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!
“Consumers want a new story... authenticity, not spin... participation, not propaganda.”
Showing posts with label New Wave Advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Wave Advertising. Show all posts
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.
What’s wrong with advertising and agencies? Go Daddy spot says it all
Now that the dust has settled from a mediocre game with very mediocre advertising, and we’ve been inundated with analysis of both, maybe we can see things for what they are.
Simply put: the Go Daddy spot and the analysis that followed, given by ‘advertising and marketing experts,’ together highlight the absurdity of advertising and agencies. Advertising is meant to be part art and part science... isn’t that what we tell ourselves and our clients? These past few days we’ve seen the man behind the curtain and he ain’t pretty or smart.
A few very clear observations we all should have made:
1. The Go Daddy kissing spot was weak by any measure: not very creative, not well done, average at best. Here’s one way you know this -- all the hype the agency put out about the ad prior to the game tells you that they knew it was ho-hum. They built up the ‘45 minutes of kissing’ with a supermodel in hopes of getting the audience to ‘understand’ the coolness of the concept. Even more telling, a spokesperson for Go Daddy reported the highest level of phone calls ever during the 24-hours after the ad ran. But s/he wouldn't release any numbers (telling those of us in the industry that this is a little white PR lie).
2. The audacity of some ‘experts’ to claim that, “since we’re still talking about the ad it was successful” is damn nonsense. This is the excuse that advertising losers use to keep their jobs and validate their salaries. If, as an industry, we can’t universally ‘condemn’ the ad for being boring, trite and unimaginative (or better yet, a waste of money) -- then we have no standards by which to judge our work. Rather, we are shysters hiding behind a concept of ‘creativity’ that’s as simplistic as saying, “anything that stands out is good.” If that’s the case, then any 10-year-old can be an ad executive or run an agency.
3. Look, it’s essential to stand out, but that alone is nothing more than being a carnival barker. And for any agency to claim success based on this lowest common denominator is ludicrous. You know, you can ‘stand out’ for being exceptionally stupid or exceptionally crass or exceptionally uninformed. In claiming the lowest ground you are as special as another well-endowed pole dancer in Las Vegas.
4. We either have standards or we’re hacks. Either Picasso is a great artist or his work is no better than any first grader. Either “The Sun Also Rises” is great literature or Barbara Cartland and Ernest Hemingway are just two more pulp fiction writers.
5. Anyone who plays devil’s advocate and claims that “the ad might not have been to your taste but it was successful because we’re still talking about it,” is a fool.
C’mon -- successful executives will tell you that in any meeting you should do something to make your presence known. You don’t want to be anonymous in a room. How, then, to accomplish this? Well, one way would be to prepare for the meeting and ask an intelligent question. Fine. You’ve been remembered. Or you could stand on the table and pull down your pants. That would be very unforgettable. And you’d be a Go Daddy advertising jackass or a partner in Deutsch New York. (The agency is still tap dancing about the ad... rule #1 of PR, never admit you might be wrong.)
NOTE: On one agency site (PPBH) I found this sentence about the Go Daddy ad: “This is the commercial that we all love to hate, but of course can’t help but talk about.” On another site, one ad executive asked if the ad was meant to be 'purposely bad,' and a paradigm of a new style of advertising with built in errors to engage the public.
Do you see what's wrong with agencies?
Simply put: the Go Daddy spot and the analysis that followed, given by ‘advertising and marketing experts,’ together highlight the absurdity of advertising and agencies. Advertising is meant to be part art and part science... isn’t that what we tell ourselves and our clients? These past few days we’ve seen the man behind the curtain and he ain’t pretty or smart.
A few very clear observations we all should have made:
1. The Go Daddy kissing spot was weak by any measure: not very creative, not well done, average at best. Here’s one way you know this -- all the hype the agency put out about the ad prior to the game tells you that they knew it was ho-hum. They built up the ‘45 minutes of kissing’ with a supermodel in hopes of getting the audience to ‘understand’ the coolness of the concept. Even more telling, a spokesperson for Go Daddy reported the highest level of phone calls ever during the 24-hours after the ad ran. But s/he wouldn't release any numbers (telling those of us in the industry that this is a little white PR lie).
2. The audacity of some ‘experts’ to claim that, “since we’re still talking about the ad it was successful” is damn nonsense. This is the excuse that advertising losers use to keep their jobs and validate their salaries. If, as an industry, we can’t universally ‘condemn’ the ad for being boring, trite and unimaginative (or better yet, a waste of money) -- then we have no standards by which to judge our work. Rather, we are shysters hiding behind a concept of ‘creativity’ that’s as simplistic as saying, “anything that stands out is good.” If that’s the case, then any 10-year-old can be an ad executive or run an agency.
3. Look, it’s essential to stand out, but that alone is nothing more than being a carnival barker. And for any agency to claim success based on this lowest common denominator is ludicrous. You know, you can ‘stand out’ for being exceptionally stupid or exceptionally crass or exceptionally uninformed. In claiming the lowest ground you are as special as another well-endowed pole dancer in Las Vegas.
4. We either have standards or we’re hacks. Either Picasso is a great artist or his work is no better than any first grader. Either “The Sun Also Rises” is great literature or Barbara Cartland and Ernest Hemingway are just two more pulp fiction writers.
5. Anyone who plays devil’s advocate and claims that “the ad might not have been to your taste but it was successful because we’re still talking about it,” is a fool.
C’mon -- successful executives will tell you that in any meeting you should do something to make your presence known. You don’t want to be anonymous in a room. How, then, to accomplish this? Well, one way would be to prepare for the meeting and ask an intelligent question. Fine. You’ve been remembered. Or you could stand on the table and pull down your pants. That would be very unforgettable. And you’d be a Go Daddy advertising jackass or a partner in Deutsch New York. (The agency is still tap dancing about the ad... rule #1 of PR, never admit you might be wrong.)
NOTE: On one agency site (PPBH) I found this sentence about the Go Daddy ad: “This is the commercial that we all love to hate, but of course can’t help but talk about.” On another site, one ad executive asked if the ad was meant to be 'purposely bad,' and a paradigm of a new style of advertising with built in errors to engage the public.
Do you see what's wrong with agencies?
Pornographic Movies and Marketing Have the Same Problem… Too Many Layers, Not Enough Myth
What’s the flaw when it comes to pornographic movies? Layers.
You start with a man and a woman (usually), then things have to escalate. Two women and a man; two women, two men; three women, a young man, an old man and a dwarf. Every subsequent film has to go one better… another layer, ad infinitum.
American movies are the same, which is why they are declining in quality. Start with two murders, one affair and three car chases. Then it escalates: four car chases, two affairs and a dozen killed. Next? 3D slaughter.
Advertisements and marketing are the same: low price, then low, low price, then ridiculously low price, then crazy Eddie… prices so low we’re losing money (and he was, which is why he allegedly sold stolen goods).
I keep arguing that the nature of consumers has changed. Part of that is driven by ads and marketing that pile layer upon pornographic layer until consumers (B2C and B2B) just stop believing anything and everything… and the more you pile on layers of bull, the less they believe (which is one reason why ‘under-produced’ movies, ads and reality TV shows are somehow judged as more ‘honest’).
We pile on pornographic layers with absurd claims and use digital media to promote our work so our porno can be seen in every corner of the online world, whether consumers like it or not.
Pornography and movies have one advantage: they can be seen as fantasy; and as such the unbelievable layers are a bit more tolerated. James Bond can fend off five paid assassins with a duffle bag and we’re OK with that; some couples can keep up with dozens of partners, hour after hour and we’re still OK.
But… then some cosmetic promises instant wrinkle relief or a Dr. Scholls’ insert can help you ‘get your life back’ and we’re suddenly not OK (and advertising and marketing are further relegated to havens for shysters, liars and thieves).
What’s the solution? Marketing/advertising that’s less sophisticated with fewer layers, more depth, more primal themes, and more mythical (archetypical) appeals.
Less sophisticated doesn’t mean dumbed down. That would be like saying that Hemingway’s simple sentences were written for idiots.
And mythical doesn’t mean King Arthur (although it could).
I’m thinking of basic archetypical myths -- the reluctant warrior (Arjuna or Achilles), the long return home (Ulysses, The Prodigal Son, The Searchers, Star Wars), the journey to adulthood (The Graduate, Huckleberry Finn), The Damsel in Distress (look at Tarentino’s Django -- right up front one character tells you about the Siegfried myth of rescuing the woman), 40 days in the desert (Jesus), trial by fire (Job), finding our long, lost love, being perfect mothers and fathers, seeking forgiveness, rediscovering belief, growing old with grace, etc.
These primordial tales are not layered, they are single-mindedly simplistic: one inch wide and one million miles deep… they are poetic (“To be or not to be”), they transcend changing consumer natures and strike (again) at what’s hard-wired.
Marketing and advertising have lost this ‘simple’ depth, preferring to add layer upon layer of (fake) story, CGI, music, fantastic stunts, ridiculous claims and promises that a six-year-old can see through.
No… you’re not going to take this approach for toilet paper. But for anything NEW and GAME CHANGING, primal ideas are ideal.
-The Prodigal Son (or Daughter, these days) who finds his/her way home thanks to the newest smartphone or the next Facebook.
-The young entrepreneur who uses the latest software to start his or her own company that brings down the malevolent giant.
- A new biometric testing unit that allows people to take back control of their healthcare destiny from the medical bureaucracy.
-Look at the iPad ads showing their positive effects on children. What parent can resist that image of giving their offspring an advantage in this cold, cruel world?
-Last year’s Chrysler ad with Clint Eastwood in Detroit (David and Goliath, Rocky).
These single-layered, deeply emotional ads bring immediacy, authenticity, humanity… and the perfect combination of head and heart. They can lodge deep in the personal unconscious where symbols are being made; and the emotional connection with the product itself will be carried along.
This seems to me to be the new way to market and advertise and the only way to overcome consumer boredom, malaise and distrust.
Otherwise, we’re just cynical marketers whose true ancestors are the money changers in the Temple… creating our own marketing and metrics Tower of Babel… following the worst of direct response without style, humanity, emotion or creativity.
But marketers must deal with what’s real, so I’m always cognizant of the dollars.
Creative, mythic themes are a way to break through a crowded, me-too marketplace and align your product with our hard-wired nature so that consumers are happy to buy.
Talk about marketing that sticks, yet doesn’t seem cheap, intrusive or silly. All it takes is a lot of thought, some creativity and a great, honest product…. and, oh yes, dialing it down on the (Hemingway) bullshit meter.
Bad Direct Response Advertising Is Telling You the Truth... If You Listen
We’ve discussed this several times: how it’s best to show what you mean rather than come out and say it. Remember? “If I say I’m cool, I’m not cool; if others say I’m cool, then I am.”
Understanding this simple difference is essential to telling a good story or writing a good ad.
If we’ll listen closely to most DR ads (because most are poorly written these days), we can find out the REAL truth of a product… this idea is Human Nature 101… we intensify and over-compensate for what we fear.
Recall poor Richard Nixon. During the height of the Watergate scandal he went on TV and proclaimed, “I am not a crook!” Surveys showed that a large number of Americans thought he said, “I am a crook.” In fact, that’s what he REALLY said if you listen. His proclamation to the contrary reinforced the very idea he was trying to eliminate.
Here’s what I mean. Recently, I saw a new DR spot for yet another blond, perky, California trainer with a weight loss and exercise plan. Here are a few sentences from the spot.
“This is not like any other program on the market.” They just told you the truth: this IS like every other plan. They’re afraid you’ll see that, so they shout a disclaimer up-front to appear honest and proactive.
“Mary isn’t your average trainer, she’s Hollywood’s most sought after celebrity fitness expert.” The truth? She has no way to standout from the crowd… she knows it; you know it. Again, a bit of preemptive puffery by the writer is thought to be the solution.
“The music behind her program is a new combination of salsa and hip hop that gets you moving.” The truth? You couldn’t tell one of her exercise songs from any number of Zumba-like programs and she knows it.
You see, these DR spots are telling you the truth… just listen. Every time they claim they’re different (rather than showing the difference), you get the TRUTH that they’re very, very afraid of.
“New Wave DR is unlike any agency you’ve ever seen.”
“Our ads are unique and truly creative.”
“Our service is second to none.”
Blah, blah, blah. Read the above as, “average agency, a bit creative with reluctant customer service.”
Understanding this simple difference is essential to telling a good story or writing a good ad.
If we’ll listen closely to most DR ads (because most are poorly written these days), we can find out the REAL truth of a product… this idea is Human Nature 101… we intensify and over-compensate for what we fear.
Recall poor Richard Nixon. During the height of the Watergate scandal he went on TV and proclaimed, “I am not a crook!” Surveys showed that a large number of Americans thought he said, “I am a crook.” In fact, that’s what he REALLY said if you listen. His proclamation to the contrary reinforced the very idea he was trying to eliminate.
Here’s what I mean. Recently, I saw a new DR spot for yet another blond, perky, California trainer with a weight loss and exercise plan. Here are a few sentences from the spot.
“This is not like any other program on the market.” They just told you the truth: this IS like every other plan. They’re afraid you’ll see that, so they shout a disclaimer up-front to appear honest and proactive.
“Mary isn’t your average trainer, she’s Hollywood’s most sought after celebrity fitness expert.” The truth? She has no way to standout from the crowd… she knows it; you know it. Again, a bit of preemptive puffery by the writer is thought to be the solution.
“The music behind her program is a new combination of salsa and hip hop that gets you moving.” The truth? You couldn’t tell one of her exercise songs from any number of Zumba-like programs and she knows it.
You see, these DR spots are telling you the truth… just listen. Every time they claim they’re different (rather than showing the difference), you get the TRUTH that they’re very, very afraid of.
“New Wave DR is unlike any agency you’ve ever seen.”
“Our ads are unique and truly creative.”
“Our service is second to none.”
Blah, blah, blah. Read the above as, “average agency, a bit creative with reluctant customer service.”
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.
Yahoo Lies, If Marissa Mayer Is To Be Believed
One thing about a marketing/branding narrative is that it
must be consistent at its heart. Anything that is out of character, no matter
how small it seems, is a big deal. People sense and dislike inconsistency because it
usually speaks to the heart and soul of a person, a product, a brand. (NOTE: Occasional
breaks with a brand’s look and feel are fine… consider Google’s constantly
changing logo. But there can be no contradiction in core philosophy.)
An aside: you know when you get a feeling about someone you’ve just met? You’re slightly ‘creeped out,’ and you don’t know why… he or she seems fine, looks good but you feel something. Here’s why: The person’s actions and words do not completely match… in some deep way that your subconscious understands. He says X but his eyes say Y; she looks nice but her hands are clenched. What’s creeping you out is this ever so slight inconsistency that subtly screams ‘LIAR.’ To the extreme, the smiling clown who makes you think of John Wayne Gacy.
1. Her insistence on returning to work after two weeks maternity leave is against the corporate spirit of Yahoo. We are an employee-centered organization and we cannot condone our CEO setting such a precedent… one that will be used by unenlightened companies to force parents into quickly returning to work.
On the contrary, we encourage extended maternity leave as a time for parents to bond with their children and enjoy the blessings of bringing a new life into the world.
2. Just as important is Ms. Mayer’s disregard for the primary philosophy of Yahoo. We are an information company built on the idea that users have access to all the data, news and entertainment they need to do their jobs and enjoy their lives. We are also founded on the principle of portability, that is, no matter where or when you need information to do your job you can count on Yahoo. Without this core belief, Yahoo would be nothing more than an entertainment hub and not a source of vital business and marketing information – not to mention being a primary collaborative link for international commerce.
An aside: you know when you get a feeling about someone you’ve just met? You’re slightly ‘creeped out,’ and you don’t know why… he or she seems fine, looks good but you feel something. Here’s why: The person’s actions and words do not completely match… in some deep way that your subconscious understands. He says X but his eyes say Y; she looks nice but her hands are clenched. What’s creeping you out is this ever so slight inconsistency that subtly screams ‘LIAR.’ To the extreme, the smiling clown who makes you think of John Wayne Gacy.
Back to Yahoo.
So the new CEO, Marissa Mayer, has her baby.
Congratulations. Then announces she’s taking just a two-week maternity leave
and back to the office.
I’ve nothing to say about the parental wisdom of that
choice.
But from a corporate/brand point of view, she should be
fired ASAP. Why? She obviously does not understand nor does she believe the
essential philosophy of Yahoo. How, then, can she be its CEO?
Fire her today and put out this story:
The Board of Yahoo has
terminated Marissa Mayer for the following reasons:
1. Her insistence on returning to work after two weeks maternity leave is against the corporate spirit of Yahoo. We are an employee-centered organization and we cannot condone our CEO setting such a precedent… one that will be used by unenlightened companies to force parents into quickly returning to work.
On the contrary, we encourage extended maternity leave as a time for parents to bond with their children and enjoy the blessings of bringing a new life into the world.
2. Just as important is Ms. Mayer’s disregard for the primary philosophy of Yahoo. We are an information company built on the idea that users have access to all the data, news and entertainment they need to do their jobs and enjoy their lives. We are also founded on the principle of portability, that is, no matter where or when you need information to do your job you can count on Yahoo. Without this core belief, Yahoo would be nothing more than an entertainment hub and not a source of vital business and marketing information – not to mention being a primary collaborative link for international commerce.
Ms. Mayer’s
insistence on returning to work belies our structure. In essence, her actions
call into question our basic philosophy. Logically, she’s saying that she can’t
access all the information she needs; she can’t do serious work with Yahoo; and
the idea of portable, accessible information is a lie.
Judging
by Ms. Mayer’s actions, we can only conclude that she does not at all believe
in the promise of Yahoo.
This
being the case, she is terminated immediately.
(Am I the only one who noticed this glaring,
amazing, ignorant inconsistency?)
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: 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: Bring All You Have and All You Are to the Table
I believe that marketing, like writing, is an activity that
requires you to bring all you are, all that you have to the table. That’s what
I love about both.
This is a difficult idea to get across quickly but I’ll give
it a shot.
If I say to a varied group of students in a basic writing
class, “Write a few paragraphs describing your favorite person,” I might expect to get
a very different essay from, say, a 20-year-old single woman born and raised in
Georgia and a 55-year-old-married man from Liberia. (I did have these two
students in one of my classes at Georgia Perimeter College.)
That makes sense, right? Two vastly different people should
produce two very different essays.
It doesn't work that way.
As an adjunct professor for 12 years I can tell you that the stories will be amazingly and disappointingly similar and trite. “My favorite person is my wife (boyfriend). She (he) is always there for me and loves me for who I am.”
As an adjunct professor for 12 years I can tell you that the stories will be amazingly and disappointingly similar and trite. “My favorite person is my wife (boyfriend). She (he) is always there for me and loves me for who I am.”
The problem? These two students didn’t bring all they are to
the job. There’s no ethnic, cultural or personal detail... nothing about family or city of
birth or life experience. Instead, they turned in what was expected, what they
heard on TV last night, what they’ve written in other classes.
It takes courage to bring all you are to the table because
if an instructor (or client) critiques the essay (or advertisement), he or she seems to be criticizing you at
a deep, personal level. Plus, most people wrongly believe that their lives are
uninteresting and unimportant. So why would you write about the details?
Same for products and brands.
I have worked with dozens of companies and hundreds of
marketing people (oops, ‘executives’). When I suggest that they say something
unique about a product, they reject the idea. Out of fear, I suppose… but also out
of the same false belief as my example students: our stuff is not really that new or
that interesting. And what if someone criticizes us… says we’re not what we
claim we are… how will we defend ourselves?
I am from Pittsburgh. A lower middle class ethnic
neighborhood of Italians and Lebanese. I spent eight years in college studying
American Culture and 20 years as a musician, 10 of those years on the road. I
love Pittsburgh sports teams, read a lot of literature and try to understand quantum
physics. When I get angry I curse enough to make a sailor blush. Through my
teen years the daily greeting among friends wasn't "Hi, how are you?", it was 'What the f, mother f?' (You
can’t make this stuff up.)
So guess what? I’m an aggressive marketer. I sometimes
‘hate’ the f—ing competition… I love assertive direct response, but after
reading great literature the copy/story has to be logical and a bit sophisticated. More often than not,
I’ll use a literary style and even break into the poetic (because I’ve studied
a lot of Modernists like Eliot and Pound). And it will all be framed in
a perverse sense of gallows humor that comes from spending 10 years 24/7 with
cynical musicians. I can cut like a knife if provoked.
That’s what I bring to the table with every ad, every
marketing piece, everytime. It’s unavoidable for me... as it should be for you.
Look, your style won’t be applicable for every job… there
are some marketing tasks you just won't do well… and your style should never
overpower the product. But you should be able to see yourself in the work… in the
insights you bring and the stories you tell… stories that come from your unique
combination of upbringing, schooling and life experiences. Otherwise, you’re
just like every other schmuck who loves his significant other because he or she is
“there for you.”
[If you can’t bring everything you are to the table, try
B2B. It takes very little to write copy or develop a campaign that basically says,
“We’re pretty good, just like our competitors.”]
Think Don Draper. He killed his superior
officer by accidentally setting him on fire. Later, when asked to come up with a tag line for
a tobacco company, Don offered: ‘Lucky Strike… It’s Toasted’. (Don’t tell me
Mad Men isn’t the funniest show on TV.)
The Prufrockian question that all marketers must ask is
this: “Do I dare disturb the universe?”
F-ing right you dare. Go Steelers.
F-ing right you dare. Go Steelers.
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
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.)
Hey Volkswagen, listen up: deceptive dealer offers make lifetime customers hate you!
It’s amazing how so many companies have no idea of a customer's lifetime value. That number is generally greater than you think, particularly
for products that aren’t commodities. The value is so high, in fact, you
really shouldn’t risk it for short-term marketing stunts.
Yet, companies do this time and time and time again.
In search of response rates, marketers try tricks and deceptive tactics to get customers to react, and then believe that the 10% response they ‘achieved’ was a rousing success. Meanwhile, customers who have already spent thousands with you are walking away, never to return.
Case in point, a recent visit to Volkswagen (SouthTowne dealership in Salt Lake). I own a 2002 Jetta – I know, poor me. The car is not one of VW’s best. Electrical problems abound, among other things. Everyone knows this. Before this Jetta I have owned two other VWs. My lifetime value to them is pretty high. So, I receive a letter saying that VW is buying back 1999 – 2002 Jettas – offering to pay the basic MSRP when the car was new if customers will buy a new or used car.
I know it’s a gaffe – but part of me, sucker that I am, thinks that maybe, just maybe, VW wants these cars off the road. After all, the newer models are superior and every time a potential VW buyer sees my car, s/he thinks, “VW made a mess of that model.” My car is bad advertising.
In the past, the way car dealerships rigged this kind of offer was by deducting for every ding and dent and problem. Of course, this model has problems beyond belief. But the offer from SouthTowne VW says the only deduction will be for mileage. Remember, we’re talking 1999 – 2002 models so there will be at least 50,000 miles on any Jetta that comes in – that’s less than 5,000 miles a year.
So what’s the catch?
The deduction VW takes is the IRS standard mileage deduction. OK, you already see the hook. That amount is 42 cents per mile. So let’s do the math. A car with 50,000 miles – again minimal for this age – retailed for $16,800. VW offers me that, minus 50,000 x .42. The result? Deduct $21,000 from $16,800. Oops. I owe them money… they see the car as worthless, but will still offer me ‘something.’
The insult is the 42 cents per mile deduction is calculated by IRS to include the cost of the car, depreciation, insurance, repairs and gasoline. What does the cost of gasoline have to do with the value of a VW? Nothing. They know it and assume you don’t. “This is the standard deduction,” Randy the salesman rants. Like his hands are tied by the IRS.
It’s just a flat out carnival trick by VW: like guessing someone’s weight for a fee of $5, then offering him or her a prize that’s worth $2 if you're wrong. The house wins either way.
As a marketer I went to VW just to see how they would pull their cheap, slick rabbit from a hat. (Plus, IKEA is on the way.) Now I know.
Bottom line: that marketing stunt cost them a lifetime customer. I will not ever return to the dealership, nor will I ever consider another VW. Ever. Case closed.
So while their marketing consultant is talking about a high response rate, VW corporate ought to be thinking about how many customers have been chased away… forever. In my case, future business was worth at least one more VW (I love the new Golf), which includes the $20K cost (at least) plus service for the life of the car, etc.
Somewhere in Deutschland a VW bean counter is wondering why they can’t grow the brand in America.
All the while, the 'marketers' at SouthTowne are patting themselves on the back for a scheme that went so very well.
Yet, companies do this time and time and time again.
In search of response rates, marketers try tricks and deceptive tactics to get customers to react, and then believe that the 10% response they ‘achieved’ was a rousing success. Meanwhile, customers who have already spent thousands with you are walking away, never to return.
Case in point, a recent visit to Volkswagen (SouthTowne dealership in Salt Lake). I own a 2002 Jetta – I know, poor me. The car is not one of VW’s best. Electrical problems abound, among other things. Everyone knows this. Before this Jetta I have owned two other VWs. My lifetime value to them is pretty high. So, I receive a letter saying that VW is buying back 1999 – 2002 Jettas – offering to pay the basic MSRP when the car was new if customers will buy a new or used car.
I know it’s a gaffe – but part of me, sucker that I am, thinks that maybe, just maybe, VW wants these cars off the road. After all, the newer models are superior and every time a potential VW buyer sees my car, s/he thinks, “VW made a mess of that model.” My car is bad advertising.
In the past, the way car dealerships rigged this kind of offer was by deducting for every ding and dent and problem. Of course, this model has problems beyond belief. But the offer from SouthTowne VW says the only deduction will be for mileage. Remember, we’re talking 1999 – 2002 models so there will be at least 50,000 miles on any Jetta that comes in – that’s less than 5,000 miles a year.
So what’s the catch?
The deduction VW takes is the IRS standard mileage deduction. OK, you already see the hook. That amount is 42 cents per mile. So let’s do the math. A car with 50,000 miles – again minimal for this age – retailed for $16,800. VW offers me that, minus 50,000 x .42. The result? Deduct $21,000 from $16,800. Oops. I owe them money… they see the car as worthless, but will still offer me ‘something.’
The insult is the 42 cents per mile deduction is calculated by IRS to include the cost of the car, depreciation, insurance, repairs and gasoline. What does the cost of gasoline have to do with the value of a VW? Nothing. They know it and assume you don’t. “This is the standard deduction,” Randy the salesman rants. Like his hands are tied by the IRS.
It’s just a flat out carnival trick by VW: like guessing someone’s weight for a fee of $5, then offering him or her a prize that’s worth $2 if you're wrong. The house wins either way.
As a marketer I went to VW just to see how they would pull their cheap, slick rabbit from a hat. (Plus, IKEA is on the way.) Now I know.
Bottom line: that marketing stunt cost them a lifetime customer. I will not ever return to the dealership, nor will I ever consider another VW. Ever. Case closed.
So while their marketing consultant is talking about a high response rate, VW corporate ought to be thinking about how many customers have been chased away… forever. In my case, future business was worth at least one more VW (I love the new Golf), which includes the $20K cost (at least) plus service for the life of the car, etc.
Somewhere in Deutschland a VW bean counter is wondering why they can’t grow the brand in America.
All the while, the 'marketers' at SouthTowne are patting themselves on the back for a scheme that went so very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)