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.
“Consumers want a new story... authenticity, not spin... participation, not propaganda.”
Showing posts with label B2b marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label B2b marketing. Show all posts
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’.
New Wave Marketing and Advertising 101: What Marketers Should Learn from the Last Election
(If you’re old enough to remember the Doors, you know that Morrison usually opened his concerts by shouting WAKE UP!
)
Here are a few takeaways for those souls interested in marketing and advertising and politics.
1. Attack ads work as does frequency (which is how Romney got so close)… but they have to be bolstered with some sort of positive vision. You can’t win/sell anything simply by defining what it’s not: ‘Vote Romney because you hate Obama’ is not enough.
The same for marketing. When it comes to attracting consumers, a product has to stand for something with a positive, inspiring long-term vision. Pepsi used to advertise that it’s not Coke. So what? Then they did taste tests… still, so what? Then they began their Pepsi generation theme and things took off.
2. It’s nauseating how pundits keep saying that republicans need to change their message. That is duplicitous at best and downright evil at the core. Change the philosophy and adapt your ideas to the 21st century, THEN change the message to match the new soul of the party.
Putting out a new message while your beliefs don’t change is the worst kind of cheap direct response. Change the product then change the message... not the other way around.
3. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time: after September, 2008 everything has changed: consumer expectations, middle class incomes, trust in banking, the role of government, belief in technology, levels of consumption, demographics and YES, THE AMERICAN NARRATIVE ITSELF.
4. You’ve heard all about the demographics, but let me add one more: each month, 50,000 Hispanics turn 18 and are eligible to vote. Do the math for 2016.
5. The American belief in self-reliance, perfectly defined by Emerson’s famous essay of the same name, has changed... only angry white guys have missed this watershed moment.
Want proof?
The republican mantra is built on individual hard work, an independent, entrepreneurial spirit and a refusal to take handouts from the government.
Think for a second: this philosophy is strongest in Asian and Hispanic communities. These folks work and work and work (more than most white communities), so they should be prime republicans, but they’re not.
Over 70% of Asians and Hispanics voted democratic.
Why?
Because the republican, classic American belief that small government is best for the individual is not shared by immigrants. Most don’t see government as the villain; rather, they see big, greedy business as the obstacle to their success, as it tilts the playing field against them, barely pays a living wage and sends jobs overseas.
Bottom line: marketing and politics are both about telling a story with vision, one that corresponds with consumer/electorate desires and is in step with their core beliefs. Anything else, and you’ll spend billions for frequency and market share and still lose to a smarter, more passionate, more in-tune competitor.
And... when you try to sell anything with a story that runs counter to the prevailing meta-narrative (core, unquestioned beliefs) you will fail, just as the republicans did… and you will continue to fail until you change more than your marketing message.
A new tag line won't do it... you have to change your heart.
Here are a few takeaways for those souls interested in marketing and advertising and politics.
1. Attack ads work as does frequency (which is how Romney got so close)… but they have to be bolstered with some sort of positive vision. You can’t win/sell anything simply by defining what it’s not: ‘Vote Romney because you hate Obama’ is not enough.
The same for marketing. When it comes to attracting consumers, a product has to stand for something with a positive, inspiring long-term vision. Pepsi used to advertise that it’s not Coke. So what? Then they did taste tests… still, so what? Then they began their Pepsi generation theme and things took off.
2. It’s nauseating how pundits keep saying that republicans need to change their message. That is duplicitous at best and downright evil at the core. Change the philosophy and adapt your ideas to the 21st century, THEN change the message to match the new soul of the party.
Putting out a new message while your beliefs don’t change is the worst kind of cheap direct response. Change the product then change the message... not the other way around.
3. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time: after September, 2008 everything has changed: consumer expectations, middle class incomes, trust in banking, the role of government, belief in technology, levels of consumption, demographics and YES, THE AMERICAN NARRATIVE ITSELF.
4. You’ve heard all about the demographics, but let me add one more: each month, 50,000 Hispanics turn 18 and are eligible to vote. Do the math for 2016.
5. The American belief in self-reliance, perfectly defined by Emerson’s famous essay of the same name, has changed... only angry white guys have missed this watershed moment.
Want proof?
The republican mantra is built on individual hard work, an independent, entrepreneurial spirit and a refusal to take handouts from the government.
Think for a second: this philosophy is strongest in Asian and Hispanic communities. These folks work and work and work (more than most white communities), so they should be prime republicans, but they’re not.
Over 70% of Asians and Hispanics voted democratic.
Why?
Because the republican, classic American belief that small government is best for the individual is not shared by immigrants. Most don’t see government as the villain; rather, they see big, greedy business as the obstacle to their success, as it tilts the playing field against them, barely pays a living wage and sends jobs overseas.
Bottom line: marketing and politics are both about telling a story with vision, one that corresponds with consumer/electorate desires and is in step with their core beliefs. Anything else, and you’ll spend billions for frequency and market share and still lose to a smarter, more passionate, more in-tune competitor.
And... when you try to sell anything with a story that runs counter to the prevailing meta-narrative (core, unquestioned beliefs) you will fail, just as the republicans did… and you will continue to fail until you change more than your marketing message.
A new tag line won't do it... you have to change your heart.
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.
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: 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: For Many, Advertising Is Mostly Unnecessary
Let’s say you’re starting a new restaurant in Pittsburgh. In
the old days, you’d announce the Grand Opening, try to get some early PR and
then advertise in local newspapers, food guides, etc. To get the tourist trade,
you might advertise in one of those hotel-room publications, online food
guides, Fodder’s online, etc. You might try some local TV spots to build your
clientele.
Remembering that only 14% of consumers believe advertising
while 78% believe online reviews, I would argue that advertising won’t really
work for your restaurant.
Yes, you need the Grand Opening stuff, but past that what
good will advertising do?
Restaurants are about word of mouth – and let’s face it,
today almost all business is word of mouth. If you’re food (your product or
service) is great, people will talk about it. Good food, good products get
around much faster than you think… bad food and bad products move just as
quickly.
So how do I get people to my restaurant? Serve good food.
What about getting the word out about my place?
Look… when people pull into a new town they
inevitably rely on their smartphones. The urbanspoon app, for example, uses
your location to search, say, ‘Italian’ restaurants… I don’t even need to know
the name of your place to find it. Then, of course, people read the reviews.
That’s how the choice is made these days. If you were to drop a bundle on
advertising but the online reviews are bad, you’ve wasted money that could have
been spent making the product better.
Recently, my son moved to NYC. He goes online and searches
‘best brunch in New York’. Finds a listing, checks the reviews and ends up in
Chelsea having one of the better meals of his life – which is saying something as
he’s lived in LA for years and has travelled extensively overseas.
How long did this process take? Less than five minutes.
What about advertising? He never looked at any of it.
Bottom line: consumers find you, you don’t find them… and
this reversed process makes most advertising (not all) unnecessary for many, many industries. (Note: a bit of local
advertising and community PR will help.)
Marketing 101: Niagara Falls… Hitting Bottom
Sitting here, standing here, pacing here… trying to come up
with a fresh story for a product that is not new, not needed and, truthfully,
cannot work as claimed by the manufacturer.
The marketer's dilemma in a nutshell.
This product will fail: 25 years experience and basic common
sense tell me. Still, I am reluctant to express my severely negative doubts.
Isn’t the American Way to push ahead and give it your best shot, damn the torpedoes and all that
Dr. Phil kind of stuff?
I can hear the client’s responses: “Oh, so you CAN’T do it,”
or “I thought you were a CREATIVE writer,” or “you only want to work on
products that are a slam dunk,” and best of all, “this may look like just
another acne cream but this one REALLY WORKS!”
I’m not clairvoyant… and I’ve read enough about quantum
mechanics to know that all we can offer are probabilities, not certainties… the
wave function hasn’t collapsed… the electron is probably here but not definitely here… using Planck's Constant, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the FTC's penchant for discouraging false advertising, I put the probability of this product succeeding at 1 in 1,000.
Life’s too short and writing talent too fickle to risk either
on something that’s very, very likely to fail; yet part of me wants to give it
a try: like taking a barrel over Niagara Falls for the pure hell of it.
“This product will change your life!”
Ahhhhhhhh, it’s coming now….
“The first and only acne cream specifically formulated to give you a smoother, clearer, sexier complexion…”
Yes, the end is in sight… but the end of what?
New Wave Marketing 101: The Fallacy of Making It Local
I helped write an ad
that created the largest, most successful, single SKU in the cosmetics
industry (2004 - 2007). Eventually, the print ad ran in, I think, 40
countries.
Here’s the story:
The ad remained essentially the same for six years, and ran unchanged in dozens of countries, even though ‘experts’ in each would insist that we had to alter the ad to fit the market. We refused to change a thing and had to fight almost daily with company directors and designers and marketers who insisted the ad had to be localized. Our stand: we want a literal translation, changing only those very few phrases that might not translate correctly.
The result? The product became the #1 skin care cream in several countries, including France. And if you know the French, they were the most adamant that the ad had to be completely rewritten because the French market is different… more sophisticated, needs a more glamorous looking ad… the usual BS.
The marketing ‘experts’ at the company that sold the product in France (with huge banners on the Champs Elysees that used our original text) still won’t admit they were wrong. I guarantee that if you were to send them an American-style ad, they would DEMAND that it be changed to meet the French market. Old, stupid habits die hard!
Granted, some products are country or area specific. (For example, facial whiteners are more popular in Asia because of the cultural prejudice that lighter colored skin is somehow a sign of class superiority.)
For universal products, however, people are people… women everywhere want to look younger… men want to be virile… computer geeks want things to run faster. Don’t let local company bureaucrats or so-called ‘specialized’ agencies convince you to change a successful ad. It’s their way of making a few bucks from you and grabbing control of YOUR ad.
They win either way: if the ad sells, it was their changes that made it successful; if it fails, it will be your fault for not changing the ad enough!
Stand your ground! Don’t take a good story, a good ad, and ruin it by making it local.
New Wave Marketing 101: Nice Guys… Bad Business Cards… Very Bad Marketers
Marketing is brutal… no doubt about it. Either you can or you can’t… most can’t, everyone thinks they can.
In a past life I made a living as a musician, on the road playing in bars across the country. That’s brutal, too… you play a song and people either applaud or they don’t. There’s no equivocation: the audience likes you or hates you… or worse, ignores you. No way to spin their response.
In a past life I made a living as a musician, on the road playing in bars across the country. That’s brutal, too… you play a song and people either applaud or they don’t. There’s no equivocation: the audience likes you or hates you… or worse, ignores you. No way to spin their response.
As someone who makes a living as a marketer, I have come to learn that my almost 10 years on the road have stood me in good stead. An advert works or it doesn’t, and all the slick- talking, self-justification, excuse-making in the world won’t change the result.
So — a little while back I ‘took a meeting’ (I was in LA) with two very nice young men in charge of their father’s fortune. They have an idea to sell a product or two and I’m involved because I know the formulator.
During the meeting, they tell me how special their company is… right, just like everyone else. They’re a family company and they REALLY care (as if other family companies don’t give a damn). In a minute or two, my ADD kicks in and I’m lost in Supertramp's 'Gone Hollywood' ("I'm in a cheap hotel beside a Taco Bell without a hope in hell" how appropriate).
Here’s the kicker: these guys swear to me that “We have some of the best designers and creative people in the country.” This is code for, “We don’t need any help marketing our stuff.”
OK, fair enough. I get up to leave and they give me their business cards. OMG — were these atrocities the work of “the best designers in the country"??? The first card is unreadable… 6-point white text on a soft beige background… Superman and his X-ray vision would have a challenge deciphering the copy. The other gentleman’s card looked like it came from the Microsoft template library: ugly, large black text, no kerning, so the letters looked like a n e y e t e s t placed at an angle the human brain can’t comprehend.
Oh… I see, the best designers in the country, huh?… you don’t need help?… you’re marketing experts?!?
Look — just because you wrote a paper in high school doesn’t make you a writer… just because you know how to open Photoshop and resize a picture doesn’t make you a graphic artist… just because you sold $100,000 worth of product in a market that’s worth $5 BILLION doesn’t make you a marketer… it makes you a poser (a great British term).
In a moment of epiphany, I realized what the best thing was about being a musician! It’s the ability to shut up amateurs.
At just about every gig, some guy would come up and say, “I play saxophone, too.” My response? “Here’s my horn, play it… let’s hear what you’ve got.”
No one ever took me up on the offer.
I wish I could do the same when a couple of well-meaning but ill-informed guys with ugly business cards tell me they know how to market.
At just about every gig, some guy would come up and say, “I play saxophone, too.” My response? “Here’s my horn, play it… let’s hear what you’ve got.”
No one ever took me up on the offer.
I wish I could do the same when a couple of well-meaning but ill-informed guys with ugly business cards tell me they know how to market.
Really?
Marketing 101: The Art of Conversation circa 44 BC
I keep talking about how marketing has changed and is changing. Fair
enough. Maybe it's time to take a look at what doesn't change.
Case in point: conversation.
All marketing is or should be conversation -- ways to encourage it, make it more relevant and more comfortable for those engaged (your customers). There are rules, a kind of etiquette, that most follow and expect others to do the same. Over the years, however, marketing has tended to ignore those rules; for example, ads shout at you, dominate the conversation and don't let you get a word in edgewise... a bit like talk radio or your ex-wife and/or know-it-all husband.
Here's the interesting part. The rules of conversational etiquette are universal; they cut across cultural boundaries and have been in play for centuries. Centuries? Is that true?
Yes... have a look at Cicero's rules for pleasant conversation, written in 44 BC. Still as fresh as a newly-opened bottle of 30-year-old single malt and perhaps more relevant than ever in this age that allows for millions of conversations per second worldwide.
Marketers -- pay attention, these rules apply to you all the more, as the conversation you're trying to start is often with a consumer who does not trust or know you.
Cicero's Rules for Good Conversation
Case in point: conversation.
All marketing is or should be conversation -- ways to encourage it, make it more relevant and more comfortable for those engaged (your customers). There are rules, a kind of etiquette, that most follow and expect others to do the same. Over the years, however, marketing has tended to ignore those rules; for example, ads shout at you, dominate the conversation and don't let you get a word in edgewise... a bit like talk radio or your ex-wife and/or know-it-all husband.
Here's the interesting part. The rules of conversational etiquette are universal; they cut across cultural boundaries and have been in play for centuries. Centuries? Is that true?
Yes... have a look at Cicero's rules for pleasant conversation, written in 44 BC. Still as fresh as a newly-opened bottle of 30-year-old single malt and perhaps more relevant than ever in this age that allows for millions of conversations per second worldwide.
Marketers -- pay attention, these rules apply to you all the more, as the conversation you're trying to start is often with a consumer who does not trust or know you.
Cicero's Rules for Good Conversation
- speak clearly
- speak easily, but not too much, give others their turn
- do not interrupt
- be courteous
- deal seriously with serious matters, gracefully with lighter ones
- never criticize people behind their backs
- stick to subjects of general interests
- do not talk about yourself
- never lose your temper
New Wave Marketing 101: If I Say I'm Cool... I'm Not Cool
These days marketing is all about talking around your product. The usual corporate hype and gibberish you see on every B2B site about 'world class service' and 'innovative breakthrough solutions' just won't do; neither will the B2C hype about how a product will change your life. (Don't you wish changing your life was that easy?)
Two examples of what I mean.
1. An entrepreneurial young man starts an executive dating company and it takes off. So much so that he is invited to speak on "The Today Show,” the stalwart national morning TV program that's watched by millions. He's excited and expects to pick up a lot of business. The result? A few more visitors to the web site, but that's it. Are you kidding? National TV and not one new customer?
Only months later, after his company is mentioned in various blogs related to online dating, does my young friend realize a significant amount of new business. These blogs did not talk about his company directly… they were speaking about the problems of online dating and, ‘oh, by the way, there is a company that supposedly helps executives find dates.' That simple line delivered by someone other than a company spokesperson is all it took.Two examples of what I mean.
1. An entrepreneurial young man starts an executive dating company and it takes off. So much so that he is invited to speak on "The Today Show,” the stalwart national morning TV program that's watched by millions. He's excited and expects to pick up a lot of business. The result? A few more visitors to the web site, but that's it. Are you kidding? National TV and not one new customer?
2. A now best selling author releases his first ‘how to' book and does the usual talk show rounds. The response? Same as above… not much. But… the release of the book is blogged about on a very popular lifestyle site – ‘oh, by the way, has anyone read this book'? – and sales go through the roof. Literally 10,000 copies fly out of Amazon.
You see a pattern, don't you? Cynical consumers do not believe most of what companies and their agencies say about a product. The idea of speaking directly to a possible consumer about your product is seen as ‘sales,' as hype, as one step up from snake oil.
(One very important caveat: if you have the money to run with enough frequency, forget all of the above. Frequency works and it doesn't matter if the creative is good or not. Keep showing the ad and people will eventually get on board – like Goebbels' ‘big lie' theory of propaganda.)
Today, consumers believe something when they get the message in a more round about way… which is the beauty of social media (because it's the engine that powers 'round about' information distribution). When design engineers, for example, are exchanging ideas on LinkedIn about robotics systems, and one of them says, ‘I saw a system today that used Brand X flexible cables', that kind of talking around the product is seen as real, unbiased, truthful and leads to sales.
If you've been reading this blog for the past few months, I know what you're thinking: "You always say that social media allows you to talk directly with customers, now you're saying that companies shouldn't do this?”
No that's not what I'm saying. You can and should talk directly to potential customers, but about things like new technologies, problems and solutions, general industry developments. This seemingly ‘direct' communication is actually a form of talking around your product. But as soon as the discussion turns to, "our product is the result of years of research making the new XB-1000 a world class walnut cruncher,” you've lost the sketch and the customer's attention.
It's tricky… there's a fine line… this is not direct response so new business isn't going to develop overnight. But talking around your product is the only way these days, unless, as I said, you have very deep advertising pockets!
What a tome I've written. So much for less is more.
Let me try to say this simply: If I walk into a party and say "Hi, I'm Nick and I'm very cool,” people hate me. If I walk into the same party an hour after two women were talking about how interesting Nick is, well… I'm golden.
Marketing and Advertising: It's Amateur Hour
Recently, a LinkedIn group for copywriters was in a flutter over the fact that companies are advertising for 'digital copywriters'. They're all agog: "copy is copy, if it's good it can run anywhere... advertising for a digital writer is absurd, there is no such thing."
OK -- in theory I'm on your side: good writing is good writing who cares if it's for digital media.
But my God, you don't get it, do you? Look at music, look at book publishing, look at photography, look at video production: all have fallen into the hands of amateurs and so has writing copy. And this won't change anytime soon, if ever.
Stop acting like you're stunned: Digital copywriter is code for "amateur/semi-pro word pusher who doesn't charge too much -- because after all, people don't read anymore so the copy needs to be short and uninspired."
Marketing and advertising are now crafts, not art... like paint-by-number Picasso's. They are the province of amateurs with high-tech equipment: amateur photographers who can get one decent shot with an 18 megapixel camera; videographers who are good enough for web and youtube and reality TV; digital 'designers' who are coders with minimal Photoshop/InDesign skills; writers who use templated press releases and/or web sites and can move a few words around.
Like it or not, that's the lay of the land. Why pay professional prices when amateur stuff is pretty good; when the vast majority of (amateur) marketing directors can't tell the difference between between good and great; when consumer expectations of ad quality have been lowered by Internet, reality TV and years of bad, uninspired marketing?
Plus, consumers are so turned off by ads and marketing that spending thousands more on great work rarely makes sense (at least to the minds of CFOs, and if you can find great work).
And who's to say this move to amateurs isn't smart? After all, the key factor to determining an ad's success is frequency: if you have the cash to run a piece of bad creative time after time after time, it will eventually get into people's heads.
Look at the music industry: big record labels and expensive, sophisticated studios gave way to do-it-yourself recording and self distribution. Same thing applies to marketing and advertising... we may be just starting down this same path but we're moving quickly thanks to better photography, easier web design, a lowering of standards and expectations and a flood of 'communications' majors pouring out of colleges and all with the idea that marketing is 'fun'.
I was taught that marketing was difficult, artistic, psychological, existential, problematic, courageous, confrontational, mind changing, frustrating, etc. But now it's fun, as in: "here's a 'fun' thing we can do -- let's give away stuffed animals to the first 50 people who send us a video of how they use our hair conditioner to 'tame' loose ends.
That's marketing 2012 for the great unwashed! Well-meaning amateurs all around.
And when it comes to B2B, it's even worse... amateurs who don't like or enjoy what they do and don't think marketing is particularly useful! Stupid amateurs.
OK -- in theory I'm on your side: good writing is good writing who cares if it's for digital media.
But my God, you don't get it, do you? Look at music, look at book publishing, look at photography, look at video production: all have fallen into the hands of amateurs and so has writing copy. And this won't change anytime soon, if ever.
Stop acting like you're stunned: Digital copywriter is code for "amateur/semi-pro word pusher who doesn't charge too much -- because after all, people don't read anymore so the copy needs to be short and uninspired."
Marketing and advertising are now crafts, not art... like paint-by-number Picasso's. They are the province of amateurs with high-tech equipment: amateur photographers who can get one decent shot with an 18 megapixel camera; videographers who are good enough for web and youtube and reality TV; digital 'designers' who are coders with minimal Photoshop/InDesign skills; writers who use templated press releases and/or web sites and can move a few words around.
Like it or not, that's the lay of the land. Why pay professional prices when amateur stuff is pretty good; when the vast majority of (amateur) marketing directors can't tell the difference between between good and great; when consumer expectations of ad quality have been lowered by Internet, reality TV and years of bad, uninspired marketing?
Plus, consumers are so turned off by ads and marketing that spending thousands more on great work rarely makes sense (at least to the minds of CFOs, and if you can find great work).
And who's to say this move to amateurs isn't smart? After all, the key factor to determining an ad's success is frequency: if you have the cash to run a piece of bad creative time after time after time, it will eventually get into people's heads.
Look at the music industry: big record labels and expensive, sophisticated studios gave way to do-it-yourself recording and self distribution. Same thing applies to marketing and advertising... we may be just starting down this same path but we're moving quickly thanks to better photography, easier web design, a lowering of standards and expectations and a flood of 'communications' majors pouring out of colleges and all with the idea that marketing is 'fun'.
I was taught that marketing was difficult, artistic, psychological, existential, problematic, courageous, confrontational, mind changing, frustrating, etc. But now it's fun, as in: "here's a 'fun' thing we can do -- let's give away stuffed animals to the first 50 people who send us a video of how they use our hair conditioner to 'tame' loose ends.
That's marketing 2012 for the great unwashed! Well-meaning amateurs all around.
And when it comes to B2B, it's even worse... amateurs who don't like or enjoy what they do and don't think marketing is particularly useful! Stupid amateurs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)