If there's one thing that brings out the celebrities with opinions, it's a US election.
First, there's the (supposedly) non-partisan efforts to simply encourage people to vote.
This year's "Don't Vote" campaign is a prime example. (Heads up - there's some strong language in the video below).
Then, there's the party- or candidate-specific endorsements.
It's hard to think of a celebrity who hasn't weighed in on who they support. And let's face it: this time, it's clearly Obama that virtually everyone is endorsing.
Performers ranging from Jay-Z to Jimmy Buffett to Bruce Springsteen to Billy Joel have given concerts in support of him. Sarah Silverman's contribution has been viewed over a million times on YouTube. (Watch out - even more strong language in this one).
And there are about a gazillion other examples.
So... here's the test:
1. Will voter turnout, especially among young adults, be particularly high?
and
2. Will Obama win in a landslide?
If the answer to either of these isn't a resounding "Yes", marketers need to consider giving up on the idea of celebrity endorsements once and for all.
I mean, if they can't encourage people to do something that's obviously important and easy (vote), and/or encourage people to do something that most seem in favour of anyway (vote Democrat), how can we possibly expect them to successfully encourage people to buy over-priced shoes, switch razor brands, or save Tibet?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Oops
Coincidence, intentional shenanigans, or an inherent problem with keyword targeting?In the olden days (using print) this has happened to me as a media buyer. One of the first ads I placed was for a natural gas company. The ad ended up on the same page as a story about a house explosion AND another story about a gas leak.
Sure, there needs to be a separation between editorial and advertising interests, but it was still inexcusable that the person doing the page layout didn't notice the inappropriateness of a gas ad for that page.
Is the above example excusable because the ad is served automatically?
Is it the buyer's responsibility to create a set of "do not place my ad beside..." rules and criteria?
D0 digital media publishers have a responsibility to keep an eye on each of the millions of ad impressions they serve?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Studies... and Reality
JP posted an interesting article on his blog recently:
"Are video ads really worth the added cost? An iPerceptions study may suggest otherwise. The study found that, despite current buzz around video ads, marketers do not need to spend on fancy interactive ads in order to reach consumers. In fact, consumers are most likely to click on simple text ads..."
It then goes on to point out various stats to support this position, including
"...only 11% of consumers said they were likely to click on video ads..."
The emphasis above is mine. You can probably guess where I'm going with this.
Regardless of what the respondents said, I care more about what they actually do.
Let's compare this study to an online campaign I'm currently working on:
In this campaign we're running some ads with very basic animation, some with fancy animation and interactivity, and some with full-motion video.
The average CTR for the "fancy" animated ads is roughly two-thirds better than that of the "basic" ads, and the average CTR for the video ads is approximately two-thirds better than the "fancy" ads.
Quite clearly consumers - at least those in our target audience - are more likely to respond to the more interactive, more engaging, more video-y ads.
This makes me really question the accuracy and validity of any of this study's conclusions.
And this isn't the only thing that's rubbing me the wrong way.
It also bugs me that they assume that clickthroughs are the main objective for advertisers, or at least a primary measure of success. Yes, clicks are important, but they aren't everything. Perhaps the study as a whole addresses other success measures, but I didn't get that -ahem- perception from their release.
For example:
- what about people who see "fancy" ads, don't click on them, but are influenced to go to the advertised site anyway? (perhaps when they see a simple text ad at a later date and are reminded of the video ad they saw earlier...)
- what about the role of the "fancy" ads in educating and informing consumers? Isn't there some value in a user gaining some insight into an advertised brand before they even get to the landing page? A simple text-only ad might get a click, but it isn't necessarily a well-qualified click.
And so on and so on and so on.
"Are video ads really worth the added cost? An iPerceptions study may suggest otherwise. The study found that, despite current buzz around video ads, marketers do not need to spend on fancy interactive ads in order to reach consumers. In fact, consumers are most likely to click on simple text ads..."
It then goes on to point out various stats to support this position, including
"...only 11% of consumers said they were likely to click on video ads..."
The emphasis above is mine. You can probably guess where I'm going with this.
Regardless of what the respondents said, I care more about what they actually do.
Let's compare this study to an online campaign I'm currently working on:
In this campaign we're running some ads with very basic animation, some with fancy animation and interactivity, and some with full-motion video.
The average CTR for the "fancy" animated ads is roughly two-thirds better than that of the "basic" ads, and the average CTR for the video ads is approximately two-thirds better than the "fancy" ads.
Quite clearly consumers - at least those in our target audience - are more likely to respond to the more interactive, more engaging, more video-y ads.
This makes me really question the accuracy and validity of any of this study's conclusions.
And this isn't the only thing that's rubbing me the wrong way.
It also bugs me that they assume that clickthroughs are the main objective for advertisers, or at least a primary measure of success. Yes, clicks are important, but they aren't everything. Perhaps the study as a whole addresses other success measures, but I didn't get that -ahem- perception from their release.
For example:
- what about people who see "fancy" ads, don't click on them, but are influenced to go to the advertised site anyway? (perhaps when they see a simple text ad at a later date and are reminded of the video ad they saw earlier...)
- what about the role of the "fancy" ads in educating and informing consumers? Isn't there some value in a user gaining some insight into an advertised brand before they even get to the landing page? A simple text-only ad might get a click, but it isn't necessarily a well-qualified click.
And so on and so on and so on.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
"Best". Yeah right.
I received an e-mail about an event being presented by the AMA next week. A screening of award-winning ads from Cannes.
The tagline from the e-mail:
"See the world's best advertising. Where the ideas are big and the logos are small."
I can't stand (most) advertising industry awards. Their definition of "best" is exactly why traditional marketing budgets are cut so quickly by the bean counters. It's also why so many billions of dollars are moving to (highly accountable) online channels.
I would define "the world's best advertising" as advertising that strongly communicates a brand's identity AND presents a call-to-action that successfully encourages the target audience to (directly or indirectly) do something that benefits the brands long-term goals.
In fact, I would go even further. I wouldn't just consider how well the ad conveys the desired message, but also how well it even reaches the right people in order to convey that message. In other words, it's not just about the creative department.
Instead, the presenters, sponsors, judges, and participants in awards shows are more likely to define "best" as the prettiest or funniest. That's it.
The above tagline really shows how a lot of so-called creative people think. If it were up to them, they wouldn't show the client's logo at all. Actually, in their perfect world, the client wouldn't be involved in the process at all.
At a conference I attended a couple of years ago, someone in the audience made an excellent point during a session about the creative process. In a nutshell, he said "Unfortunately, most advertising isn't about being creative; it's about being clever. Clever gets attention, but creative makes an impact."
The tagline from the e-mail:
"See the world's best advertising. Where the ideas are big and the logos are small."
I can't stand (most) advertising industry awards. Their definition of "best" is exactly why traditional marketing budgets are cut so quickly by the bean counters. It's also why so many billions of dollars are moving to (highly accountable) online channels.
I would define "the world's best advertising" as advertising that strongly communicates a brand's identity AND presents a call-to-action that successfully encourages the target audience to (directly or indirectly) do something that benefits the brands long-term goals.
In fact, I would go even further. I wouldn't just consider how well the ad conveys the desired message, but also how well it even reaches the right people in order to convey that message. In other words, it's not just about the creative department.
Instead, the presenters, sponsors, judges, and participants in awards shows are more likely to define "best" as the prettiest or funniest. That's it.
The above tagline really shows how a lot of so-called creative people think. If it were up to them, they wouldn't show the client's logo at all. Actually, in their perfect world, the client wouldn't be involved in the process at all.
At a conference I attended a couple of years ago, someone in the audience made an excellent point during a session about the creative process. In a nutshell, he said "Unfortunately, most advertising isn't about being creative; it's about being clever. Clever gets attention, but creative makes an impact."
Friday, October 24, 2008
More Lies
I'm currently disputing a charge with a credit card company.
They sent me a form to complete, and indicated that I have to return it within 10 days or they'll consider it closed.
The form is dated 6 days ago.
The envelope is postmarked 2 days ago.
If I wasn't on top of my mail, there's a very good chance I wouldn't have been able to get this back to them within their 10 day window if it's based on the date they've put on the form.
Nice try, guys. Either your outgoing mail department is very inefficient or you're not being entirely honest. Either way, that's a bit ridiculous.
They sent me a form to complete, and indicated that I have to return it within 10 days or they'll consider it closed.
The form is dated 6 days ago.
The envelope is postmarked 2 days ago.
If I wasn't on top of my mail, there's a very good chance I wouldn't have been able to get this back to them within their 10 day window if it's based on the date they've put on the form.
Nice try, guys. Either your outgoing mail department is very inefficient or you're not being entirely honest. Either way, that's a bit ridiculous.
See What I Mean?
Looking back at my last post, check out this bit of purposely-shocking "reporting":
My RSS reader shows me the headline: "Wall Street set for dive after futures freeze"
I then click through to this article, titled: "Wall Street plunges at open on recession fears"
The article, though incredibly short, uses a couple more fun adjectives and verbs, like "plummeted" and "dumped".
Not only do the two headlines not even match up, but there's no information in the article about "futures" specifically. And not even any evidence, quotes, or analysis to confirm that today's dive/plunge is related to recession fears at all. Beyond this, the drop it talks about is about 4 to 6%. Hardly the biggest or fastest change we've seen in recent months. AND... if today is like most others recently, the markets will probably "rally back" at some point and recover a lot of this value.
I understand that fear-mongering is a major part of journalists' jobs, but every day I feel like they're trying harder and harder to collaboratively push towards a particular result or sentiment among consumers.
My RSS reader shows me the headline: "Wall Street set for dive after futures freeze"
I then click through to this article, titled: "Wall Street plunges at open on recession fears"
The article, though incredibly short, uses a couple more fun adjectives and verbs, like "plummeted" and "dumped".
Not only do the two headlines not even match up, but there's no information in the article about "futures" specifically. And not even any evidence, quotes, or analysis to confirm that today's dive/plunge is related to recession fears at all. Beyond this, the drop it talks about is about 4 to 6%. Hardly the biggest or fastest change we've seen in recent months. AND... if today is like most others recently, the markets will probably "rally back" at some point and recover a lot of this value.
I understand that fear-mongering is a major part of journalists' jobs, but every day I feel like they're trying harder and harder to collaboratively push towards a particular result or sentiment among consumers.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Economy Branding
Hey media: Knock it off.
We get it.
Economies worldwide are having difficulties. Investments are losing value. Consumer confidence is decreasing.
Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. A so-called "expert" starts shouting "Everyone's selling! You might want to sell now before it's too late!" And (gasp!) people start selling and (gasp!) prices drop, prompting (gasp!) more selling...
I'm no economist (thank goodness), but it seems to me that a lot of the panicking (at least in the places I've personally been living during the past few months) is enormously unjustified and exagerated. I still see pages upon pages of Help Wanted ads in the paper.... Housing prices are still at ridiculously high levels... Shops and malls are stuffed with people... Construction projects are still going full-steam, and new ones continue to be announced... I have difficulting finding avails when booking an ad campaign...
So why does it feel, even to me, like I should be nervous? Why is there this general sense of "the sky is falling"? Why is, literally, everyone talking about economic tough times?
It almost feels like a really successful branding campaign.
Somehow the governments, media outlets, activists, and other fear-mongers have managed to create a general sense of economic unrest, uncertainty, and even panic.
I can almost picture a boardroom filled with marketing-types reading through a client brief and brainstorming ways to build their message.
"Okay, so a few sectors are having trouble. US banks really screwed up. Iceland is having some troubles. Consumers are currently thinking 'I should be careful where I invest and what I spend'. How do we change this to 'Oh my gosh! Everything is terrible! I'll be unemployed and living on the street in a week!', guys?"
"Let's release a white paper showing the worst-case scenarios!"
"How about a PR blitz with some experts talking about how scary everything is!"
"Great idea! And I'll send out some talking points to my media contacts that they can refer to in every single article they write!"
"Can we get a few celebrity endorsements? Maybe a pop star or former world leader?"
"We need a tag line. What do you think of 'It's an economic crisis!' or 'Here comes the Credit Crunch(tm)!"
"Awesome!"
...
(No, I'm not a conspiracy nut who actually thinks this happened. I just think it could almost make a case study for building a brand image and shifting consumer perspectives)
(And yes, I realize that the economy IS having a lot of difficulty in certain industries and geographic locations.)
We get it.
Economies worldwide are having difficulties. Investments are losing value. Consumer confidence is decreasing.
Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. A so-called "expert" starts shouting "Everyone's selling! You might want to sell now before it's too late!" And (gasp!) people start selling and (gasp!) prices drop, prompting (gasp!) more selling...
I'm no economist (thank goodness), but it seems to me that a lot of the panicking (at least in the places I've personally been living during the past few months) is enormously unjustified and exagerated. I still see pages upon pages of Help Wanted ads in the paper.... Housing prices are still at ridiculously high levels... Shops and malls are stuffed with people... Construction projects are still going full-steam, and new ones continue to be announced... I have difficulting finding avails when booking an ad campaign...
So why does it feel, even to me, like I should be nervous? Why is there this general sense of "the sky is falling"? Why is, literally, everyone talking about economic tough times?
It almost feels like a really successful branding campaign.
Somehow the governments, media outlets, activists, and other fear-mongers have managed to create a general sense of economic unrest, uncertainty, and even panic.
I can almost picture a boardroom filled with marketing-types reading through a client brief and brainstorming ways to build their message.
"Okay, so a few sectors are having trouble. US banks really screwed up. Iceland is having some troubles. Consumers are currently thinking 'I should be careful where I invest and what I spend'. How do we change this to 'Oh my gosh! Everything is terrible! I'll be unemployed and living on the street in a week!', guys?"
"Let's release a white paper showing the worst-case scenarios!"
"How about a PR blitz with some experts talking about how scary everything is!"
"Great idea! And I'll send out some talking points to my media contacts that they can refer to in every single article they write!"
"Can we get a few celebrity endorsements? Maybe a pop star or former world leader?"
"We need a tag line. What do you think of 'It's an economic crisis!' or 'Here comes the Credit Crunch(tm)!"
"Awesome!"
...
(No, I'm not a conspiracy nut who actually thinks this happened. I just think it could almost make a case study for building a brand image and shifting consumer perspectives)
(And yes, I realize that the economy IS having a lot of difficulty in certain industries and geographic locations.)
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Rule #2
Open the door.
Or, if you can't open the door (yet), tell me when it will open and what I'll be able to find at the time.
It's disappointing to see businesses that are uninviting and drab -- the sort of places a new customer doesn't want to bother entering. But I'm talking about something even more basic.
Literally, just open the door.
In Spain, if you walk through a town during siesta or any other time outside of business hours (and there are a lot of times outside of business hours), you'd swear that certain streets must be purely residential, or perhaps all the shops and restaurants have gone out of business. Doorways are blocked by big metal shutters. All the lights are turned off and blinds are drawn. Neon signs are turned off. Not a single "Back in an hour!" sign is hanging on a door. And worse still, even during business hours store after store looked closed.
During a recent trip there, I was constantly encountering difficulty in simply window shopping. I had no idea which businesses were open. I couldn't tell (from the street) what many of them even sold. Very few restaurants placed their menus in the window for future reference -- nor did they indicate when I should return for dinner.
Openness (again, quite literally) should be a key feature of almost any brand. Hiding from your customers just doesn't seem like a good idea. (Maybe with the exception of a ultra-exclusive, members-only, high-end brand).
Or, if you can't open the door (yet), tell me when it will open and what I'll be able to find at the time.
It's disappointing to see businesses that are uninviting and drab -- the sort of places a new customer doesn't want to bother entering. But I'm talking about something even more basic.
Literally, just open the door.
In Spain, if you walk through a town during siesta or any other time outside of business hours (and there are a lot of times outside of business hours), you'd swear that certain streets must be purely residential, or perhaps all the shops and restaurants have gone out of business. Doorways are blocked by big metal shutters. All the lights are turned off and blinds are drawn. Neon signs are turned off. Not a single "Back in an hour!" sign is hanging on a door. And worse still, even during business hours store after store looked closed.
During a recent trip there, I was constantly encountering difficulty in simply window shopping. I had no idea which businesses were open. I couldn't tell (from the street) what many of them even sold. Very few restaurants placed their menus in the window for future reference -- nor did they indicate when I should return for dinner.
Openness (again, quite literally) should be a key feature of almost any brand. Hiding from your customers just doesn't seem like a good idea. (Maybe with the exception of a ultra-exclusive, members-only, high-end brand).
Friday, October 10, 2008
Rule #1
Hey, here's a crazy idea for businesses:
Make it possible for people to give you their money.
A couple of examples...
I tried booking a flight with Atlas Blue between Morroco and the UK. After going through the whole process of selecting a flight, entering passenger details, and entering my credit card info, it told me there was a problem with my card. I called their call centre to find out why, and learned that they can only accept European credit cards. I asked if there's was any alternative way to pay, such as a money transfer, cheque, cash at the airport, or anything else. Nope, credit card only.
Apparently, it never occurred to them that:
a.) Some customers might not have (or want to use) a credit card
and
b.) Some customers of an airline might be from other parts of the world.
More commonly, I've also encountered several businesses in Europe that only accept credit cards with "chip and pin" technology -- something relatively uncommon in North America right now. It's annoying, but at least most of these businesses accept other forms of payment. But, still, is it really that difficult or expensive to setup your point-of-sale systems to accept "swipe" style cards?
Even more annoying was the inconsistency. Some companies accept only one type of card at their self-serve terminals, but both types if you paid a cashier/attendant. It was a complete crapshoot with the train system in the UK. Two identical-looking machines would behave completely differently from station to station. Even the staff were unsure whether or not a particular terminal or location would accept my card.
Of course, the dumbest part is, again, that a lot of the places were traveller focused. Surely I wasn't the first person from North America to visit these tourist attractions, restaurants, transportaion companies, etc.
Is this something that somebody forgot to teach in business school? "If people want to give you money, help them out."
Make it possible for people to give you their money.
A couple of examples...
I tried booking a flight with Atlas Blue between Morroco and the UK. After going through the whole process of selecting a flight, entering passenger details, and entering my credit card info, it told me there was a problem with my card. I called their call centre to find out why, and learned that they can only accept European credit cards. I asked if there's was any alternative way to pay, such as a money transfer, cheque, cash at the airport, or anything else. Nope, credit card only.
Apparently, it never occurred to them that:
a.) Some customers might not have (or want to use) a credit card
and
b.) Some customers of an airline might be from other parts of the world.
More commonly, I've also encountered several businesses in Europe that only accept credit cards with "chip and pin" technology -- something relatively uncommon in North America right now. It's annoying, but at least most of these businesses accept other forms of payment. But, still, is it really that difficult or expensive to setup your point-of-sale systems to accept "swipe" style cards?
Even more annoying was the inconsistency. Some companies accept only one type of card at their self-serve terminals, but both types if you paid a cashier/attendant. It was a complete crapshoot with the train system in the UK. Two identical-looking machines would behave completely differently from station to station. Even the staff were unsure whether or not a particular terminal or location would accept my card.
Of course, the dumbest part is, again, that a lot of the places were traveller focused. Surely I wasn't the first person from North America to visit these tourist attractions, restaurants, transportaion companies, etc.
Is this something that somebody forgot to teach in business school? "If people want to give you money, help them out."
Sunday, October 5, 2008
One Thing
I've been spending a lot of time in England lately and I've noticed an interesting tendency. It's probably not all unique to the UK, but one of those things that you notice as an "outsider".
In a way, it's scapegoating. Basically, when talking about their problems, English people will pick one thing to blame, depending on the context of the conversation.
For example, a lot of traditional olde fashioned neighbourhood pubs are closing down. Now, if the conversation started as a discussion on what they charmingly call "the credit crunch", THAT will be the reason that pubs and so many other businesses are closing. Those darn bankers are the cause of all the troubles.
However, if the conversation started off as a discussion on the latest smoking laws, THAT is the reason (and the only reason) why pubs are having trouble.
Or, if the conversation was about immigration... well, you get the idea.
People like simple answers. I guess it makes even the most ignorant or uninformed person feel proud of themselves. By latching on to part of the actual answer, they can feel content in knowing that they've figured it out.
In marketing, it's much the same. Marketers constantly have to feed a simplified, singular idea to the masses. "Our product does X." "You need Y to fix your life." "The best thing about our service is how much it Z"...
I suspect that to an "outsider" this is no less ridiculous than making a single (yet completely changeable) issue the reason for an entire country's ills.
A Quick One
I haven't posted in a while (that will change soon), but here's just a couple of quick little thoughts.
A friend recently sent me a link to a contest presented by GasPedal.com (a viral and word-of-mouth marketing resource), where entrants have a chance to win a copy of Guy Kawasaki's new book. Very simply, you get a chance to win for each friend you e-mail about the contest.
Two things came to my mind as I filled out my entry form:
1. I love how they phrase their contest rules/disclaimer. Obviously, there are plenty of ways that someone could mess around, trying to get a gazillion entries. Instead of worrying about a long legalese statement, they simply say:
"Enter as many times as you want, but if you try to somehow rig the system or spam anyone, we'll delete your entries and tell everyone what a loser you are."
I wish more sites (and brands in general) were like this.
2. I'm curious to see if I see much advertising for this book on sites like Facebook or LinkedIn. I've included "Guy Kawaski" as an interest or favourite author, book, etc. or various profiles I've created. Seems like a perfect place to target me. Pretty easy to set up, too.
Any established brand, but especially a personality like Guy with a loyal fan base, should be taking advantage of the great ability marketers now have to target prospects based on interests (and brands) that they've explicitly expressed an interest in. No fancy behavioural targeting algorithms or anything else like that -- just look around for the people who already like you...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
