In the brave new frontier of marketing online, there are difficult lines to walk. Business are currently blogging, facebooking, tweeting, podcasting, vlogcasting, and using just about any other social medium they can get their hands on, which is great. One of the basic rules of advertising is that you have to be where your customer is, and let's face it, nearly everyone is online now. Add to that the enticement of how many web-based social mediums are "free", and for many companies, the idea looks like a goldmine... but there can be issues if one isn't smart about it.
For me, the issue comes when you focus on simply making impressions, with little thought given to the medium you're using or the customer expectation. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and other sites were born of a complete social intention. People join to socialize, whether finding old friends, discovering new bands, or let everyone else know the small inane details of your life through 140 character mini-blogs. It is meant to socialize from anywhere to anyone.
Sure, various forms of company promotions have always lurked in the corners of these sites, be it through paid banner ads or company profiles, but the average user isn't into that. Banner ads are distracting bits of fluff that no matter how targeted, can still get on the users nerves more than they can educate them about a product or business, but despite its shortcomings, it can still be a useful tool in advertising that users have come to accept.
But the hot button issue as of late has been using social media to advertise directly. Companies, colleges and universities, musicians, artists, actors, talk shows, and others have begun to use these very popular sites to promote their activities through traditional profile use, and this is where things can get sticky. The problem being, there is little attention paid to the intent of the networking site, and a larger emphasis on just getting stuff out there.If not handled thoughtfully, your company's online social blitz can end up hurting your business more than helping it. Those using social sites may end up categorizing your advertisements with bad offers for prescriptions by mail and porn websites, and typically, this might not be the company you want to keep in the hearts and minds of potential customers.
So what do you do?
It is my belief that you CAN effectively use these social networking sites if your company is capable of obeying a few rules of the road.
Rule 1: Be honest. Don't claim that you're just a random guy who really likes some major conglomerate when in truth you are a major conglomerate and that's the only reason you are there, and all you intend on talking about. The online user has become instinctually suspicious and will find out the truth. It is better if a person walks away having no impression of you than if they walk away feeling lied to and betrayed... and yes, many will take it personally. Instead, just speak truthfully, and don't try to hide your angle.
Rule 2: Find your voice. This is trickier than it might sound. Even if you have a well-defined brand personality, the voice you choose to use can shift depending on the site you're using. Sites with blogging capabilities, like myspace, may allow you to be more expository in your entries, where Twitter caps your entries at 140 characters. Facebook, for instance is a little trickier. Certain capabilities, like notes, allow you to write all you want, but that doesn't mean you should. Those who would even look for your updates will only see the first few lines, and if they're bored by what those lines have to offer, they'll never know anything more. And remember, even if they know you’re a company, they're still there largely to socialize, and if you're not playing along, you're out. Remember that you're upright business letter voice may simply be really boring, and that doesn't help anyone.
Rule 3: Respect the site. It is highly recommended that you don't try to build or voice a company profile until you've tried to maintain a personal profile. If nothing else, it's a quick way to learn all the ways you can fail in connecting. Tweetblasting a story because their just weren't enough characters to cover the subject in one can be considered a major taboo, and once it happens to your page, you'll understand why. Another Tweet taboo is simply doing it too much. No matter how interesting you are, no one wants to read 10 new updates in 7 minutes from you. You can also learn how many apps are too many apps, or what sort of junk mail wall posts are acceptable and which are simply really annoying. Remember, the intent is to connect, not blitz.
Rule 4: The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Expect to give if you want to get. Mutual Twitter followings and Facebook friendings are to be anticipated. These things can be difficult to maintain, since especially online you may not want to be judged by the company you keep, but not reciprocating actions only makes you look like you're anti-social, and no one wants that.
Rule 5: Remember life exists beyond the online. If you try to hole up with social networks, people will eventually fail to see the benefit of staying connected. Try to connect to real, tangible pieces of life where you can. Musicians post pictures of shows. Companies host giveaways, authors offer written snippets of unreleased work. Unless you are "Tom" of Myspace, the owners of Facebook, or the inventor of some other social network innovation, your business is NOT social networking, so connect the dots for those who don't know you.
Rule 6: Be prepared to adapt and change. It is the online world, and it is moving fast. Most of us simply do our best to ride the tides of online connection trends, and that's fine. Just realize what you have now may not be the right fit in six months, and you cannot get complacent.
Rule 7: Mistakes happen. So your tweet has a misspelling. If it doesn’t ruin the meaning of the tweet, get over it. Others may disagree with you or post thoughts that are better than yours. That’s OK too. But the more rigid you get, the more likely you are to seem disingenuous, and that’s about as bad as you can get. In fact, it may be healthy to offer some dissent within reason.
So there it is.
Remember, in the end, you have to keep social media sociable if you want it to connect and succeed.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Don't spill your guts.
When trying to explain branding, many people choose to compare a company to a person. The brand can then be equated to what a person chooses to wear, how they style their hair, how they choose to speak, and what they are most anxious to talk about. It is what can draw someone from the outside world to interact with you, and part of what encourages them to choose to spend time with you, even to the extent of investing themselves.
I like this parallel, but over the last few months I've noticed a disturbing trend in this line of thought. Spilling your guts.
Since the beginning of the recession, many people have demanded that companies become more transparent in their dealings. And that's fine, especially for stockholders or those embroiled in the political process, but it can be a little much for the average consumer.
Think of it in the realm of the person parallel. There is a clear line that should be drawn when you're trying to pull people in to determine what is appropriate and what is not. Here are some examples of how to think of it in the personal parallel...
Your company realizes that people don't trust you because your former management has made bone-headed choices that have become very public.
To tell them: "We're commited to you, and we got new management and CEOs who will stick by you." is roughly the equivalent of saying "I know I betrayed you before and stole your car, but I had brain surgery and won't do it again."
It's disturbing and way too much information. It does nothing to actually validate how a person feels about being betrayed before.
Instead, a smart message might be: "We're commited to you, and to prove it we're offering to back you up with this exclusive warrenty in case you come upon hard times." which is pretty much the same as saying "I know I screwed up before in borrowing your car, but I'm going to be your personal chauffeur until we get this all sorted and I earn your trust back." There is less personal information offered and it becomes about projecting outward, not on bothersome inward issues.
Let's face it, we've all known that person who doesn't seem to know when it is appropriate to stop sharing information. You ask them how their day was, and though you're not that close, they go into every small detail from their most recent medical proceedure to the rotten apple they bit into at lunch yesterday. It is not the person most people are drawn too in a social situation. That being said, it might be important information if you're thinking about marrying them... but the important idea is that you have to identify what level of sharing your consumer might be comfortable with... and most consumers are self-involved. If it isn't really about them, then it is hard to hold their attention.
A Colorado commercial icon, American Furniture Warehouse, has aired commercials starring owner Jake Jabs for years. In them, he has always shown off the latest furniture deals, and usually somehow ended up wrestling a tiger or riding a water buffalo through a showroom. They've been airing spots like these almost my whole life. But a couple of months ago, they changed.
Jake Jabb got on the air to assure people that American Furniture Warehouse was going to survive the recession, and then took it a step further in mentioning they were more likely to survive because they were privately held, didn't have a board of directors, owned all of their property, didn't have a private plane, and wouldn't be putting their name on a NASCAR racecar.
The people equivalent of this is Jake Jab coming up and saying, "Hi! I hope you'll let me work for you, and I'm not going anywhere if you don't want to. Why? Because I'm healthy!" At which point he begins removing internal organs from his body and slapping them up on the counter to demonstrate just how healthy he is.
That's called spilling your guts, people, and no one wants to see that. It doesn't sell anything, it doesn't calm anyone's mind enough to encourage them to purchase something, and quite frankly, its disturbing and unforgetable.
So the next time you're trying to figure out how to drawn in stakeholders, think carefully about the person they would most want to be involved with, and communicate with them on that level. Do not overshare.
I like this parallel, but over the last few months I've noticed a disturbing trend in this line of thought. Spilling your guts.
Since the beginning of the recession, many people have demanded that companies become more transparent in their dealings. And that's fine, especially for stockholders or those embroiled in the political process, but it can be a little much for the average consumer.
Think of it in the realm of the person parallel. There is a clear line that should be drawn when you're trying to pull people in to determine what is appropriate and what is not. Here are some examples of how to think of it in the personal parallel...
Your company realizes that people don't trust you because your former management has made bone-headed choices that have become very public.
To tell them: "We're commited to you, and we got new management and CEOs who will stick by you." is roughly the equivalent of saying "I know I betrayed you before and stole your car, but I had brain surgery and won't do it again."
It's disturbing and way too much information. It does nothing to actually validate how a person feels about being betrayed before.
Instead, a smart message might be: "We're commited to you, and to prove it we're offering to back you up with this exclusive warrenty in case you come upon hard times." which is pretty much the same as saying "I know I screwed up before in borrowing your car, but I'm going to be your personal chauffeur until we get this all sorted and I earn your trust back." There is less personal information offered and it becomes about projecting outward, not on bothersome inward issues.
Let's face it, we've all known that person who doesn't seem to know when it is appropriate to stop sharing information. You ask them how their day was, and though you're not that close, they go into every small detail from their most recent medical proceedure to the rotten apple they bit into at lunch yesterday. It is not the person most people are drawn too in a social situation. That being said, it might be important information if you're thinking about marrying them... but the important idea is that you have to identify what level of sharing your consumer might be comfortable with... and most consumers are self-involved. If it isn't really about them, then it is hard to hold their attention.
A Colorado commercial icon, American Furniture Warehouse, has aired commercials starring owner Jake Jabs for years. In them, he has always shown off the latest furniture deals, and usually somehow ended up wrestling a tiger or riding a water buffalo through a showroom. They've been airing spots like these almost my whole life. But a couple of months ago, they changed.
Jake Jabb got on the air to assure people that American Furniture Warehouse was going to survive the recession, and then took it a step further in mentioning they were more likely to survive because they were privately held, didn't have a board of directors, owned all of their property, didn't have a private plane, and wouldn't be putting their name on a NASCAR racecar.
The people equivalent of this is Jake Jab coming up and saying, "Hi! I hope you'll let me work for you, and I'm not going anywhere if you don't want to. Why? Because I'm healthy!" At which point he begins removing internal organs from his body and slapping them up on the counter to demonstrate just how healthy he is.
That's called spilling your guts, people, and no one wants to see that. It doesn't sell anything, it doesn't calm anyone's mind enough to encourage them to purchase something, and quite frankly, its disturbing and unforgetable.
So the next time you're trying to figure out how to drawn in stakeholders, think carefully about the person they would most want to be involved with, and communicate with them on that level. Do not overshare.
Monday, March 30, 2009
What’s in a name? Sometimes, it’s everything.
When it comes to brand equity, nothing carries as much weight as the company name. Second to that is usually either the product name or a tagline. At my last job I was fortunate enough to participate in several tagline sessions and one naming session, where the top minds available would work together to come up a small set of words that were at once catchy, informative, memorable, and accurate.
But in coming up with these words, each group took on an inherent risk. Good or bad, the way these phrases were to be interpreted would be linked to much of the marketing success of the company involved, and through a very thoughtful process, we had never hit an unfortunate speed bump. But this isn’t always true in the marketing world, and sometimes what seems to be a brilliant name or tagline can end up having an unfortunate impact on a company’s bottom line.
I had originally intended to write about the attempted image overhaul of dishwashing products Electrasol and Jet-dry into a single product line called “Finish”. It struck me as strange that a company might attempt to abandon the equity established in the product names so quickly, and even though they are doing a pretty complete job of addressing the change-over, it still struck me that it would take a lot of time, energy and money to rebuild the strength of such recognizable names.
But then something even more unfortunate happened, and I realized it would make for a much better story.
In Denver, TV station KWGN has been named and renamed several times in the last dozen or so years. First it was known simply as “Channel 2”, but then it was bought out by Warner Brothers and became known as “WB2”. Eventually the WB backed out of the venture, and it eventually gave rise to “CW2”, which seemed fine enough, except for an ever-revolving door of logos. But within the last month, plans were revealed to launch a new name for the station. Commercials featuring the local broadcasters tried to build excitement for the name, constantly reminding (perhaps warning) viewers of a key phrase…
“The Deuce is coming”.
Yes, KWGN will now be known as "The Deuce". Now, while it’s fair that the word “Deuce” is simply another word for 2, the station probably should have investigated more heavily into the possible interpretations of the world. Some people may infer poker reference from it. Others may simply see the number two. But another popular slang usage of the word means poop, and for some people with a less mature sense of humor, that’s going to be the interpretation that sticks. Suddenly certain catch phrases that the station tries to lob into advertising takes on a very bad meaning. I’ve already seen spots promising that “The Deuce is coming”, “The Deuce is going to be hot”, and that “The Deuce is going to be huge”. Suddenly people are snickering at the simple request to “Watch The Deuce”, and while you would wish people would just grow up and get over it, there isn’t enough marketing dollars in the world to constantly evade the… Deuce storm… that will inevitably arise.
Let’s face it. Poop jokes may not be classy, but they do have a lasting quality in the minds of certain stakeholders.
The point being, renaming may seem an easy way to generate new interest and excitement for your brand, but it has to be done carefully, first considering what you could lose in the way of dropping the old name, and second with a very complete examination of what the new name can mean.
Even now as I am reconsidering my re-entry into the marketing work force in favor of continuing my education, I am forced to reevaluate the purpose and worth of this blog. While it’s something I enjoy doing, it simply may not be achieving the goals I have set forth for it, and if I am to step away from marketing as the primary drive behind this blog, I will have to consider its name and aim.
Fortunately “Jason’s Creative Strategy” is something that applies to all walks of my life, and therefore, no matter how the emphasis may evolve, the bolg may retain its name… for whatever value it may have now.
But more to come on that later.
But in coming up with these words, each group took on an inherent risk. Good or bad, the way these phrases were to be interpreted would be linked to much of the marketing success of the company involved, and through a very thoughtful process, we had never hit an unfortunate speed bump. But this isn’t always true in the marketing world, and sometimes what seems to be a brilliant name or tagline can end up having an unfortunate impact on a company’s bottom line.
I had originally intended to write about the attempted image overhaul of dishwashing products Electrasol and Jet-dry into a single product line called “Finish”. It struck me as strange that a company might attempt to abandon the equity established in the product names so quickly, and even though they are doing a pretty complete job of addressing the change-over, it still struck me that it would take a lot of time, energy and money to rebuild the strength of such recognizable names.
But then something even more unfortunate happened, and I realized it would make for a much better story.
In Denver, TV station KWGN has been named and renamed several times in the last dozen or so years. First it was known simply as “Channel 2”, but then it was bought out by Warner Brothers and became known as “WB2”. Eventually the WB backed out of the venture, and it eventually gave rise to “CW2”, which seemed fine enough, except for an ever-revolving door of logos. But within the last month, plans were revealed to launch a new name for the station. Commercials featuring the local broadcasters tried to build excitement for the name, constantly reminding (perhaps warning) viewers of a key phrase…
“The Deuce is coming”.
Yes, KWGN will now be known as "The Deuce". Now, while it’s fair that the word “Deuce” is simply another word for 2, the station probably should have investigated more heavily into the possible interpretations of the world. Some people may infer poker reference from it. Others may simply see the number two. But another popular slang usage of the word means poop, and for some people with a less mature sense of humor, that’s going to be the interpretation that sticks. Suddenly certain catch phrases that the station tries to lob into advertising takes on a very bad meaning. I’ve already seen spots promising that “The Deuce is coming”, “The Deuce is going to be hot”, and that “The Deuce is going to be huge”. Suddenly people are snickering at the simple request to “Watch The Deuce”, and while you would wish people would just grow up and get over it, there isn’t enough marketing dollars in the world to constantly evade the… Deuce storm… that will inevitably arise.
Let’s face it. Poop jokes may not be classy, but they do have a lasting quality in the minds of certain stakeholders.
The point being, renaming may seem an easy way to generate new interest and excitement for your brand, but it has to be done carefully, first considering what you could lose in the way of dropping the old name, and second with a very complete examination of what the new name can mean.
Even now as I am reconsidering my re-entry into the marketing work force in favor of continuing my education, I am forced to reevaluate the purpose and worth of this blog. While it’s something I enjoy doing, it simply may not be achieving the goals I have set forth for it, and if I am to step away from marketing as the primary drive behind this blog, I will have to consider its name and aim.
Fortunately “Jason’s Creative Strategy” is something that applies to all walks of my life, and therefore, no matter how the emphasis may evolve, the bolg may retain its name… for whatever value it may have now.
But more to come on that later.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
More acts of self-promotion
In classical thinking, it's good to have a product before you begin promotion. After all, what's the point of generating a buzz if you have nothing to offer the consumer directly? But in this day and age, the rule doesn't always hold true. In fact, for many products to see the light of day, companies have to see if it is capable of generating a buzz first.
As some people might know, I have spent the last few months not only monitoring trends in marketing and advertising, but also producing a book. It's a full length novel with a new take on vampires that I've been kicking around for years but only recently finished. As such, I'm now staring down the business end of the book, hoping to find the appropriate resources to get it to the next level... and one of those steps includes practicing my ability to talk about it.
As such, I getting infront of the microphone tomorrow for an interview on the Metro State radio show "Issue at hand". We'll be talking about my book "Forever Falling", and maybe a few other topics.
If you're curious to hear about it, you can stream the broadcast online at metradio.mscd.edu and we'll be on a 2pm MST.
Then feel free to drop a note here and let me know what you think.
Here's to shameless self-promotion, and being the buzz!
As some people might know, I have spent the last few months not only monitoring trends in marketing and advertising, but also producing a book. It's a full length novel with a new take on vampires that I've been kicking around for years but only recently finished. As such, I'm now staring down the business end of the book, hoping to find the appropriate resources to get it to the next level... and one of those steps includes practicing my ability to talk about it.
As such, I getting infront of the microphone tomorrow for an interview on the Metro State radio show "Issue at hand". We'll be talking about my book "Forever Falling", and maybe a few other topics.
If you're curious to hear about it, you can stream the broadcast online at metradio.mscd.edu and we'll be on a 2pm MST.
Then feel free to drop a note here and let me know what you think.
Here's to shameless self-promotion, and being the buzz!
Monday, March 2, 2009
The NFL, PR and some of my other favorite abbreviations
This week marked the opening for free agency in the NFL. As an avid fan, especially of the Denver Broncos, I have paid close attention as the signing period can have a major influence on the following season. For those who are less familiar, it’s an even bigger deal in Denver this year because long time coach Mike Shanahan was released and replaced by former New England Patriots offensive coordinator, Josh McDaniels. Such a change in the leadership of an organization leaves many questions to be answered, and free agency is one of the earlier peeks into what a new coaching regime is going to bring to the table.
By now, some of you may be saying “Jason, this is a blog on marketing. Where are you going with this?”
Well, the answer is simple. The NFL, in the end, is a business. A franchise’s success depends largely on the revenue it can generate, and as such, the sport also faces many of the same problems businesses face. Yes, the players bloated salaries may not reflect anything of the common employee, but the basics are still the same. And if a team is not careful, it can fall victim to common business problems.
The Denver Broncos are now falling into such a problem. Last weekend, the press (which has become more and more intrusive into behind closed door dealings, as is true with any industry) got wind of story that involved the Broncos possibly trading away their quarterback, Jay Cutler. Cutler has been breaking records and was recognized for his accomplishments with an invitation to the NFL Probowl last year. Many Denverites saw him to be a continuing fixture in this team, and so the word that he may be traded came as a blow to many, including Cutler himself. The trade did not end up happening, and the level of the Broncos interest in actually going through with it remains a large matter of speculation, but the damage was done.
This is where the marketing issues came in.
The sensational idea of this story was enough to inspire the imagination of writers around the league. Rumors began to spiral out of control, and the fans (the NFL’s key stakeholders and primary target audience) were impacted. Denver fans in particular felt a large amount of anger, confusion, and disappointment in the new staff members, their confidence in the new management obviously shook. Add to that, Jay Cutler began to issue comments to the press that he still felt like the team wanted to do away with him and that he was hurt by such a ploy.
A visit out to the Denver Broncos site yielded no information from the team itself, and both Coach McDaniels and General Manager Brian Xanders only made passive statements to the press that they were not going to trade away Cutler. It is also worth mentioning that many season ticket purchases become finalized on the opening weekend of free agency. This means big business for the franchise, but having such controversy cannot possibly help the bottom line.
And here lies the key. The time of passive PR in any business is over. News agencies are equally content to publish speculation as they are facts, bloggers with wild opinions and unjustified credentials are now being quoted as “quality sources”, and still, these points of view can and will impact your bottom line if not addressed in a pro-active fashion. Everything in your organization can find its way to the public spotlight in a matter of moments. It’s the new way of the world, and from the White House’s stimulus package to small business ventures, we see that “transparency” is the key buzzword, but more than that, it is a form of public representation meant to curtail the tidal wave of speculation that can rule the airwaves now and damage a company’s credibility and profitability.
Someone once told me “Be willing to speak your own truth, or someone else will speak it for you”, and those words seem to ring true now. While I remain hopeful that my favorite team will work out its own problems, the fact is, a bad business decision of not handling the press directly will continue to haunt the team through the off-season, and perhaps beyond. Investing a little effort into a more open PR structure could have saved the team some money, and a lot of internal and external anguish.
Go Broncos. I hope.
By now, some of you may be saying “Jason, this is a blog on marketing. Where are you going with this?”
Well, the answer is simple. The NFL, in the end, is a business. A franchise’s success depends largely on the revenue it can generate, and as such, the sport also faces many of the same problems businesses face. Yes, the players bloated salaries may not reflect anything of the common employee, but the basics are still the same. And if a team is not careful, it can fall victim to common business problems.
The Denver Broncos are now falling into such a problem. Last weekend, the press (which has become more and more intrusive into behind closed door dealings, as is true with any industry) got wind of story that involved the Broncos possibly trading away their quarterback, Jay Cutler. Cutler has been breaking records and was recognized for his accomplishments with an invitation to the NFL Probowl last year. Many Denverites saw him to be a continuing fixture in this team, and so the word that he may be traded came as a blow to many, including Cutler himself. The trade did not end up happening, and the level of the Broncos interest in actually going through with it remains a large matter of speculation, but the damage was done.
This is where the marketing issues came in.
The sensational idea of this story was enough to inspire the imagination of writers around the league. Rumors began to spiral out of control, and the fans (the NFL’s key stakeholders and primary target audience) were impacted. Denver fans in particular felt a large amount of anger, confusion, and disappointment in the new staff members, their confidence in the new management obviously shook. Add to that, Jay Cutler began to issue comments to the press that he still felt like the team wanted to do away with him and that he was hurt by such a ploy.
A visit out to the Denver Broncos site yielded no information from the team itself, and both Coach McDaniels and General Manager Brian Xanders only made passive statements to the press that they were not going to trade away Cutler. It is also worth mentioning that many season ticket purchases become finalized on the opening weekend of free agency. This means big business for the franchise, but having such controversy cannot possibly help the bottom line.
And here lies the key. The time of passive PR in any business is over. News agencies are equally content to publish speculation as they are facts, bloggers with wild opinions and unjustified credentials are now being quoted as “quality sources”, and still, these points of view can and will impact your bottom line if not addressed in a pro-active fashion. Everything in your organization can find its way to the public spotlight in a matter of moments. It’s the new way of the world, and from the White House’s stimulus package to small business ventures, we see that “transparency” is the key buzzword, but more than that, it is a form of public representation meant to curtail the tidal wave of speculation that can rule the airwaves now and damage a company’s credibility and profitability.
Someone once told me “Be willing to speak your own truth, or someone else will speak it for you”, and those words seem to ring true now. While I remain hopeful that my favorite team will work out its own problems, the fact is, a bad business decision of not handling the press directly will continue to haunt the team through the off-season, and perhaps beyond. Investing a little effort into a more open PR structure could have saved the team some money, and a lot of internal and external anguish.
Go Broncos. I hope.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Here's to the storytellers...
While watching the Oscars last night, I was struck by something said. No, it had nothing to do with the pronouncement of winners (though I have my own questions concerning that). During a montage leading up to the award for best documentary, a director (I believe it was Werner Herzog who was nominated for “Encounters at the End of the World”, but don’t quote me) indicated that modern technology had enabled almost anyone the ability to shoot a film, so as time continues on, it becomes ever so much more important that you have a good story.
I couldn’t agree with him more, and I’m afraid this sentiment isn’t limited to film industry. With the ever continuing trend of technological innovations allowing an end user to become more effective and professional looking with minimal background and training, the resulting marketplace “noise” has increased by leaps and bounds. Anyone can endeavor to make their message and work heard, and so the actual ability to connect effectively has invariably become diminished.
On the other end of this train of thought is the current economic climate. Businesses struggle to make it through their own budget requirements, and this has resulted in a belt-tightening across the board. As I’ve mentioned in previous blogs, it’s almost inevitable that when budgets are being reviewed, one of the first areas people look to hack into is marketing and advertising. Since it is seen by many as a secondary product of their business, promotion dollars are easily pulled to the side in an effort to maintain more “primary expenses”.
This logic, of course, is flawed. The fact of the matter is, no product or service is capable of selling itself. In an increasingly competitive marketplace, one has to get out there, and be heard in a manner effective enough to sell. But this brings me back to the earlier point that with any individual now being empowered to reach out and touch the world, the resulting cacophony your ads are competing against means that there is a larger chance to be drowned out. So there is a chance that even if you maintain advertising dollars, they won’t be effective in the modern landscape, and you’re not only competing against direct competition, but every other bit of fluff, personal rambling, "clip of the day" and of course, the corporate giants who can spend more for a single ad than you’ll have available in an entire flight. Targeted advertising only helps to a degree, but even there, your competition is doing the same. So what is one to do?
The key is in your story.
This may or may not mean your company history, or a list of accomplishments and attributes. What it does include is a consistent, well-focused voice, and messaging able to cut through the surrounding muck to connect with the person who is willing to buy. Despite the overcrowding of the various media, there is a rare portion of the population that is truly able to tell that story effectively. If you can’t easily think of who that person is in your employ, or have one under contract, then it won’t matter how much money you throw into advertising. Effective communication, and by proxy, effective communicators are becoming a commodity in a world where everyone can have a voice, and most people have increasingly little to say.
I couldn’t agree with him more, and I’m afraid this sentiment isn’t limited to film industry. With the ever continuing trend of technological innovations allowing an end user to become more effective and professional looking with minimal background and training, the resulting marketplace “noise” has increased by leaps and bounds. Anyone can endeavor to make their message and work heard, and so the actual ability to connect effectively has invariably become diminished.
On the other end of this train of thought is the current economic climate. Businesses struggle to make it through their own budget requirements, and this has resulted in a belt-tightening across the board. As I’ve mentioned in previous blogs, it’s almost inevitable that when budgets are being reviewed, one of the first areas people look to hack into is marketing and advertising. Since it is seen by many as a secondary product of their business, promotion dollars are easily pulled to the side in an effort to maintain more “primary expenses”.
This logic, of course, is flawed. The fact of the matter is, no product or service is capable of selling itself. In an increasingly competitive marketplace, one has to get out there, and be heard in a manner effective enough to sell. But this brings me back to the earlier point that with any individual now being empowered to reach out and touch the world, the resulting cacophony your ads are competing against means that there is a larger chance to be drowned out. So there is a chance that even if you maintain advertising dollars, they won’t be effective in the modern landscape, and you’re not only competing against direct competition, but every other bit of fluff, personal rambling, "clip of the day" and of course, the corporate giants who can spend more for a single ad than you’ll have available in an entire flight. Targeted advertising only helps to a degree, but even there, your competition is doing the same. So what is one to do?
The key is in your story.
This may or may not mean your company history, or a list of accomplishments and attributes. What it does include is a consistent, well-focused voice, and messaging able to cut through the surrounding muck to connect with the person who is willing to buy. Despite the overcrowding of the various media, there is a rare portion of the population that is truly able to tell that story effectively. If you can’t easily think of who that person is in your employ, or have one under contract, then it won’t matter how much money you throw into advertising. Effective communication, and by proxy, effective communicators are becoming a commodity in a world where everyone can have a voice, and most people have increasingly little to say.
Monday, February 9, 2009
My blog, revisited…
Last week, I wrote about the Super Bowl headache maker known as the Sobe halftime 3-D craptacular. I called out brand guru and director Peter Arnell for his involvement in the unfortunate spot, and left it at that, but upon further investigation, I discovered that he was also responsible for a set of spots that struck me a brilliant over the Super Bowl weekend, and so I figured it was only fair to give credit where credit is due. In fact, I figured it might be wise to revisit some of the things I’ve mentioned earlier, and bring the blog up to speed.
The set of successful spots was for Pepsi, who appropriated the recent Saturday Night Live skit, MacGruber. For those who don’t know, MacGruber is similar to MacGyver, in that he’s supposed to be a genius who gets out of sticky situations using household materials. Every skit has roughly the same premise, placing MacGruber and companions in a locked room with a bomb that’s about to go off and only he can disarm. The problem (and the humor) is that he’s usually preoccupied with something more trivial, such as a mid-life crisis or being hung up on office place gossip, and he never gets around to diffusing the bombs. Well, on the Saturday before the Super Bowl during the SNL broadcast, MacGruber became a bit too preoccupied with Pepsi.
They looked and felt like the SNL skits that came before, but they had one major difference. They were actually commercials. Many viewers might have been fooled a bit by this bit, since SNL has made believable spoof advertisements in the past, and these ads and their placements could have been more of the same.
But on Super Bowl Sunday, another MacGruber (now to be known as “Pepsuber”) was aired.
The fallout wasn’t just exposure for the product in a humorous and memorable ad, but a flock to the internet to find out if the spots shown on SNL were actually skits or a commercial. This is impressive because creating this sort of intrigue generates action on the part of the consumer, and helps invest them in the product. Unlike other Super Bowl commercials that may only be able to point to impressions to justify the cost of the spot, Pepsi could actually measure certain actions, and they didn’t even have to ask directly. It was well done, and for that, I have to give it up to Mr. Arnell and his team. I guess there is a reason he’s a CEO and widely regarded branding genius and I’m… blogging. Also, excellent call in having Richard Dean Anderson reprise his role as McGyver.
Speaking of pretty good ideas, I wrote previously of Warner Music pulling it’s recording artist’s videos from Youtube in an effort to renegotiate profit systems, and how much that can stink for quality musicians like Amanda Palmer who relies so heavily on the net to communicate with her audience. Well, apparently this has been resolved (see the press statement here) in what they call an innovative partnership. Really, it’s not as bad as having the music removed altogether, but it’s still allowing for very heavy restrictions which limit the consumer’s ability to interact and consume the media openly, in hopes of protecting the record label’s interest. But that’s the way it has to be, right?
Well, not exactly. In my blog “Shared music and big results”, I wrote about how the band Nine Inch Nails album Ghosts I-IV had managed to rank as the top grossing MP3 album on Amazon for 2008, even though the songs were held under a creative commons license which allowed free sharing and consumption of the music with relatively few restrictions at all. Well, thanks to my friend Steve, I came upon this presentation by Techdirt's Mike Masnick, which is a brilliant summation of how the TRULY innovative marketing and distribution techniques used by Nine Inch Nails might be a preview of where marketing is likely to go in the next few years. Please enjoy.
The set of successful spots was for Pepsi, who appropriated the recent Saturday Night Live skit, MacGruber. For those who don’t know, MacGruber is similar to MacGyver, in that he’s supposed to be a genius who gets out of sticky situations using household materials. Every skit has roughly the same premise, placing MacGruber and companions in a locked room with a bomb that’s about to go off and only he can disarm. The problem (and the humor) is that he’s usually preoccupied with something more trivial, such as a mid-life crisis or being hung up on office place gossip, and he never gets around to diffusing the bombs. Well, on the Saturday before the Super Bowl during the SNL broadcast, MacGruber became a bit too preoccupied with Pepsi.
They looked and felt like the SNL skits that came before, but they had one major difference. They were actually commercials. Many viewers might have been fooled a bit by this bit, since SNL has made believable spoof advertisements in the past, and these ads and their placements could have been more of the same.
But on Super Bowl Sunday, another MacGruber (now to be known as “Pepsuber”) was aired.
The fallout wasn’t just exposure for the product in a humorous and memorable ad, but a flock to the internet to find out if the spots shown on SNL were actually skits or a commercial. This is impressive because creating this sort of intrigue generates action on the part of the consumer, and helps invest them in the product. Unlike other Super Bowl commercials that may only be able to point to impressions to justify the cost of the spot, Pepsi could actually measure certain actions, and they didn’t even have to ask directly. It was well done, and for that, I have to give it up to Mr. Arnell and his team. I guess there is a reason he’s a CEO and widely regarded branding genius and I’m… blogging. Also, excellent call in having Richard Dean Anderson reprise his role as McGyver.
Speaking of pretty good ideas, I wrote previously of Warner Music pulling it’s recording artist’s videos from Youtube in an effort to renegotiate profit systems, and how much that can stink for quality musicians like Amanda Palmer who relies so heavily on the net to communicate with her audience. Well, apparently this has been resolved (see the press statement here) in what they call an innovative partnership. Really, it’s not as bad as having the music removed altogether, but it’s still allowing for very heavy restrictions which limit the consumer’s ability to interact and consume the media openly, in hopes of protecting the record label’s interest. But that’s the way it has to be, right?
Well, not exactly. In my blog “Shared music and big results”, I wrote about how the band Nine Inch Nails album Ghosts I-IV had managed to rank as the top grossing MP3 album on Amazon for 2008, even though the songs were held under a creative commons license which allowed free sharing and consumption of the music with relatively few restrictions at all. Well, thanks to my friend Steve, I came upon this presentation by Techdirt's Mike Masnick, which is a brilliant summation of how the TRULY innovative marketing and distribution techniques used by Nine Inch Nails might be a preview of where marketing is likely to go in the next few years. Please enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
