Tuesday, June 15th, 2010
Some years ago, a good friend of mine worked for an ad agency whose client, a large aquatic theme park based in Southern California, wanted to expand into the fast food space. Putting aside morbid thoughts like “So that’s what aquariums do with their dead fish,” the client created a chain of seafood outlets named “Cap’n Kidd’s Galley.” (Note: this chain is long gone and not related to, or connected with, any restaurant operating today with a similar name.)
My friend’s agency created a clever and appealing TV ad campaign featuring a cartoon “Cap’n Kidd” and his parrot sidekick, and the chain launched successfully. But soon the client reported something amiss. After every commercial flight, sales would spike, but then they would settle at a lower level than before.
Research quickly revealed the problem: each time the commercials ran, they persuaded a new group of customers to try “Cap’n Kidd’s,” but most of the people who tried the chain once said the experience was so unpleasant (food, service, cleanliness – or lack thereof) that they would never go back. The research predicted that the more the commercials ran, the sooner the chain would run out of potential customers.
The client responded, as clients often do, by firing the agency. But they didn’t fix the product. So the chain died a little slower than it would have if the effective advertising had continued. But it died all the same.
As David Ogilvy observed, “The consumer isn’t stupid, she’s your wife.” The consumer is also the only judge of a brand’s value. Good advertising can make your case, but the judge still decides.
Thursday, October 1st, 2009
NYU professor Clay Shirky postulates that, as more news reporting and advertising shifts to the Internet — for different reasons — “we are seeing advertising priced at its real value for the first time in history, and that value is a tiny fraction of what we had gotten used to.”
This has tremendous implications for journalism as a public good, but it is also likely to be a permanent game-changer for advertisers and all sellers of advertising services.
Sunday, September 6th, 2009
For several years now, I’ve been trying to understand why so much of America has abandoned the pursuit of “great,” in favor of “good enough.” Now it appears to be a worldwide phenomenon.
The latest victim is IKEA, who dropped the modern classic print type font, Futura, in favor of Microsoft’s inelegant internet-optimized font, Verdana, for all documents in print and online.
While few non-designers may even notice, and fewer still may object, I think graphic artists are right to point out that the results detract from IKEA’s positioning as a design leader.
It may be a bit of a stretch to deride this move as another coarsening of the general culture, but I’ll have to admit that I admire people and companies who make the extra effort to incorporate little touches of excellence or elegance into their products’ design or performance.
Of course, some companies, like Apple , turn those little touches into a competitive advantage. But I admire most those who refuse to settle for “good enough” just because they know it’s the right thing to do.
Tuesday, August 18th, 2009
Dave Fleet reminds us that public relations isn’t as simple as drafting a release and pitching it. While social media offer tools to let everyone act as his own PR agency, it doesn’t mean everyone should do it.
As Fleet points out, “Desktop publishing software let anyone design documents but few people could do it well.”
Social media tools won’t make anyone a better strategic planner. Or teach issues management. Or communications integration.
But don’t knock the tools just because they won’t turn an amateur into a pro. In the right hands, they offer new ways to build your brand.
Friday, August 14th, 2009
Bob Bly, one of the deans of direct mail copywriting weighs in on the subject of new media.
All the hyperventilation about social media as a marketing tool reminds me of the early days of the World Wide Web (circa 1995). The evangelists claimed then that the Internet would change the world. And it did. But just not in the ways they imagined. And it took about 10 years, and the dot-com bust of 2000-2001, before the real revolution began to be felt.
If you date the Web 2.0 revolution from the founding of MySpace (2003), Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005) or Twitter (2006), you can see that these are still very early days. And, while there are plenty of prophets, there are fewer profits. But, if Web 1.0 was any indication, those too will come – to those who can combine proven communication strategies with the new technologies.
Friday, August 7th, 2009
Once upon a time, in the early 1990s, long before smart phones, instant messaging, and app stores, the battle for the U.S. cellular phone market was fought over size (or “form factor”). And smaller was definitely better.
I moved from Japan to Silicon Valley just in time to direct the advertising campaign for what was, at that time, the smallest phone in America.
 Fujitsu "Pocket Commander" Today, the 5.3-inch, 10.4-oz. “Pocket Commander” from Fujitsu would be a monster, nearly an inch longer than an iPhone, twice as thick, and weighing more than twice as much. But in 1991, it was tiny compared to the standard “brick” cell phones of the day and, just as important, it was slightly smaller (and much sleeker and sexier) than its nearest competitor, from that era’s cell phone gorilla, Motorola.
We had a very small advertising budget, but we managed a few splashy ads in The Wall Street Journal and lobbied hard to do some television advertising, even on a limited basis.
Finally, we got our chance. We purchased some cable time in the Washington, D.C. metro as a test market, and the creative team from Publicis New York came up with scripts for two highly visual and unusual TV spots. When I read them, I knew they could be great, if they could only be produced. That was going to be a challenge.
The first wasn’t too hard. We only needed to balance a phone on one side of a pair of scales and put the right (small and lightweight) animal on the other. Since the creative team wasn’t sure which animal would match up to the phone’s weight, they prepared for every eventuality.
When I arrived at the studio, I found it full of cages of all sizes, and in the cages were mice, rats, kittens, puppies, doves, pigeons, and, if I’m not mistaken, at least one lamb. In the end, a dove was persuaded to land on the empty scale, tilting it down, and raising the cell phone up. It was visually arresting demonstration and made for a nice 30-second spot.
The second commercial took a little more preparation. The script and storyboards called for the phone to be shown moving across the screen, carried by ants. I had no idea how that was going to be filmed, but I soon found out.
In the studio, I was introduced to Ray Mendez. A biologist who worked in films (the “Death’s Head moths” in Silence of the Lambs, for one) and commercials as an “insect wrangler,” Ray had brought two ant colonies from New Mexico to New York for the shoot. Choosing the larger, and more photogenic, species, Ray proceeded to anaesthetize the ants with carbon dioxide and glue them to one side of the phone using a special, removable glue.
Once they were all in place on the phone, the commercial was shot as a “puppeteer” behind the scenes moved the phone, wiggling ants and all, across the set. When the shoot was finished, Ray delicately removed the ants from the phone and put them all back in their container with the rest of the colony. Later that week, he returned them to the original location in New Mexico where he had picked them up.
The ant commercial was a joy to watch. Unfortunately, almost no one got a chance to watch it. Before the first commercial aired, the client changed the media plan and canceled the TV campaign. We briefly considered paying for airtime ourselves, if only so we could enter the commercial in that year’s advertising award competitions. But soon we had to move on to other projects, and the ants were left behind.
A few years ago, I saw a Budweiser commercial that showed ants carrying a beer to their anthill. Budweiser’s agency had taken the easy way out, and used CGI to create their ants. It was a nice spot, but I wouldn’t trade our ants and their wrangler for all the Bud in St. Louis.
Saturday, August 1st, 2009
This looks like a great idea.
Business Wire’s new Enhanced Online News (EON) service delivers multimedia press releases to targeted readers via RSS feeds. It also prompts users to tag the release for search engine optimization.
See a sample EON press release here.
Incidentally, the Buzz2009 viral marketing webcast was excellent.
Friday, July 24th, 2009
Say what you like about the long-term prospects of Twitter as an advertising medium, it’s clearly working now for some businesses. Especially businesses too small to afford more traditional advertising campaigns.
For those of us with traditional advertising backgrounds, it will be interesting to see how the social media phenomenon unfolds. We’ve always known that third-party endorsements are better than first-party claims. We’ve also known that endorsements have to be believable. As marketers try to manipulate opinion through social media, I expect customers to cross-check endorsements as never before. Caveat venditor.
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009
Green technology blogger Karl Burkhart doesn’t think Chevy’s social media strategy for the new Volt will work. Neither do I.
Chevrolet might have better luck creating a social network around the new Camaro. This car already has a following.
Saturday, July 18th, 2009
Putting your brand name on an office building, a sports stadium, a race car, or a cycling team, can be an expensive — and potentially dicey — investment in good will. Putting your name on an icon can even lose you some good will that will take a while to earn back.
Some years ago I read a short list of guidelines on sponsorships used by Philips Electronics, and I’ve followed it, with a few changes and some flexibility, ever since. Here is my version:
1. There shall be a natural relationship to our products. Individuals, teams and events sponsored shall be in or closely related to the industries in which we do business.
2. The sponsorship shall fit the marketing game plan. Sponsorships shall be compatible with the goals and objectives of the marketing plan in terms of target audience, products, timing and priorities.
3. The sponsored team or event shall appeal to a significant part of our target audience. Sponsorships should increase the coverage of our brand communications to our target audience.
4. There shall be direct exposure. Our brands will be prominently displayed and promoted by the sponsored individual, team or event.
5. The project shall not be inappropriately risky. While some sponsored events and activities involve inherent risks, every effort will be made to minimize financial and business risks, as well as risks to the brand’s image and the company’s reputation.
6. There shall be no legal, environmental or other hazards.
7. The sponsored team or event shall be well organized. Our brands shall be associated only with individuals of good character and professionally managed teams and events.
8. There shall be continuity with past sponsorships.
I would be interested in hearing about other guidelines for sponsorships you have seen or used.
|
