermon on the Mount.
I ask any of you who write copy, how many times have you heard that admonition? How often have you been asked to cut a story or change a paragraph or ruin a good subhead or make the font smaller all so you could keep it above the fold?
Hundreds. Thousands.
And here’s the worst part: we were stupid enough and weak enough to do it… to let a CODER tell us what sells… to change our story to fit a nonsensical idea.
People read books and magazines… and they have no problem turning pages. Case closed. The Internet didn’t change that. Write a good story, something compelling, and people will scroll and turn pages and click mice to follow along.
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT… BUT STILL WE PUT UP WITH A DECADE OF ‘ABOVE THE FOLD’ IDIOCY. (Ooo, it’s so elegant, so intelligent.)
I guess what’s making me sore (aside from thinking of all the unnecessary things I had to do to make things fit) is that the executives (VPs of marketing, supposedly) we worked for were so damned quick to believe… and so eager to trust a CODER. (Excuse me… they had numbers! Unfortunately, marketing and selling can’t be fully quantified with spreadsheets and algorithms.)
Copywriters, how low our stock has sunk. This idea of short, above the fold copy is a big reason why people now think anyone can write. Why pay for long copy and a good story when you don’t need to? No one’s reading more than one screen. Anyone can throw together a couple of sentences!”
Ah, I can hear it now… the sound of CODERS tap dancing around this new information… “Sure, it was good advice at the time but people have changed, blah, blah, blah.”
No, they haven’t. That’s why a good story is still called a ‘page turner.’
(What next? Are you going to tell me that keywording isn’t all it’s cracked up to be?)
“Consumers want a new story... authenticity, not spin... participation, not propaganda.”
Showing posts with label copy writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copy writing. Show all posts
New Wave Marketing 101 - Shine On You Crazy Diamond
Let's agree: marketing today is a mess: amateurs, cowards, copycats, and dead boring B2B. So stop complaining, I say to myself, and offer a solution.
Well, I have one... thanks to Roger Waters and Stephen Mitchell. You know the former Pink Floyd genius but not the latter. Mitchell is the author of numerous books on religion, zen, history, and poetry and did the absolute best translation of the Tao, hands down, bar none (see http://www.stephenmitchellbooks.com/transAdapt/taoTeChing.html). And his translation of Rilke's poetry can bring you to tears if you're so inclined (see http://www.stephenmitchellbooks.com/transAdapt/poetryRilke.html).
The advice these two gave me applies to Zen, music, and marketing: shine in your original brilliance, as Mitchell put it. Shine on you crazy diamond, says Roger Waters.
What does this mean? Well, the keywords are 'original' and 'crazy'. Once upon a time, we were brilliantly unique. Then circumstance, age, and experience made us dull and common—just like marketing today.
But I think Americans, in particular, not only (I took an advanced degree in American Culture, so I'm prejudiced), can slough off the dust with a playful shake (paraphrasing Walt Whitman) and return to our original brilliance.
How? Well... what made you want to be a writer in the first place? No one ever said, "I want to write so I can compose tired, dull ads that are mostly lies." No fledgling graphic artist ever said, "I want to copy other people's work and turn art into a commodity."
None of us ever sought to maintain the status quo. We all, at one time or another, wanted to push the boundaries, didn't we?
I'm not here to explain why we lost our brilliance. I guess most answers would start with fear: of losing our jobs, of not making a payday, of facing angry clients, or of failure itself.
There's no blame to place. Let's all agree that, say, we do something once a week for the sheer hell of it... something extraordinary to flaunt our talents, push the limits, and make people laugh, scream, or cry. Just once a week, let's promise we'll return to our original brilliance... the ideas, talents, and passions that made us want to be in this business in the first place.
If our brilliant work goes nowhere, so what? Unenlightened clients won't like it, but that's their loss, not ours. Let it be our way of showing that commercial success isn't the only thing we care about. Let it be our gift to younger generations... let them see what we once possessed and still possess. Let's show ourselves that we still have talent regardless of age, economic status, or level of success.
Once a week, show your original brilliance -- shine on you crazy diamond!
Well, I have one... thanks to Roger Waters and Stephen Mitchell. You know the former Pink Floyd genius but not the latter. Mitchell is the author of numerous books on religion, zen, history, and poetry and did the absolute best translation of the Tao, hands down, bar none (see http://www.stephenmitchellbooks.com/transAdapt/taoTeChing.html). And his translation of Rilke's poetry can bring you to tears if you're so inclined (see http://www.stephenmitchellbooks.com/transAdapt/poetryRilke.html).
The advice these two gave me applies to Zen, music, and marketing: shine in your original brilliance, as Mitchell put it. Shine on you crazy diamond, says Roger Waters.
What does this mean? Well, the keywords are 'original' and 'crazy'. Once upon a time, we were brilliantly unique. Then circumstance, age, and experience made us dull and common—just like marketing today.
But I think Americans, in particular, not only (I took an advanced degree in American Culture, so I'm prejudiced), can slough off the dust with a playful shake (paraphrasing Walt Whitman) and return to our original brilliance.
How? Well... what made you want to be a writer in the first place? No one ever said, "I want to write so I can compose tired, dull ads that are mostly lies." No fledgling graphic artist ever said, "I want to copy other people's work and turn art into a commodity."
None of us ever sought to maintain the status quo. We all, at one time or another, wanted to push the boundaries, didn't we?
I'm not here to explain why we lost our brilliance. I guess most answers would start with fear: of losing our jobs, of not making a payday, of facing angry clients, or of failure itself.
There's no blame to place. Let's all agree that, say, we do something once a week for the sheer hell of it... something extraordinary to flaunt our talents, push the limits, and make people laugh, scream, or cry. Just once a week, let's promise we'll return to our original brilliance... the ideas, talents, and passions that made us want to be in this business in the first place.
If our brilliant work goes nowhere, so what? Unenlightened clients won't like it, but that's their loss, not ours. Let it be our way of showing that commercial success isn't the only thing we care about. Let it be our gift to younger generations... let them see what we once possessed and still possess. Let's show ourselves that we still have talent regardless of age, economic status, or level of success.
Once a week, show your original brilliance -- shine on you crazy diamond!
NewWave Marketing 101: Nothing can change the shape of things to come
Wow… hadn’t thought of that song since the 60s. And honestly, neither the song nor the movie (Wild in the Streets) was any good. But like it or not, the sentiments of a generation and 1968 American culture were plainly, if not naively, expressed.
In many ways it’s 1968 all over again for marketing and advertising: things are changing in ways no one can control and few can imagine. What we’re left with at the current moment is a very poor mix of old and new… the old is obvious nonsense to everyone, except for the agencies who continue to peddle it because they’ve nothing else… and, of course, direct response which is so silly that it’s camp. (Do you LOVE the ear wax commercial where the guy sticks the Q-tip in his ear up to his eye socket and then jumps? Jerry Lewis would be proud.)
The so-called ‘new’ hasn’t arrived… instead we get an almost dada-like attempt at trying to be cutting edge and cool. Just another form of nonsense -- but at least these people are trying to find ‘the new’ and aren’t peddling old ideas with the bromide that, “things haven’t changed very much… marketing is coming back to the basics.” No, it isn’t.
Where it’s going, who knows? Have you noticed how much humor is being used these days in TV adverts? As if to say, “we know you don’t believe any of this, so let’s all pretend we’re in on the joke.”
Of course, fact-based ads are almost the sole province of drug companies. They’ve all developed this concept of nice, happy images rolling by, while they’re talking about side effects such as nausea, heart attack, sudden death, hives, swollen throat and tongue, blurred vision, etc.
Since I have a musician’s gallows humor, I actually find these drug commercials more comical and absurd than the ads that are meant to be funny.
Speaking of which, here’s an apocryphal story related to music… but I think it demonstrates what level of change lies ahead for advertising and marketing.
A very good friend and first rate guitarist (whom I’ve known since those on-the-road years in the late 70s) told me about a collaboration he had completed. If you stop to think about how revolutionary this is, you’ll see the implications.
Danny has produced a few home videos where he plays along with basic jam tracks… just for fun and to keep his chops up. He posts them on youtube and a cool sight called Fandalism.com. Well, he gets an email from someone in Italy (Danny is in Atlanta) who has written a song, put down most of the tracks but needs a guitarist. He sends the files to Danny… who adds his tracks and voila… an international collaboration that’s online to the world.
Here’s the part to consider. Even 10 years ago, if I had a band in, say, Cleveland and we were all in our 20s, we would have never considered auditioning a player in his late 50s. Never... much less a 55 year old guy from Mexico City or Bordeaux.
Ten years later, age doesn’t matter nor does distance… what matters is talent and creativity. That’s it.
I have no idea the age of the Italian guy -- he could be 16 or 60… who cares?
This idea of long distance joint musical ventures between countries and cultures and ages is amazing… and beyond anyone’s comprehension even a decade ago.
Marketing and advertising are in the midst of similar radical change to the very essence of the industry… change that no one anticipated… change that agencies are dismissing as foolish (like now defunct record companies did).
I for one -- even at my late age -- can’t wait to see the new burst of creativity we’re soon to experience… and I will be vindictive enough to laugh out loud as so-called marketing experts and agency consultants are left clinging to a couple of clients and biding their time until the good old days of blowhard marketing return.
Like maybe… never… if there’s a God.
In many ways it’s 1968 all over again for marketing and advertising: things are changing in ways no one can control and few can imagine. What we’re left with at the current moment is a very poor mix of old and new… the old is obvious nonsense to everyone, except for the agencies who continue to peddle it because they’ve nothing else… and, of course, direct response which is so silly that it’s camp. (Do you LOVE the ear wax commercial where the guy sticks the Q-tip in his ear up to his eye socket and then jumps? Jerry Lewis would be proud.)
The so-called ‘new’ hasn’t arrived… instead we get an almost dada-like attempt at trying to be cutting edge and cool. Just another form of nonsense -- but at least these people are trying to find ‘the new’ and aren’t peddling old ideas with the bromide that, “things haven’t changed very much… marketing is coming back to the basics.” No, it isn’t.
Where it’s going, who knows? Have you noticed how much humor is being used these days in TV adverts? As if to say, “we know you don’t believe any of this, so let’s all pretend we’re in on the joke.”
Of course, fact-based ads are almost the sole province of drug companies. They’ve all developed this concept of nice, happy images rolling by, while they’re talking about side effects such as nausea, heart attack, sudden death, hives, swollen throat and tongue, blurred vision, etc.
Since I have a musician’s gallows humor, I actually find these drug commercials more comical and absurd than the ads that are meant to be funny.
Speaking of which, here’s an apocryphal story related to music… but I think it demonstrates what level of change lies ahead for advertising and marketing.
A very good friend and first rate guitarist (whom I’ve known since those on-the-road years in the late 70s) told me about a collaboration he had completed. If you stop to think about how revolutionary this is, you’ll see the implications.
Danny has produced a few home videos where he plays along with basic jam tracks… just for fun and to keep his chops up. He posts them on youtube and a cool sight called Fandalism.com. Well, he gets an email from someone in Italy (Danny is in Atlanta) who has written a song, put down most of the tracks but needs a guitarist. He sends the files to Danny… who adds his tracks and voila… an international collaboration that’s online to the world.
Here’s the part to consider. Even 10 years ago, if I had a band in, say, Cleveland and we were all in our 20s, we would have never considered auditioning a player in his late 50s. Never... much less a 55 year old guy from Mexico City or Bordeaux.
Ten years later, age doesn’t matter nor does distance… what matters is talent and creativity. That’s it.
I have no idea the age of the Italian guy -- he could be 16 or 60… who cares?
This idea of long distance joint musical ventures between countries and cultures and ages is amazing… and beyond anyone’s comprehension even a decade ago.
Marketing and advertising are in the midst of similar radical change to the very essence of the industry… change that no one anticipated… change that agencies are dismissing as foolish (like now defunct record companies did).
I for one -- even at my late age -- can’t wait to see the new burst of creativity we’re soon to experience… and I will be vindictive enough to laugh out loud as so-called marketing experts and agency consultants are left clinging to a couple of clients and biding their time until the good old days of blowhard marketing return.
Like maybe… never… if there’s a God.
Another Company Bites the Dust – But Internet ‘Gurus’ Get Their Money
This is a very unhappy ‘I told you so’ on my part.
But it’s like clockwork… sad, fatalistic, inevitable... a warning from Cassandra that goes unheeded.
A very promising company has just gone under. Sure, there
are a lot of reasons, but primary was the decision to spend big bucks on
Internet/SEO/Adword gurus. These Net guys got a relatively large sum to build
an online presence that would virtually ‘guarantee’ sales and top-of-the-page
organic SEO.
Remember, these were the guys who proudly boasted that they had built
159 landing pages to make sure the word got out to every corner of the digital
world. (See The
Big Lie: Software Is Eating Marketing).
Problem was, these guys weren’t marketers. Problem was the
owner believed that metrics could boost sales rather than solid marketing.
Problem was the owner paid good money for his web presence but did very little
and spent very little to develop a coherent message/story for his product.
But the web guys were so confident their strategy would work
– the same strategy they use for every company regardless of product.
As predicted, the 159 landing pages and blogs and tweets and
Facebook pages all went for naught. No story, no sales. Period.
So the company goes bust, good friends are out of work…
while the Internet guys move gleefully to yet another company, making the
same promises and taking the same large chunk out of the budget.
In a letter to the company president sent six months ago,
here was my warning…
There is so much
chatter about new algorithms, the decline of keywords, the rise of unique
content, the decline of multiple sites, etc., I focus on the long-term
narrative and customer expectations. If that messaging is right, Internet
professionals will know how to break the copy above the fold and those types of
things.
But… If people
don’t understand or believe your message, or don’t see the need for your
product, all the CTRs and CPCs and closing rates and page hits won’t really
translate into the type of sales you’re looking for.
Again, simple advice that went unheeded.
The Big Lie: Software Is Eating Marketing
Software, testing and analytics cannot displace marketing... they are processes meant to enhance marketing, not direct it. Without the right message, product and positioning, analytics and measurements are useless.
Just like those of us who aren’t painters/artists will look at a painting by Braque (my favorite) or Picasso and say, “I can do that” or “that’s rubbish,” Web analytic and software guys are often clueless: they think they’re actually selling something... actually marketing when they're simply measuring parameters of their own making: clicks throughs, abandon rates, CPC and any number of spurious SEO calculations... all data that may or may not be relevant.
Recently, I had a 'guru' tell me that his company was developing "159 landing pages" for a client so his team could find the ideal message? I'd love to see that invoice!
That’s marketing, huh? Sure, like a stick figure is modern art.
Here’s a marketing message for you to populate throughout social channels: “I be a good marketer so send me sum money and I fix yer ad good.”
I don’t care if you fire up the latest software, lists, analytics, landing pages that are optimized with above the fold content, Adwords or affiliate programs… you have nothing.
CEOs with limited budgets are so happy to hear they can have impact through software and analytics alone that they eagerly buy a snake oil sales pitch. (To be fair, you can have impact with minimum budget if you direct GOOD ads and INFORMATIVE information to the right channels.That’s marketing 101.)
And let’s be honest: most 'executives' and Internet numbers guys really don’t like creatives: "You know, these people sit around all day in jeans, thinking… not getting anything done!”
In contrast: “The Internet guys are adding SEO words and creating back links and buying lists and fiddling with knobs, they’re really working. Here, look at this report!” (BTW, you just paid $1,000 for numbers that Google generated for FREE and $5 software added your logo to the top for 'personalization'.)
So these poor souls cut checks for $20,000 a month for social media and web analytics and 159 landing pages, but moan if they have to pay $2,000 for an ad that changes their company… like the Samsung Galaxy ad restructured the smartphone market in a heartbeat.
Again, let me use polysyllabic words for the net number gurus:
If you don’t have a good pro duct with a good stor y and good grap hics, YOU HAVE GOT NO THING! NO THING!
Run that through you’re analytics… and make sure your response is ‘above the fold’.
Just like those of us who aren’t painters/artists will look at a painting by Braque (my favorite) or Picasso and say, “I can do that” or “that’s rubbish,” Web analytic and software guys are often clueless: they think they’re actually selling something... actually marketing when they're simply measuring parameters of their own making: clicks throughs, abandon rates, CPC and any number of spurious SEO calculations... all data that may or may not be relevant.
Recently, I had a 'guru' tell me that his company was developing "159 landing pages" for a client so his team could find the ideal message? I'd love to see that invoice!
That’s marketing, huh? Sure, like a stick figure is modern art.
Here’s a marketing message for you to populate throughout social channels: “I be a good marketer so send me sum money and I fix yer ad good.”
I don’t care if you fire up the latest software, lists, analytics, landing pages that are optimized with above the fold content, Adwords or affiliate programs… you have nothing.
CEOs with limited budgets are so happy to hear they can have impact through software and analytics alone that they eagerly buy a snake oil sales pitch. (To be fair, you can have impact with minimum budget if you direct GOOD ads and INFORMATIVE information to the right channels.That’s marketing 101.)
And let’s be honest: most 'executives' and Internet numbers guys really don’t like creatives: "You know, these people sit around all day in jeans, thinking… not getting anything done!”
In contrast: “The Internet guys are adding SEO words and creating back links and buying lists and fiddling with knobs, they’re really working. Here, look at this report!” (BTW, you just paid $1,000 for numbers that Google generated for FREE and $5 software added your logo to the top for 'personalization'.)
So these poor souls cut checks for $20,000 a month for social media and web analytics and 159 landing pages, but moan if they have to pay $2,000 for an ad that changes their company… like the Samsung Galaxy ad restructured the smartphone market in a heartbeat.
Again, let me use polysyllabic words for the net number gurus:
If you don’t have a good pro duct with a good stor y and good grap hics, YOU HAVE GOT NO THING! NO THING!
Run that through you’re analytics… and make sure your response is ‘above the fold’.
What Do Republicans, Montezuma and Apple Have in Common?
You’re probably familiar with the apocryphal story about Montezuma II. The Aztec chief stood on a hill overlooking the Gulf of Mexico as a fleet of Spanish vessels approached. Yet, the wily Montezuma did not see them as they sailed into the harbor virtually right before his eyes. He couldn’t see them because he had no concept of such large ships. He didn’t see because he didn’t believe.
Advantage Cortez.
True or not, the story illustrates the falsehood of the old saw “I’ll believe when I see it.” In reality it’s quite the opposite: “I’ll see it when I believe it.”
Understand this and you’re on a new marketing plane. Add one more truism, ‘facts don’t build belief,’ and you’re moving to the top of the class… and beyond 75% of B2C marketers and 99% of B2B (the purveyors of facts, facts, facts and more facts).
Case in point: How difficult was it for republicans to see that Romney could not win?
C’mon, before the first vote was cast, Obama had in his pocket about half of the electoral votes he needed: New York, New Jersey, the entire northeast, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, California, Oregon, Washington.
Republicans didn’t believe their own polls, so they never saw the hard truth. When positive job numbers came ahead of the election, they refused to believe… said the numbers were just plain wrong... an Obama conspiracy.
When economic think tanks tallied up Romney’s economic plan and declared that it would add to the deficit, republicans screamed ‘liars’ and refused to believe. They saw the ‘facts’ and acted just like Montezuma.
Advantage democrats.
Marketing 101: Build consumers’ belief and you initiate sales. Share a vision rather than a fact, and the number of your followers will grow. Appeal to the heart rather than the head and you’re almost always on the right track, unless you’re selling commodities like Drano. Yes, ‘Drano clears clogged drains 5 times faster than the competition’ is a great fact-based ad that works in that arena. ‘The new Dell is 5 times faster than the MacBook Pro,’ is a stone cold loser.
And look how quickly an emotional ad can change the marketing landscape.
Case in point: the Samsung’s Galaxy III. One ad, the nerds standing in line for the latest iPhone, has shoved Apple from the top of the heap. That one little ad did what hasn’t been done in almost a decade.
Sure, there’s a few facts sprinkled in (larger screen size, tap to send files) but the real message is that the Galaxy is way cooler; and Samsung treats you like an adult and not a child standing in line to get the newest Beanie Baby at Toys R’ Us. Only a few diehard nerds and old people (mom and dad in the ad) think that standing in line for hours to get a smartphone is somehow cool or sensible.
Apple took its customers and their loyalty for granted… Apple execs didn’t understand the shift in consumer perspective because they didn’t believe they could ever be overtaken… just as republicans didn’t get the new demographics and Montezuma saw nothing but clear sailing.
‘I’ll see it when I believe it’… no truer marketing words have ever been spoken.
(PS: Allow me to gripe for a minute. Whomever created the Samsung ad should have been paid in stock options. How much is that ad worth? Hundreds of millions at a minimum. Yet, why do I think the agency charged $1 million or so and Samsung bean counters kicked up a fuss. If the ad’s creators were paid $50 million it wasn’t enough!)
Advantage Cortez.
True or not, the story illustrates the falsehood of the old saw “I’ll believe when I see it.” In reality it’s quite the opposite: “I’ll see it when I believe it.”
Understand this and you’re on a new marketing plane. Add one more truism, ‘facts don’t build belief,’ and you’re moving to the top of the class… and beyond 75% of B2C marketers and 99% of B2B (the purveyors of facts, facts, facts and more facts).
Case in point: How difficult was it for republicans to see that Romney could not win?
C’mon, before the first vote was cast, Obama had in his pocket about half of the electoral votes he needed: New York, New Jersey, the entire northeast, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, California, Oregon, Washington.
Republicans didn’t believe their own polls, so they never saw the hard truth. When positive job numbers came ahead of the election, they refused to believe… said the numbers were just plain wrong... an Obama conspiracy.
When economic think tanks tallied up Romney’s economic plan and declared that it would add to the deficit, republicans screamed ‘liars’ and refused to believe. They saw the ‘facts’ and acted just like Montezuma.
Advantage democrats.
Marketing 101: Build consumers’ belief and you initiate sales. Share a vision rather than a fact, and the number of your followers will grow. Appeal to the heart rather than the head and you’re almost always on the right track, unless you’re selling commodities like Drano. Yes, ‘Drano clears clogged drains 5 times faster than the competition’ is a great fact-based ad that works in that arena. ‘The new Dell is 5 times faster than the MacBook Pro,’ is a stone cold loser.
And look how quickly an emotional ad can change the marketing landscape.
Case in point: the Samsung’s Galaxy III. One ad, the nerds standing in line for the latest iPhone, has shoved Apple from the top of the heap. That one little ad did what hasn’t been done in almost a decade.
Sure, there’s a few facts sprinkled in (larger screen size, tap to send files) but the real message is that the Galaxy is way cooler; and Samsung treats you like an adult and not a child standing in line to get the newest Beanie Baby at Toys R’ Us. Only a few diehard nerds and old people (mom and dad in the ad) think that standing in line for hours to get a smartphone is somehow cool or sensible.
Apple took its customers and their loyalty for granted… Apple execs didn’t understand the shift in consumer perspective because they didn’t believe they could ever be overtaken… just as republicans didn’t get the new demographics and Montezuma saw nothing but clear sailing.
‘I’ll see it when I believe it’… no truer marketing words have ever been spoken.
(PS: Allow me to gripe for a minute. Whomever created the Samsung ad should have been paid in stock options. How much is that ad worth? Hundreds of millions at a minimum. Yet, why do I think the agency charged $1 million or so and Samsung bean counters kicked up a fuss. If the ad’s creators were paid $50 million it wasn’t enough!)
New Wave Marketing 101: Fixing Direct Response
Direct response ads have lost whatever credibility they had mostly because of the products themselves… cheaply made and basically ineffective, then tied to the standard DRTV format that screams rip off.
Add generally poor service… slow shipping, bad return policy, tricky automatic renewals, etc. and you've destroyed any trust between vendor and consumer.
Here's how to fix DR:
Add generally poor service… slow shipping, bad return policy, tricky automatic renewals, etc. and you've destroyed any trust between vendor and consumer.
Here's how to fix DR:
- Sell better products
- Make sure what you say in the ad copy matches what’s said about the product online (to the best of your ability)… better products should make this easier
- Spend some money on social media to defend your products, for goodness sakes
- Change the tired DRTV format, for example:
- Give the actual price upfront
- Forget BUT WAIT and triple your order tricks
- Give a full guarantee, shipping and all
- Avoid the tired Guthy Renker model (or should I say “trusted Guthy Renker”)... look, they’ve made a lot of money at it, good for them, but GR has burned out the format here in the U.S. which is why their sales are increasingly coming from other countries
- Avoid automatic renewal – the #1 reason why most consumers will not buy and do not trust you
New Wave Marketing 101: Lack of Meta-Narrative Changes Everything
(Writing advertising for the few, the proud, the passionate ...
and sometimes the crazy)
OK, so what’s a meta-narrative? My use of the term comes from Jacques Derrida and ‘deconstruction.’ (Don’t ask me to define deconstruction -- Derrida himself did a poor job of it.)
Essentially, a meta-narrative is a shared set of stories among a large group that lies at the heart of the group’s ethical, social, psychological beliefs. It’s so deep that we rarely see it or question it -- which is why deconstructionists love to pick it apart.
A meta-narrative can encompass the world, a country, a religion. The American meta-narrative, for example, involves our country being ‘a city upon a hill’, the Wild West, democracy, the unassailable perfection of the Constitution, etc.
Advertisers and marketers fashion their work on these deep-seated, shared beliefs. Writing an ad that contradicts the narrative is suicide.
How far would you get with an ad that says: (‘Americans... love to follow their leaders and hate being independent individuals), that’s why you need to buy X because everyone else is'?
I put the first part in parenthesis because that’s the meta-narrative that goes unstated.
But what happens when the sharing breaks down? Well, take a look around: red states and blue states have different narrative interpretations, as do young and old, the 1% and the 47%, east coast and west coast... this goes on forever in our country.
This recent phenomenon is due, in part, to the fact that we have personal access to all the information in the world. Literally.
No one interprets it for us in the light of the American narrative we used to share; instead we each have our own interpretation and so the meta-narrative decays -- and it has done so very, very quickly over the last decade. Again, look at our political landscape.
These days we're left with fragmentation not consensus and that’s bad for advertisers and marketers.
How in the world do you tell a compelling story when there’s little common ground? At times, writing an ad seems like telling the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree to a Sri Lankan fisherman. It’s not that he’s stupid; it’s that there is no meta-narrative on which to ground the story and connect meaning at a deep level. To the fisherman, the story is simply about cutting down a tree and not about American honesty and pragmatism.
So, what to do?
Well, the problem that’s been exacerbated by the Net is also solved by it.
But first, the new reality: most ads have to be tightly, tightly focused (as do the products themselves) on one of the newly formed and always malleable sub-groups (whose members can change quickly).
Think Zumba participants or tennis players or ex-military or families of small children. These people share a meta-narrative... at least during the time of their participation. And because many are ‘new’ to the activity, they’re generally pumped and passionate and ready for a message that uses their (temporarily) shared beliefs.
No one buys more musical accessories and related merchandise (bumper stickers, T-shirts saying ‘Make Music, Not War’) than a new musician. And no one buys the latest writing software (I just did, Apple Pages) than a (male) professional who needs to try the latest thing (mostly so he can criticize and talk about how much better he would have made the software).
What’s consoling is that the Net also provides inexpensive ways to find sub-groups and target them. Using social channels to tell multiple narratives isn't as cheap as everyone makes out but it's not cost prohibitive. Twenty years ago you couldn’t afford to produce five various print ads, each tailored to a specific group, and run them in associated magazines at $10,000 - $50,000 a pop.
The solution is tailored ads moved into tight-knit communities that could be smaller than you ever thought worth the effort. But capture a few of these and you're into the bigger bucks.
The (sad) truth is that we’re losing our identification with country and religion and even family. We’re becoming parties of one, with our own unique meta-narratives that can be, at times, frightening: Charles Manson had a unique narrative and you see where that ended.
Advertisers must DEAL with what’s REAL (now I’m Johnny Cochran, for god’s sake).
That means changing how they create, what they create and the products they sell to suit the few, the proud, the passionate and (sometimes) the crazy.
and sometimes the crazy)
OK, so what’s a meta-narrative? My use of the term comes from Jacques Derrida and ‘deconstruction.’ (Don’t ask me to define deconstruction -- Derrida himself did a poor job of it.)
Essentially, a meta-narrative is a shared set of stories among a large group that lies at the heart of the group’s ethical, social, psychological beliefs. It’s so deep that we rarely see it or question it -- which is why deconstructionists love to pick it apart.
A meta-narrative can encompass the world, a country, a religion. The American meta-narrative, for example, involves our country being ‘a city upon a hill’, the Wild West, democracy, the unassailable perfection of the Constitution, etc.
Advertisers and marketers fashion their work on these deep-seated, shared beliefs. Writing an ad that contradicts the narrative is suicide.
How far would you get with an ad that says: (‘Americans... love to follow their leaders and hate being independent individuals), that’s why you need to buy X because everyone else is'?
I put the first part in parenthesis because that’s the meta-narrative that goes unstated.
But what happens when the sharing breaks down? Well, take a look around: red states and blue states have different narrative interpretations, as do young and old, the 1% and the 47%, east coast and west coast... this goes on forever in our country.
This recent phenomenon is due, in part, to the fact that we have personal access to all the information in the world. Literally.
No one interprets it for us in the light of the American narrative we used to share; instead we each have our own interpretation and so the meta-narrative decays -- and it has done so very, very quickly over the last decade. Again, look at our political landscape.
These days we're left with fragmentation not consensus and that’s bad for advertisers and marketers.
How in the world do you tell a compelling story when there’s little common ground? At times, writing an ad seems like telling the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree to a Sri Lankan fisherman. It’s not that he’s stupid; it’s that there is no meta-narrative on which to ground the story and connect meaning at a deep level. To the fisherman, the story is simply about cutting down a tree and not about American honesty and pragmatism.
So, what to do?
Well, the problem that’s been exacerbated by the Net is also solved by it.
But first, the new reality: most ads have to be tightly, tightly focused (as do the products themselves) on one of the newly formed and always malleable sub-groups (whose members can change quickly).
Think Zumba participants or tennis players or ex-military or families of small children. These people share a meta-narrative... at least during the time of their participation. And because many are ‘new’ to the activity, they’re generally pumped and passionate and ready for a message that uses their (temporarily) shared beliefs.
No one buys more musical accessories and related merchandise (bumper stickers, T-shirts saying ‘Make Music, Not War’) than a new musician. And no one buys the latest writing software (I just did, Apple Pages) than a (male) professional who needs to try the latest thing (mostly so he can criticize and talk about how much better he would have made the software).
What’s consoling is that the Net also provides inexpensive ways to find sub-groups and target them. Using social channels to tell multiple narratives isn't as cheap as everyone makes out but it's not cost prohibitive. Twenty years ago you couldn’t afford to produce five various print ads, each tailored to a specific group, and run them in associated magazines at $10,000 - $50,000 a pop.
The solution is tailored ads moved into tight-knit communities that could be smaller than you ever thought worth the effort. But capture a few of these and you're into the bigger bucks.
The (sad) truth is that we’re losing our identification with country and religion and even family. We’re becoming parties of one, with our own unique meta-narratives that can be, at times, frightening: Charles Manson had a unique narrative and you see where that ended.
Advertisers must DEAL with what’s REAL (now I’m Johnny Cochran, for god’s sake).
That means changing how they create, what they create and the products they sell to suit the few, the proud, the passionate and (sometimes) the crazy.
New Wave Marketing 101: Why Are Most Experts Bad Marketers?
-->
No offense intended, but working with Ph.Ds, MDs,
‘scientists’ and attorneys can be infuriating. These are smart people, very smart,
so it shouldn’t be such a chore explaining marketing to them. But it is.
Their idea of marketing always centers on logic,
statistics and specs… three things that aren’t primary when it comes to changing
consumer perceptions.
But you can’t convince them: if the facts say A
performs twice as well as B, then A should outsell B… it’s a matter of logic.
But marketing, although logical in many ways, isn’t about THAT kind of reasoning.
Marketing is about people, and people are often illogical and irrational… they
lead with their hearts not their heads (and that’s why you love them).
But ‘experts’ aren’t happy with this reality. It’s sloppy
and it’s not theirs; rather, they posit a world
where the best always wins. (Again, not to be offensive, but Ph.Ds and the like
always seem to operate from one egotistical premise: If I can learn how to be a
doctor [lawyer, engineer, etc.] then I can learn anything – including how to do
YOUR job as well as you in a matter of weeks.)
“How hard is it to write an ad, I’m a trained scientist?” (A
question directed to me many years ago by an MD.)
A recent post from Seth Godin put this in perspective… I
reprint it here:
There are two kinds of
users/creators/customers/pundits.
Some can't understand
why a product or service doesn't catch on. They can prove that it's better.
They can quote specs and performance and utility. It's obvious.
The other might be
willing to look at the specs, but he really doesn't understand them enough to
care. All he knows is that the other choice is beautiful--it makes him feel
good. He wants to use it.
Acura vs. Lexus, Dell
vs. Apple, New Jersey vs. Bali...
PS: At dinner last night, a friend and I were talking
facts versus emotions. He’s an attorney, who was, for a time in the 1980s, a Federal
prosecutor in the office of anti-trust and tried the largest case of the
decade. I’ll summarize his account:
“They (a large multinational) had dozens of expert witnesses
from around the world testifying on the company’s behalf. I had no way of hiring
that many counter-experts; but I could sense the jury was overwhelmed with
facts. In my summary, I said something like, ‘That was sure a lot of facts and
a lot of experts; they’re so much smarter than me that half the time I didn’t
really understand what they were saying.’ In a flash, that simple statement
dismissed weeks of expert testimony… I won the case and the opposing attorneys
were shocked at how simply I countered their mountain of facts. It was all I had… what else
could I do? But I fully realized at that moment that emotions played a larger
role than I suspected in the courtroom. Sure, passions are key in a murder
trial – but I learned that even in a dull case of anti-trust, emotion is paramount
and far beyond any Ph.D, MD, you name it, expert testimony.”
Facebook’s New Ad: Why 99% of Companies and Agencies Would Have Said ‘NO’
If you haven’t yet seen Facebook’s ad ‘about’ its one billionth user you should. Pure genius. (Go to http://bit.ly/PZPh3d)
Once you’ve seen it, ask yourself these questions: Would your company have gone with such an approach? Would your agency have suggested the idea? Would any of your clients have accepted such an ad?
I’m cynical for sure, but I guess that 99% of the time the answers would be NO, NO, NO.
How can you have an ad that doesn’t mention the one billion mark? Doesn’t say how great Facebook is?
The new ad is 100% emotional… no mention of Facebook’s server power or its world class customer service. There’s no mention of a breakthrough technology… no pictures of Zuckerberg saying, “we care.”
The message is not about FB at all, so it’s even more powerfully about FB. (Please revisit an earlier post “If I Say I’m Cool… I’m Not Cool” http://bit.ly/PZQffM)
Yet… 99% of agencies and clients would have passed on the ad, preferring, instead, some sort of derivative piece with messaging like this: strong, forceful, macho… you get it… dig me.
THEME: One Billion People Can’t Be Wrong
VOICEOVER: When we started Facebook, we knew it was a communications breakthrough … but even we didn’t envision that it would revolutionize the way people get connected and stay connected.
Today, we’re one billion strong… and let’s face it, that many people can’t be wrong.
From Timbuktu to Toronto, Beijing to Boston, San Francisco to Sydney, our growing infrastructure brings friends together, lets us share our feelings and makes any business instantly international.
Join the Facebook family album and find out what you’ve been missing.
The world is waiting to hear from you… don’t be left out.
There it is – the ‘perfect’ ad for the 99%. It’s strong. It tells the world who we are. It brings a little fear to the consumer. And this ad will pass muster with the Board, the CEO, the SEO guys. Lots of keywords (Facebook, communications, connected, breakthrough, billion, users, international, business) and text chunks we can tweet, too.
Before anyone suggests that the new ‘humble’ ad is OK for Facebook but not for other companies, let me remind you: FB is no longer the darling it once was. Check the stock price. It is beginning to look old, feel old. Billions of users or not, the bloom is off the rose. After seeing the new ad, I had a feeling that FB was somehow ‘redefined.’ I was reminded of what I loved about it years ago. (I use it less these days because it seems too business-oriented and thus kinda cold.) This ad made me think about what FB was once and could be again.
Simply put – as direct response this ad works because people like me, and I am everyman, will be moved to start thinking about FB again… start using FB more frequently and with renewed enthusiasm. More numbers=more sales=more money for FB and that’s the bottom line for any marketing piece.
Still, I can hear the marketing department's reservations: “Shouldn’t we at least mention one billion in the headline?"
(At this moment I finally understand why my wife won't let me have a gun in the house.)
Once you’ve seen it, ask yourself these questions: Would your company have gone with such an approach? Would your agency have suggested the idea? Would any of your clients have accepted such an ad?
I’m cynical for sure, but I guess that 99% of the time the answers would be NO, NO, NO.
How can you have an ad that doesn’t mention the one billion mark? Doesn’t say how great Facebook is?
The new ad is 100% emotional… no mention of Facebook’s server power or its world class customer service. There’s no mention of a breakthrough technology… no pictures of Zuckerberg saying, “we care.”
The message is not about FB at all, so it’s even more powerfully about FB. (Please revisit an earlier post “If I Say I’m Cool… I’m Not Cool” http://bit.ly/PZQffM)
Yet… 99% of agencies and clients would have passed on the ad, preferring, instead, some sort of derivative piece with messaging like this: strong, forceful, macho… you get it… dig me.
THEME: One Billion People Can’t Be Wrong
VOICEOVER: When we started Facebook, we knew it was a communications breakthrough … but even we didn’t envision that it would revolutionize the way people get connected and stay connected.
Today, we’re one billion strong… and let’s face it, that many people can’t be wrong.
From Timbuktu to Toronto, Beijing to Boston, San Francisco to Sydney, our growing infrastructure brings friends together, lets us share our feelings and makes any business instantly international.
Join the Facebook family album and find out what you’ve been missing.
The world is waiting to hear from you… don’t be left out.
There it is – the ‘perfect’ ad for the 99%. It’s strong. It tells the world who we are. It brings a little fear to the consumer. And this ad will pass muster with the Board, the CEO, the SEO guys. Lots of keywords (Facebook, communications, connected, breakthrough, billion, users, international, business) and text chunks we can tweet, too.
Before anyone suggests that the new ‘humble’ ad is OK for Facebook but not for other companies, let me remind you: FB is no longer the darling it once was. Check the stock price. It is beginning to look old, feel old. Billions of users or not, the bloom is off the rose. After seeing the new ad, I had a feeling that FB was somehow ‘redefined.’ I was reminded of what I loved about it years ago. (I use it less these days because it seems too business-oriented and thus kinda cold.) This ad made me think about what FB was once and could be again.
Simply put – as direct response this ad works because people like me, and I am everyman, will be moved to start thinking about FB again… start using FB more frequently and with renewed enthusiasm. More numbers=more sales=more money for FB and that’s the bottom line for any marketing piece.
Still, I can hear the marketing department's reservations: “Shouldn’t we at least mention one billion in the headline?"
(At this moment I finally understand why my wife won't let me have a gun in the house.)
New Wave Marketing 101: What's the big idea?
-->
Recently, I posted what must have seemed like an enigmatic
Zen koan: ‘A big idea is always small; an idea that’s too big usually makes a bad story.’
I apologize. I hate things like that… when someone parses
his or her words in a way that makes one seem smart, clever and in the know.
Pompous narcissists in my book; then I did the same ignorant thing.
Why not just say what I mean? I did want to be concise but
mostly this was a ‘dig me’ moment: ain’t I just a deep thinker? Mea culpa.
Let me explain what I was getting at with a very typical
example from my college writing class.
But first, here’s a
true statement: every paper, speech, PPT presentation must have a ‘big idea,’ a
central focus for the narrative.
Think of it this way. If you can recall the 1950s Superman
show (George Reeves, poor soul), you’ll remember there’s always a scene in the
Chief’s office where Lois says something like, “I want to cover the dock
workers’ strike,” and the blustering Perry White inevitably asks, “What’s your
angle?”
That’s the big idea.
So, I ask students to write a 5-page paper – which to me
seems like an easy task; to them five pages is a brick wall. I tell them to
focus on a controversial subject. Check with me first, I warn.
OK. Here are some typical topics they’ll profer:
Civil rights
Abortion
Legalizing drugs
Creationism v. evolution
Equal pay for equal work
How in God’s name can you cover the entire civil rights
movement in five pages? Or Dr. King’s Birmingham march or his assassination or
his famous Washington speech? You can’t, of course; and if you try the result
will be a 1/64 of an inch thick analysis that will be scattered, trite and
meaningless. The big idea is too big.
Instead, focus on, say, the mood of your hometown when the
news came about Dr. King’s untimely death; how your grandparents reacted; how
some were so callous while others in tears. You see? Small but excellent big
ideas.
When we write ads or present products we almost always say
too much… include too much, try to cram it all in and down the throats of an
intimidated or uncaring audience. And by doing so we are having our own ‘dig
me’ moment: look how smart I am, I know so much more than you.
So my Zen koan boils down to simply this: when writing any
marketing piece, any presentation (and life is a presentation, right?) lower
your ambitions and shrink your ego. The results are much more interesting when
you dig deeper in a small area. When you have more to say about less you have a
very, very BIG IDEA.
New Wave Marketing 101: Stop Whinging and Sell Something!
I was getting ready to post about a recent conversation
with a potential client: a B-list reality star who wants her own cosmetic
brand.
But why moan about the same old story?
It’s the nature of the business to speak with people who
KNOW all there is to KNOW about marketing even though they have never marketed
a thing. This inane conversation (where the ultimate price point she wanted
minus the 55% discount to distributors, minus formula costs, production,
airless pump and ‘glamorous’ packaging left a whopping $9 gross without a cent
spent for marketing) followed an earlier one in which a client didn’t need help
identifying social media opportunities or developing an online persona because,
“I went to a seminar last month.”
Wow! Three whole hours of marketing wisdom.
I'll just move on and keep my chin up… while being ever more
convinced that if we marketers are good at what we do, we should
sell our own products so we finally have complete control, on one hand, and no more
excuses (as the existentialists say) on the other.
Our success will prove the validity of our
creativity and strategy and become a model/template for those rare clients who
recognize what they’re good at and where they need help.
God bless ‘em. Now get out there, get your hands dirty, pony up your time and money, and sell something.
Left Brain or Right Brain? Stay Right If You Want To Create Mythic, Memorable Marketing
Every once in a while and more often than parents admit, our children teach us things, particularly when they’re grown and have the advantage of a good education. I can say that about both of my children. At times we have conversations that sound like a college classroom. I taught college for a long time and was always lecturing around the house. Now they lecture me to the point that I’m getting headaches trying to keep up.
Here’s the latest revelation.
We were speaking about marketing and advertising and movies and wondered what makes something stick with you… be it a painting, an ad, a joke, a sporting event or just one of life’s random moments?
My argument is usually less scientific, more humanities based, so I’m generally talking about Jungian archetypes and myths: the more mythic an idea, a story, the ‘deeper’ it hits your psychological home and the more likely it will find a place to stick. When a story reaches your archetype you can’t help but pull it in.
My son who is just out of UCLA with an Master’s in Film Production agrees, but thinks it has to do more with right side/left side of the brain. Maybe. After all, it’s common knowledge that the left side is logical and the right side is more intuitive (for right-handed people, of course).
Long story short, after watching Jill Bolte Taylor on TED, she of “Stroke of Insight” fame, he says: “The left side of the brain is ‘me,’ my ideas, my ego, it’s exclusive; while the right side is ‘us’ what unites all humans, what makes us the same… the great ‘Oversoul,’ the universal mind, the collective unconscious.”
I never thought of it quite in those terms.
He continues: “The ‘me’ side of the brain limits information input to only what’s important to me. The left side is full of bullet points. The ‘us’ side, on the other hand, accepts more information; it’s inclusive and pulls in more data so it has a fuller picture of the universe and fills in with a broader, more inclusive brush that adds depth. The right side tells stories.
OK – stay with me. So, the question then becomes, “What makes a master: Bankei, Picasso, Einstein, Muhammad Ali, Hemingway, Godard, or David Ogilvy? Talent and intelligence, sure. But a lot of people are smart as hell and have talent. It’s more than that.
The ‘master’ resides in the right side of the brain, more in the ‘us’ than does the common man. He or she is inclusive and sees unlimited resonant connections… to cultural myths, universal human stories, common symbols and shared fears and joys. That's why a master can write about a female character living in 18th century Madrid and make it stick with you while he sits in 21st century New York. It’s all about what makes us the same. It's 'enlightenment.'
We live, for the most part, in our tightly-focused left, logical world with just a small foray into the right intuitive side. Our daily work is mostly logical. And we need a degree of logic to live. Remember, Taylor’s stroke left her living totally in the right side. She was happy, overjoyed, one with the universe, with heightened senses; yet, she needed help feeding herself.
Problem is, we in America and Western Europe have all but abandoned the intuitive right side and it’s to our demise. The result? We work but feel unfulfilled; we have things but don’t have happiness; we sense something is missing but we don't know what. This was the argument of The Modernists like Pound and Eliot and why Surrealists and Dadaists, (and Lady Gaga, come to think of it) try to blast us out of our rationality. Why Jim Morrison wanted us to break on through to the other side.
Interesting, but what’s the marketing point?
When trying to connect with people – be it through advertising, poetry, novels, art or movies – the ‘master’ tips the balance strongly toward the right side, the intuitive side, the shared experience side.Here's where memorable emotions are made.
The rational side wants to bludgeon people with facts; it wants to win the argument at all costs. The intuitive side simply wants to point out universal truths we may have missed. And when we see these new connections we’re astounded, overwhelmed, sometimes moved to tears… and these ‘revelations’ stay in our psyche.
“The Godfather” sticks while “Maid in Manhattan” does not. “Where’s the beef?” is a phrase known by 300 million Americans, many of whom weren’t born when the old lady made the commercial. But that simple line cut through the rhetorical bull of most advertising and remains a part of contemporary myth and symbolism.
A mythic movie or advertisement literally remakes the relationship between the artist and the viewer, between the consumer and the brand. And this relationship cannot be shaken by all the facts in Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica.
When you’re writing and trying to evoke a reaction you need to tip the scales strongly to the right side of your brain and lighten up with the left side. Hemingway did. Einstein did. Great athletes do. It's not easy but it is essential.
Remember: You can’t really change anyone’s perceptions until you connect at a deep human level. Facts aren't made to do that.
Let me end with a quote from Mr. Einstein:
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
Or my favorite:
“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”
Great art, great marketing help reveal the ongoing, universal monomythic miracle.
("Monomythic?" you ask. "Is that even a word?" Hmmm… you haven’t read your Joyce, have you?)
Here’s the latest revelation.
We were speaking about marketing and advertising and movies and wondered what makes something stick with you… be it a painting, an ad, a joke, a sporting event or just one of life’s random moments?
My argument is usually less scientific, more humanities based, so I’m generally talking about Jungian archetypes and myths: the more mythic an idea, a story, the ‘deeper’ it hits your psychological home and the more likely it will find a place to stick. When a story reaches your archetype you can’t help but pull it in.
My son who is just out of UCLA with an Master’s in Film Production agrees, but thinks it has to do more with right side/left side of the brain. Maybe. After all, it’s common knowledge that the left side is logical and the right side is more intuitive (for right-handed people, of course).
Long story short, after watching Jill Bolte Taylor on TED, she of “Stroke of Insight” fame, he says: “The left side of the brain is ‘me,’ my ideas, my ego, it’s exclusive; while the right side is ‘us’ what unites all humans, what makes us the same… the great ‘Oversoul,’ the universal mind, the collective unconscious.”
I never thought of it quite in those terms.
He continues: “The ‘me’ side of the brain limits information input to only what’s important to me. The left side is full of bullet points. The ‘us’ side, on the other hand, accepts more information; it’s inclusive and pulls in more data so it has a fuller picture of the universe and fills in with a broader, more inclusive brush that adds depth. The right side tells stories.
OK – stay with me. So, the question then becomes, “What makes a master: Bankei, Picasso, Einstein, Muhammad Ali, Hemingway, Godard, or David Ogilvy? Talent and intelligence, sure. But a lot of people are smart as hell and have talent. It’s more than that.
The ‘master’ resides in the right side of the brain, more in the ‘us’ than does the common man. He or she is inclusive and sees unlimited resonant connections… to cultural myths, universal human stories, common symbols and shared fears and joys. That's why a master can write about a female character living in 18th century Madrid and make it stick with you while he sits in 21st century New York. It’s all about what makes us the same. It's 'enlightenment.'
We live, for the most part, in our tightly-focused left, logical world with just a small foray into the right intuitive side. Our daily work is mostly logical. And we need a degree of logic to live. Remember, Taylor’s stroke left her living totally in the right side. She was happy, overjoyed, one with the universe, with heightened senses; yet, she needed help feeding herself.
Problem is, we in America and Western Europe have all but abandoned the intuitive right side and it’s to our demise. The result? We work but feel unfulfilled; we have things but don’t have happiness; we sense something is missing but we don't know what. This was the argument of The Modernists like Pound and Eliot and why Surrealists and Dadaists, (and Lady Gaga, come to think of it) try to blast us out of our rationality. Why Jim Morrison wanted us to break on through to the other side.
Interesting, but what’s the marketing point?
When trying to connect with people – be it through advertising, poetry, novels, art or movies – the ‘master’ tips the balance strongly toward the right side, the intuitive side, the shared experience side.Here's where memorable emotions are made.
The rational side wants to bludgeon people with facts; it wants to win the argument at all costs. The intuitive side simply wants to point out universal truths we may have missed. And when we see these new connections we’re astounded, overwhelmed, sometimes moved to tears… and these ‘revelations’ stay in our psyche.
“The Godfather” sticks while “Maid in Manhattan” does not. “Where’s the beef?” is a phrase known by 300 million Americans, many of whom weren’t born when the old lady made the commercial. But that simple line cut through the rhetorical bull of most advertising and remains a part of contemporary myth and symbolism.
A mythic movie or advertisement literally remakes the relationship between the artist and the viewer, between the consumer and the brand. And this relationship cannot be shaken by all the facts in Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica.
When you’re writing and trying to evoke a reaction you need to tip the scales strongly to the right side of your brain and lighten up with the left side. Hemingway did. Einstein did. Great athletes do. It's not easy but it is essential.
Remember: You can’t really change anyone’s perceptions until you connect at a deep human level. Facts aren't made to do that.
Let me end with a quote from Mr. Einstein:
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
Or my favorite:
“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”
Great art, great marketing help reveal the ongoing, universal monomythic miracle.
("Monomythic?" you ask. "Is that even a word?" Hmmm… you haven’t read your Joyce, have you?)
New Wave Marketing 101: Mrs. Romney Used a Narrative Shotgun; Mrs. Obama Used a Laser
Politics aside, Michele Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention was brilliant. She was able to paint her husband as the quintessential, mythical American, ‘common man’ hero. And in so doing, she held a metaphorical mirror to Mr. Romney and the reflection was as unflattering as it was clear.
How’d she do it? C’mon, you know the answer is the story she told. And while you can disagree with the politics, you simply cannot ignore the lesson she gave to marketers: there is nothing more powerful than a convincing, moving, compelling, slightly understated narrative.
Here’s what the LA Times said:
The principal narrative of her nationally televised speech was about President Obama’s ability to maintain his ideals, and even his gentle touch as a father, despite the heavy strains of office…
Narrative is the operant word.
Notice, there was not a single mention of facts… the narrative spun a series of images that had nothing to do with facts, per se. If you intensely dislike Mr. Obama, there’s still nothing you can point to in his wife’s speech that was inaccurate… nothing that stretches the truth.
The First Lady had an airtight story grounded in a shared myth and these gave her the focus needed to decide which anecdotes would be included and which would be discarded as off point (and thus, seemingly untrue). In marketing terms, she found her niche message and gently stayed on it until the audience was in tears.
Mrs. Romney, on the other hand, told story after small story but to no real end, or to the overly large end of showing her husband to be kind, generous, one of the guys, caring, smart, witty, a great father, a shrewd businessman, etc. That was too big a task to bite off, so her message was scattered. Consequently, you can’t summarize what she said as succinctly as did the LA Times with Mrs. Obama’s narrative.
Ann Romney is an attractive and articulate woman. But her speech was just so much talk show chatter. She had no narrative focus and no way of deciding which stories to include and which to leave out; consequently, she seemed to have told them all, hoping that the totality of her speech would miraculously move the audience.
Here are a few narratives that would have been better for Mrs. Romney. Just pick one – ONE – not all of them.
1. Mr. Romney was born into privilege but walked away from it to help those who had far less. (Myth of the benevolent aristocrat who, like George Washington, put aside his interests to help fight for his country.)
2. Mr. Romney used his privilege and power and money to help others in need, and without fanfare or self-gratification. (Myth of the Lone Ranger, when you think of it.)
3. Mr. Romney used his privilege to educate himself. He studied long and hard so that he could put his knowledge to work in finding new, better ways to improve the lives of others. (Dr. Salk or George Washington Carver.)
4. Mr. Romney’s background shows a man who understands the plight of blue collar Americans, something he learned at his father’s knee. As president of American Motors, George Romney was very concerned about the life of his workforce. (Myth of the benevolent aristocrat who, for example, pays for the education of his workers’ kids or pays the hospital bills for the gardener’s sick wife.)
Again, pick one.
And whatever you do, don’t use the wrong myth. Why try to paint Mr. Romney as coming from humble beginnings? He’s not Abe Lincoln nor do we expect him to be. We admire wealth and don't care if candidates were born into the upper class. How disingenuous would it have been for JFK to speak in his posh Boston accent about his childhood struggles delivering newspapers on his little bike in the pouring rain?
Kennedy’s narrative was that he was born into wealth and taught that it carries responsibility, which is why he (JFK) went to war, saved a fellow seaman and dedicated his life to serving his fellow Americans after the sacrifice of his older brother.
Bottom line? Mrs. Romney chose the wrong mythical backdrop for a man of means and used a narrative shotgun; Mrs. Obama chose a classic American middle class myth befitting the child of a single parent and used a narrative laser.
We should do much the same with our marketing. But experience tells me we won’t. In spite of the clear lesson about the power of a tight, cohesive story, we’ll continue to produce work that’s fact-driven, repetitive, dull, boring and does not connect with our target audience… then scratch our heads when nothing sells.
How’d she do it? C’mon, you know the answer is the story she told. And while you can disagree with the politics, you simply cannot ignore the lesson she gave to marketers: there is nothing more powerful than a convincing, moving, compelling, slightly understated narrative.
Here’s what the LA Times said:
The principal narrative of her nationally televised speech was about President Obama’s ability to maintain his ideals, and even his gentle touch as a father, despite the heavy strains of office…
Narrative is the operant word.
Notice, there was not a single mention of facts… the narrative spun a series of images that had nothing to do with facts, per se. If you intensely dislike Mr. Obama, there’s still nothing you can point to in his wife’s speech that was inaccurate… nothing that stretches the truth.
The First Lady had an airtight story grounded in a shared myth and these gave her the focus needed to decide which anecdotes would be included and which would be discarded as off point (and thus, seemingly untrue). In marketing terms, she found her niche message and gently stayed on it until the audience was in tears.
Mrs. Romney, on the other hand, told story after small story but to no real end, or to the overly large end of showing her husband to be kind, generous, one of the guys, caring, smart, witty, a great father, a shrewd businessman, etc. That was too big a task to bite off, so her message was scattered. Consequently, you can’t summarize what she said as succinctly as did the LA Times with Mrs. Obama’s narrative.
Ann Romney is an attractive and articulate woman. But her speech was just so much talk show chatter. She had no narrative focus and no way of deciding which stories to include and which to leave out; consequently, she seemed to have told them all, hoping that the totality of her speech would miraculously move the audience.
Here are a few narratives that would have been better for Mrs. Romney. Just pick one – ONE – not all of them.
1. Mr. Romney was born into privilege but walked away from it to help those who had far less. (Myth of the benevolent aristocrat who, like George Washington, put aside his interests to help fight for his country.)
2. Mr. Romney used his privilege and power and money to help others in need, and without fanfare or self-gratification. (Myth of the Lone Ranger, when you think of it.)
3. Mr. Romney used his privilege to educate himself. He studied long and hard so that he could put his knowledge to work in finding new, better ways to improve the lives of others. (Dr. Salk or George Washington Carver.)
4. Mr. Romney’s background shows a man who understands the plight of blue collar Americans, something he learned at his father’s knee. As president of American Motors, George Romney was very concerned about the life of his workforce. (Myth of the benevolent aristocrat who, for example, pays for the education of his workers’ kids or pays the hospital bills for the gardener’s sick wife.)
Again, pick one.
And whatever you do, don’t use the wrong myth. Why try to paint Mr. Romney as coming from humble beginnings? He’s not Abe Lincoln nor do we expect him to be. We admire wealth and don't care if candidates were born into the upper class. How disingenuous would it have been for JFK to speak in his posh Boston accent about his childhood struggles delivering newspapers on his little bike in the pouring rain?
Kennedy’s narrative was that he was born into wealth and taught that it carries responsibility, which is why he (JFK) went to war, saved a fellow seaman and dedicated his life to serving his fellow Americans after the sacrifice of his older brother.
Bottom line? Mrs. Romney chose the wrong mythical backdrop for a man of means and used a narrative shotgun; Mrs. Obama chose a classic American middle class myth befitting the child of a single parent and used a narrative laser.
We should do much the same with our marketing. But experience tells me we won’t. In spite of the clear lesson about the power of a tight, cohesive story, we’ll continue to produce work that’s fact-driven, repetitive, dull, boring and does not connect with our target audience… then scratch our heads when nothing sells.
Marketing Veterans Don’t Get It: I’m 100% Certain
-->
I ran across a blog/article written by some
older guy (I’m of the approximate same age so I can say that with no
disrespect) that demonstrates why so many marketing ‘veterans’ just don’t get
it.
He’s on about eliminating weak words in
marketing pieces… like ‘I think” or “We believe” or “Perhaps,” etc.
He wants us to replace conditional words
with meaningful ones. “Be forceful… Use assertive language… As (someone) attempting to persuade an audience, your job is to
provide them with as much certainty as you can. The way to get from doubt to
certainty is to switch from the conditional to the declarative mood by eliminating
the offending words.”
[Note: Your job is not to provide
certainty. It's impossible.]
That’s writing 101 – I should know because
I taught Comp & Rhetoric 101 at an Atlanta college for more than a decade.
And yes, in student essays and some academic dissertations you want to
eliminate (most) conditional phrases.
But ‘Mr. So-Last-Century' is big time wrong
when it comes to advertising and marketing to today’s well-informed and sceptical consumers.
Here’s part of my response to the gentleman:
"Perhaps writing has more rules and exceptions than any other human activity."
That's
my opening sentence and I stand by it. If I remove 'Perhaps,' what seems an
equivocation to you, the sentence is weaker, not stronger... at least from an
advertising/marketing perspective. The tone has changed from friendly and open-minded
to dogmatic. Who am I to say definitively what rules writing has or does not
have? If writing/marketing is about opening a conversation, and it is, the use of
absolutes is often wrong. Absolutes stop discussion rather than encourage dialog.
I understand the ideological tenets from
whence the old writer comes: show strength, say you're the best, be definitive…
all of the old direct response rules right out of New York City circa 1960 or
Sham-Wow. What goes unsaid is an inherent belief that "people are ignorant sheep and need to be told
what to do." That's the mantra of all the old school writers I've ever
known (and I’ve known a few).
Look, physicians can't agree on the value
of aspirin; yet this guy wants you to stand up and speak in absolutes: "Joe’s
Widgets are the best ever, the only ones that really work; we are the #1
company for innovative, world class customer care; next year will be a record
breaker for Joe's Widgets."
I don't believe any of it. And I don't like
Joe... don't trust him as far as I can throw him.
Alternatively, "Our widgets can be
found in many of the world’s most sophisticated designs. Next year could be a
record breaker with a bit of luck, some hard work and the support of our
customers" sounds truer to me and shows Joe is a reasonable,
professional fellow with the same hopes and concerns and work ethic we all
have.
I like that Joe. I trust him.
The earlier tell-me-what-to-do Joe seems shallow,
as if he has no respect for me and, quite frankly, he seems to be just one more
narcissistic prat with whom I don’t want to do business.
Pride is one thing; macho, egotistical advertising/PR is another.
Hercule Poirot had a great line: “A doctor
who is 100% certain is an assassin.”
The same idea applies to old school
marketers. Their blowhard ads are so ‘sure’ of the truth and so convinced that
consumers can’t or won’t verify the facts, they’re murdering your campaign and,
what’s worse, killing your relationship with customers… dead!
New Wave Marketing 101: Hemingway, Cezanne and What To Leave Out
This is deep: so much so that at first glance it seems easy.
It’s not. It sits at the heart of artistic and creative endeavors, not the
least of which is the marketing narrative.
Hemingway claims that he developed his terse, poetic style
by looking at Cezanne’s work. That sounds a bit romantic and perhaps
apocryphal. [We all realize that great artists often give enigmatic answers
because they don’t like the idea of talking about art.]
Later, Hemingway said that the key to good writing is understanding
what to leave out. An expert can leave things out because he knows them… the
less knowledgeable and less talented leave out important things and include the
obvious and the unnecessary.
These ideas mesh if you think long and hard.
As an impressionist/post-impressionist, Cezanne was obviously
not trying to be realistic. Not every detail had to be exact or included. He
painted only those colors and strokes and images that were needed to create the
physical effect on the optic nerves and the emotional impact he was seeking. Not
one stroke more or less.
You already know that Hemingway was the same. Read “Hills
Like White Elephants” and notice how little description it takes to convey the
emotional tension between the man and woman. At first glance, it appears that
Hemingway has told you nothing of importance. The dialog is like eavesdropping
on a couple at dinner. “Would you like a drink?” “No, I’m not thirsty.”
“Hungry?” “Perhaps a little.” “It’s a simple thing, really.” “Yes, it’s always
so simple.”
There’s seemingly nothing there, yet we’re emotional wrecks
by the end of the story. That’s art.
We know that good marketing is both factual and
emotional and I believe more emotional than facts because these days consumers hear
so many contradictory facts that we’ve lost all scientific certainty.
So let’s say we’re trying to build an emotional connection
with our audience by describing a scene… a couple on a park bench. Think –
there are thousands of words and pictures we can use to describe the park, the
sky, the couple, the bench, their clothing down to the color of their socks…
skin texture, grass, birds, squirrels, etc. It’s endless.
You’re getting it. The artist takes a long hard look and chooses
to describe only those things that best convey the emotion he or she is seeking… let’s
say one close-up photo of the couple’s feet barely touching and short
descriptions of their posture, the rickety bench seat and a child that goes
running past. That’s it! From all the limitless possibilities (again, the
weather, the sky, their complexions, the sounds, the smells, virtually millions
of things) the artist has chosen the three or four essentials that few others
have noticed, and has left out all the rest. That’s Cezanne; that’s Hemingway;
that’s great marketing storytelling and design.
Most of us include too much of the obvious… and ironically
we still manage to leave out the essential bits that someone like Hemingway picks
up on. Why? Because he ‘knows’ about couples the way Cezanne knows how two
colors placed side by side make a third. All the rest is just so much
unnecessary bull that clouds the mind and kills emotion.
Plus, Hemingway and Cezanne took the time to really see; and
they never describe the obvious things we all grasp at first glance. To do so
is to be trite and tired.
Marketing is the same. You need to be an expert in humanity
and emotions and have a keen eye for subtleties that contain the whole truth (all
of this takes years); you don’t really need to be an expert on the product
because you’re selling emotion more than facts – and consumers can easily find any fact they like.
Tell and show the consumer only those few, simple things to
best convey emotion – and little else (facts here and there are fine, depending
upon the product, if it’s B2B or B2C).
Be more like Cezanne and Hemingway and less like the
directions you get in a box of IKEA furniture.
NOTE: This has nothing to do with length! It might take you
1,000 words and 10 pictures to convey a simple emotional truth. Rather, this
has to do with your ability to get to the core of a product or a service or a
cause with as few unnecessary words and obvious images as possible.
No one said this would be easy.
New Wave Marketing 101: Dear Mr. Ogilvy... Where's the Enthusiasm?
If you read Ogilvy's book on advertising (and you should), you might
remember his original ad seeking creative directors, which he called
Trumpeter Swans.
Ogilvy
was looking for personal genius, he said, and inspiring leadership. I
like the imagery -- marketers as trumpeter swans: they want to stand
out, and as I interpret it, they are enthusiastically creative and not
afraid to flaunt it.
So, where are these swans? I sit in meeting after meeting with marketers, designers, B2B and B2C marketing managers, CEOs, web guys, the lot, and it's like spending an afternoon in the morgue: no excitement, no buzz, nothing. It's as if these men and women are going to the gallows later in the day.
Marketing is 90% enthusiasm about your product, your service, your company. This excitement is essentially what we impart through ads and pr, etc. Passion goes a long, long way in marketing and in life. Why then is it in such short supply these days?
Marketing is meant to be creative, thought provoking and entertaining. How can it be any of these things when both clients and agency types are so low key, so ho hum, so boring?
If you don't have enthusiasm for what you do, stop doing it and try something else.
If I'm a company looking for an agency, I want to see three things: intelligence, creativity and enthusiasm. Two out of three ain't good enough. All three or nothing.
From the agency side, I want to see the same traits in potential clients. Those who come to us with no excitement or enthusiasm, dragging their feet to the meetings, acting as if they're being forced to market and with no passion in their product offering or company... well, these clients will fail no matter what we do or try to do for them. Why get started and, as an agency, why get tarred by the brush of boredom these clients will surely bring?
Two rules about marketing that have not changed since day one: frequency works no matter how mediocre the marketing; and, enthusiasm is the most important ingredient to a successful campaign or ad.
OK, here's the third: start with a quality product or a superior service... quality breeds enthusiasm.
So, where are these swans? I sit in meeting after meeting with marketers, designers, B2B and B2C marketing managers, CEOs, web guys, the lot, and it's like spending an afternoon in the morgue: no excitement, no buzz, nothing. It's as if these men and women are going to the gallows later in the day.
Marketing is 90% enthusiasm about your product, your service, your company. This excitement is essentially what we impart through ads and pr, etc. Passion goes a long, long way in marketing and in life. Why then is it in such short supply these days?
Marketing is meant to be creative, thought provoking and entertaining. How can it be any of these things when both clients and agency types are so low key, so ho hum, so boring?
If you don't have enthusiasm for what you do, stop doing it and try something else.
If I'm a company looking for an agency, I want to see three things: intelligence, creativity and enthusiasm. Two out of three ain't good enough. All three or nothing.
From the agency side, I want to see the same traits in potential clients. Those who come to us with no excitement or enthusiasm, dragging their feet to the meetings, acting as if they're being forced to market and with no passion in their product offering or company... well, these clients will fail no matter what we do or try to do for them. Why get started and, as an agency, why get tarred by the brush of boredom these clients will surely bring?
Two rules about marketing that have not changed since day one: frequency works no matter how mediocre the marketing; and, enthusiasm is the most important ingredient to a successful campaign or ad.
OK, here's the third: start with a quality product or a superior service... quality breeds enthusiasm.
New Wave Marketing 101: Gravy Trainers, Quantum Stupidity & the Emotions of Quantum Shopping
Please indulge me as I start with a long aside...
Most people know nothing about quantum mechanics; and what
they do know is usually wrong. Say ‘quantum’ and some wise acre will chime in,
“Oh yeah, everything is relative, there is no truth, do whatever you want,
there’s no right or wrong.”
Thanks so much for that tidbit.
Yet, this ignorance hasn’t stopped marketing agencies from
trading on the term ‘quantum’. I Googled ‘quantum marketing’ and up popped
scores of gravy-training quantum marketing companies.
I could barely stand to read the convoluted logic of these
agencies. Here’s a typical paragraph:
“Quantum
Marketing Group offers expertise and resources that have helped organizations
maximize performance and identify hidden opportunities for profitable growth.
Quantum helps small, medium and distributed enterprise organizations develop an
effective sales automation process. Well designed and properly implemented
sales automation improvements deliver a strong return on investment (ROI) and
return on time (ROT). Sales automation improvements prepare a company for
longer term sustainable growth. Sales automation, properly developed, provides
tools, methods and processes needed to build and operate a successful sales and
marketing program.”
As Blackadder said to
Baldrick, ‘utter crap’. These geniuses broke the first rule of B2B marketing
which is NEVER WRITE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR COMPANY THAT THE COMPETITION CAN SIGN.
How does the above statement make these guys different? And what happened to
quantum? Sales automation = quantum? In what parallel universe?
What does any of this
tripe have to do with the observer’s perspective or individual packets of data
or the speed of light or electron clouds or collapsing wave functions or
space-time or Neils Bohr or Schrodinger’s cat or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle or branes or gravity or space-time? Read this slop again: Quantum
Marketing Group hangs its hat on sales automation, whatever the hell that
means… but I know this much, it has NOTHING to do with quantum anything –
unless there’s such a thing as quantum stupidity.
These guys and the
other 100 ‘quantum’ agencies are gravy trainers: “let’s say ‘quantum’ because it
means nothing but sounds scientific and oh, so modern.” Is that the kind of
thinking you want from a marketing company?
Glad I got that off
my chest.
Now to the issue at
hand. In 2006 some guy called Danziger came up with the ‘quantum theory of
shopping’. Yes, he gravy-trained the name, figuring that because he developed a
mathematical formula as to why people buy, it must be ‘quantum’.
Forgive him… because
his formula is dead on. Here it is:
P = (N+F+A) ×E2
P is the propensity for a shopper to buy
N is need
F is product features
A is affordability
E is emotion
Notice that there are two tangible factors: F
(features) & A (affordability). Intangibles are N (need) & E (emotion).
[As I look at this, Danziger has an argument about using ‘quantum’
because part of this formula relates to position and perspective (as does
quantum mechanics): the buyer’s emotional perspective on what’s needed and
what’s important at the moment of purchase is in the ‘quantum’ ballpark.]
Like quantum mechanics, when it comes to shopping/purchasing there’s
more unknown than known. We do ‘know’ the features and the affordability (to some
extent); but we’re working with probabilities when it comes to need and emotion,
particularly E.
[Notice, that you multiply by E squared – it’s the equivalent
of the speed of light in Einstein’s E=MC2 (that’s 186,000 miles per
second squared or one hell of a number). For Danziger, E (emotion) is that ‘big’
number.]
Emotions, excitement and pleasure and even fear that people associate
with a product, can transform need into desire: enhancing perceived product features and increasing
attraction. And we all know that emotions can make people pay a higher price
than they ever intended (no explanation necessary to anyone who’s ever bought a
home).
Building an emotional response is what marketing is all
about. That's true for B2C and B2B, although the B2B ‘marketers’ will never,
ever admit this because they and most of their clients just don’t get it.
What’s the best way to build an emotional response?
Tell a good story for god’s sake. Facts and bullet points and “we’re the best”
approaches are cold and unemotional. They are not marketing, in spite of what 99% of B2B agencies think.
The right words with the right images, often shown to consumers in unexpected places, create the E2 – sometimes at the speed of light.
Look, marketing has changed completely, at least in the way
stories are told and what emotional triggers stimulate today’s consumers. But
what hasn’t changed is Danziger’s formula (with my addendum): E (emotion)
drives sales and S (story) builds emotion.
This isn’t rocket science… or it it?
[NOTE: This formula applies to in-store displays as well as web sites: they too contribute to the E in Danziger’s equation. The more you can make customers feel pleasant and positive during the entire selling process, the more you enhance their shopping experience and the more emotion you build… and that emotion creates need, improves perceived features and expands the concept of what’s affordable.]
[NOTE: This formula applies to in-store displays as well as web sites: they too contribute to the E in Danziger’s equation. The more you can make customers feel pleasant and positive during the entire selling process, the more you enhance their shopping experience and the more emotion you build… and that emotion creates need, improves perceived features and expands the concept of what’s affordable.]
New Wave Marketing 101: Why Are Outrageous Claims and Markups OK for L’Oreal and Dior but Not Direct Response?
Think about this for a
minute. Is there really a difference between DRTV spots and the way
international cosmetics brands are marketed? Same outrageous claims,
same 10X - 40X pricing structure.
Cosmetics from iconic brands like L’Oreal or Dior or Olay aren’t really any better than OxyClean, are they? Imagine selling an anti-wrinkle cream that costs $5 in the tube for $135.00. I did that, I’ll admit it; and cosmetics companies do it everyday of the week. But at least they market with some style, panache, compelling story, exquisite packaging and first rate service. That must count for something.
At the risk of being crude, at least they kiss you before they…
I’m conflicted. If Estee Lauder and Clinique can sell miracle face creams for 10X to 40X cost, why can’t I sell a miracle salad spinner via DRTV or a breakthrough meatloaf pan, for that matter, without looking cheap and sleazy and having the FTC breathing down my neck?
It's the sleazy history of DR, I think.
Here’s a test. How many cosmetics have you used or purchased (men and women) that actually met your expectations? I can think of a few right off the bat:
Now, how many DR products have you tried that worked as promised?
How’s this for a solution… a way out of the DR decline?
Cosmetics from iconic brands like L’Oreal or Dior or Olay aren’t really any better than OxyClean, are they? Imagine selling an anti-wrinkle cream that costs $5 in the tube for $135.00. I did that, I’ll admit it; and cosmetics companies do it everyday of the week. But at least they market with some style, panache, compelling story, exquisite packaging and first rate service. That must count for something.
At the risk of being crude, at least they kiss you before they…
I’m conflicted. If Estee Lauder and Clinique can sell miracle face creams for 10X to 40X cost, why can’t I sell a miracle salad spinner via DRTV or a breakthrough meatloaf pan, for that matter, without looking cheap and sleazy and having the FTC breathing down my neck?
It's the sleazy history of DR, I think.
Here’s a test. How many cosmetics have you used or purchased (men and women) that actually met your expectations? I can think of a few right off the bat:
- Original Rachel Perry — great stuff
- The yellow Clinique moisturizer in the glass bottle
- Shaving cream from Wild Oats— Kiss My Face
- Queen Helene mask — from the 1930s, I swear
- St. Ives apricot seed scrub — not as good as the original, but still good
- Idebinol — great face cream, unfortunately no longer sold
Now, how many DR products have you tried that worked as promised?
- Paint roller – terrible, still finding drops on the floor
- Magic Bullet – not too bad, really
- Proactiv (for my teenage children) – no better than a $3 tube of benzoyl peroxide
- Orthotics – waste of time
- Scratch remover for the car – stupid purchase on my part
- Hercules Hooks – sorry, Billy
- Swivel Sweeper – worthless
- Knives from anyone – I have no need to cut a Coke can in half
How’s this for a solution… a way out of the DR decline?
- Sell better products
- Make sure what you say in the ad copy matches what’s said about the product online (to the best of your ability)… better products should make this easier… and spend some money on social media to defend your products, for goodness sakes
- Change the tired DRTV format, for example:
- Give the actual price upfront
- Forget BUT WAIT and triple your order tricks
- Give a full guarantee, shipping and all
- Avoid the tired Guthy Renker model (or should I say “trusted Guthy Renker”?). Look, they’ve made a lot of money at it, good for them, but GR has burned out the format here in the U.S. (which is why their sales are increasingly coming from other countries)
- Avoid automatic renewal – the #1 reason why most consumers will not buy anything DR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)