So it's Roll up the Rim time at Tim Horton's.
Great promotion that's been running forever. Everybody in the country happily buys a coffee for the chance to win a TV, cash, boat, or whatever else is available.
Along with Camp Day, when proceeds of the day's sales go towards helping kids attend summer camp, the marketing folks at Tim Horton's have shown that they know their stuff.
But I just heard a radio spot for this season's contest...
In a word: Ugh.
Why are the ad concepts, and especially the copywriting, for this company so hit-and-miss? Do they have more than one agency? Is it a case of meddling in the creative process by people who shouldn't be involved?
Some of the nostalgic, small town Canadiana spots they've produced have been great on an emotional, brand-building level. And they're often quite good at launching new products with simple but effective sales-oriented creative.
But then they hit you with cheesy, low-budget, moronic garbage.
The one I heard today had something to do with "rolling up" traditions, and basically featured people (idiots, I assume) chanting and getting all excited about simultaneous rolling. The fact that the voice actors are terrible doesn't help the writing.
The saddest part is knowing that this is the best they could come up with. Several other ideas were considered and then tossed out in favour of this.
Ugh.
It's in the running to beat the ad below for the title of Most Irritating Donut Shop Advertisement.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
You CAN Argue With Success
Formulas vs. Methods
I've been taking year-old dog to training classes ever since we first got him a few months ago. So far, he's been to two different trainers as he progresses through the lessons. In addition, I've developed a minor addiction to dog training TV shows like The Dog Whisperer and At The End of My Leash. It didn't take long to realize that there can be a huge variation in techniques from trainer to trainer.
Some say "No treats to bribe your dog!", while others say "Use whatever works to get his attention."
Some insist on a close, tight leash that's yanked to discipline and control the dog. Others insist on the exact opposite.
Some focus on getting things right from the very beginning, but others believe that you cann re-teach most things properly later as the dog's general skill improves...
The thing is:
They all work.
Everybody's successful.
The TV guys demonstrate astounding results in even the most extreme cases (no doubt, this is somewhat manipulated for TV, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).
The trainers we've met in person have held years and years of successful classes with "everyday" dogs and owners.
How can multiple "formulas for success" be not just different but actually conflict with one-another? If there are multiple right ways and multiple wrong ways, it can't actually be much of a "formula", can it?
Sure, it's largely semantics, but what we're really seeing are "methods" for success. It's an important distinction:
A formula is one-of-a-kind. It always leads to the same result. It's predictable and controllable.
A method can be one-of-many. Its outcome is usually quite reliable, but any number of variables can have an effect on its progress and results.
Neither is better or worse than the other, of course, but it's important to know which you're dealing with in any particular situation.
If I'm approaching a problem with a formula, I need to have a huge amount of data available. I need to be certain that my problem will fit within the formula's parameters. And I have to be willing to stick to the formula until the very end, no matter what happens along the way.
If I'm using a method to solve my problem, I gain the benefit of improvisation and flexibility in the face of the unknown. But, my chances of success drop significantly as I move away from the known.
I'd be curious to hear which marketing activities people believe can rely on Formulas vs. which ones should be approached with Methods.
Public Service Announcement: If you're thinking of getting a pet, please visit your local animal shelter rather than buying from a breeder. Our pal Ozzie is from the BC SPCA, and we wouldn't hesitate to return there for another pet.
I've been taking year-old dog to training classes ever since we first got him a few months ago. So far, he's been to two different trainers as he progresses through the lessons. In addition, I've developed a minor addiction to dog training TV shows like The Dog Whisperer and At The End of My Leash. It didn't take long to realize that there can be a huge variation in techniques from trainer to trainer.
Some say "No treats to bribe your dog!", while others say "Use whatever works to get his attention."
Some insist on a close, tight leash that's yanked to discipline and control the dog. Others insist on the exact opposite.
Some focus on getting things right from the very beginning, but others believe that you cann re-teach most things properly later as the dog's general skill improves...
The thing is:
They all work.
Everybody's successful.
The TV guys demonstrate astounding results in even the most extreme cases (no doubt, this is somewhat manipulated for TV, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).
The trainers we've met in person have held years and years of successful classes with "everyday" dogs and owners.
How can multiple "formulas for success" be not just different but actually conflict with one-another? If there are multiple right ways and multiple wrong ways, it can't actually be much of a "formula", can it?
Sure, it's largely semantics, but what we're really seeing are "methods" for success. It's an important distinction:
A formula is one-of-a-kind. It always leads to the same result. It's predictable and controllable.
A method can be one-of-many. Its outcome is usually quite reliable, but any number of variables can have an effect on its progress and results.
Neither is better or worse than the other, of course, but it's important to know which you're dealing with in any particular situation.
If I'm approaching a problem with a formula, I need to have a huge amount of data available. I need to be certain that my problem will fit within the formula's parameters. And I have to be willing to stick to the formula until the very end, no matter what happens along the way.
If I'm using a method to solve my problem, I gain the benefit of improvisation and flexibility in the face of the unknown. But, my chances of success drop significantly as I move away from the known.
I'd be curious to hear which marketing activities people believe can rely on Formulas vs. which ones should be approached with Methods.
Public Service Announcement: If you're thinking of getting a pet, please visit your local animal shelter rather than buying from a breeder. Our pal Ozzie is from the BC SPCA, and we wouldn't hesitate to return there for another pet.
Friday, February 13, 2009
"New Higher Price!"
I've been thinking a bit about pricing strategies for a client. Here's the dilemma:
Do we launch a new product at a high price, then drop the price over time to compensate as popularity decreases?
or
Do we launch a new product at a low price, encourage as many people as possible to buy it, hope for a pile of good reviews and other buzz, then gradually increase the price?
The first option is definitely the most common pricing strategy, but I'm intrigued by the second. Three main reasons:
1. In a marketplace where consumers, professional reviewers, amateur bloggers, and others can easily compare notes and often become excited about (good) new things, getting a lot of early exposure is vital.
2. Properly communicated, an increasing-price strategy is attention-getting in itself.
3. Scarcity and time-limitations are powerful motivators. Potential buyers who are on the fence might be swayed to buy now if they fear a price increase in the near future. It's a standard used car sales tactic and it works.
The main thing swaying us towards the more traditional approach is that the brand is new, not just the product. Can we get enough early buzz to justify a price increase? Will people ignore us regardless of our price point, and be further turned off when they see we're increasing the price of something they haven't even heard of? More importantly for the long term: Will a low initial price create the impression that our entire brand is low-end? (It's not.)
My gut is saying to take a more traditional approach to this first product to establish the brand as exciting, interesting, reliable, premium, professional, etc. Once these attributes are proven to be true, and we've had a chance to gauge the level of interest that a new product can garner, we could move to an increasing-price model.
Do we launch a new product at a high price, then drop the price over time to compensate as popularity decreases?
or
Do we launch a new product at a low price, encourage as many people as possible to buy it, hope for a pile of good reviews and other buzz, then gradually increase the price?
The first option is definitely the most common pricing strategy, but I'm intrigued by the second. Three main reasons:
1. In a marketplace where consumers, professional reviewers, amateur bloggers, and others can easily compare notes and often become excited about (good) new things, getting a lot of early exposure is vital.
2. Properly communicated, an increasing-price strategy is attention-getting in itself.
3. Scarcity and time-limitations are powerful motivators. Potential buyers who are on the fence might be swayed to buy now if they fear a price increase in the near future. It's a standard used car sales tactic and it works.
The main thing swaying us towards the more traditional approach is that the brand is new, not just the product. Can we get enough early buzz to justify a price increase? Will people ignore us regardless of our price point, and be further turned off when they see we're increasing the price of something they haven't even heard of? More importantly for the long term: Will a low initial price create the impression that our entire brand is low-end? (It's not.)
My gut is saying to take a more traditional approach to this first product to establish the brand as exciting, interesting, reliable, premium, professional, etc. Once these attributes are proven to be true, and we've had a chance to gauge the level of interest that a new product can garner, we could move to an increasing-price model.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
It's a nice change... I guess... Kinda...
Okay, this one isn't "bad branding" so much as "confusing expenditures on a brand's visual identity".
I've noticed lately that some of the local Safeway stores have started changing their logos. Not a small task for such a big chain. There's various signage outside the store, in-store POS displays, packaging, advertising, etc. etc. etc.
I totally respect and appreciate a brand's need to evolve and freshen their visual ID from time to time. But, well, here's the change:
Old logo:
New logo:
As you can see - massive changes! Will anyone even recognize the new one?
Seriously though, I like the new version, but I wonder why this change is being undertaken. I get the sense that the transition has been going on for a while now, probably a multi-year strategy. But it's probably also the type of thing that could easily be put on hold. Is this really a major priority for the company right now?
If Safeway is continuing with the transition because they're being proactive, attempting to counteract negative perceptions of the overall economy, and trying to appear as the fresh, modern, not-at-all-in-any-danger-of-going-bankrupt supermarket chain, that's great. I applaud them for pushing forward when other brands are retrenching.
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if they're simply spending money on the rebrand because it's time for one... "The project has started, it's in the budget, so we may as well stay on track". Or worse, because of someone's ego, or some other whim.
I haven't been able to find any public explanation of the change and its timing. I'd love to hear any insight anyone might have.
I've noticed lately that some of the local Safeway stores have started changing their logos. Not a small task for such a big chain. There's various signage outside the store, in-store POS displays, packaging, advertising, etc. etc. etc.
I totally respect and appreciate a brand's need to evolve and freshen their visual ID from time to time. But, well, here's the change:
Old logo:
New logo:
As you can see - massive changes! Will anyone even recognize the new one?
Seriously though, I like the new version, but I wonder why this change is being undertaken. I get the sense that the transition has been going on for a while now, probably a multi-year strategy. But it's probably also the type of thing that could easily be put on hold. Is this really a major priority for the company right now?
If Safeway is continuing with the transition because they're being proactive, attempting to counteract negative perceptions of the overall economy, and trying to appear as the fresh, modern, not-at-all-in-any-danger-of-going-bankrupt supermarket chain, that's great. I applaud them for pushing forward when other brands are retrenching.
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if they're simply spending money on the rebrand because it's time for one... "The project has started, it's in the budget, so we may as well stay on track". Or worse, because of someone's ego, or some other whim.
I haven't been able to find any public explanation of the change and its timing. I'd love to hear any insight anyone might have.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Tell Me Why...
... and don't make excuses.
Many brands act like the marketplace, including their customers, must be kept in the dark. I don't know if it's because they don't trust anyone, or that they drastically over-estimate their competitors' capabilities, or some other reason.
My local Petcetera store just closed their doors. With about 48 hours notice.
No explanation, no apology, no easily-accessible information about who to contact with questions or concerns.
The store staff clearly had very little advance warning either -- they were taping up cheap-looking, photocopied "store closing" signs on the second-to-last day. They've been told that a new store will be opening, but have no idea when or where.
Let's assume the company had no choice. Maybe a legal issue requires them to leave. Maybe they're in a dispute with their landlord. Whatever.
Would it be that hard for head office to have a nice-looking poster printed, explaining the situation and apologizing for the short notice and inconvenience?
How about taking a few minutes to write a "cheat sheet" that could be distributed at the checkout, describing what do to in various situations (where to take returns, how to pick up ordered products, alternative locations for incomplete training classes, how to change grooming appointments...)?
I'm not saying they need to tell us everything. I understand the need to keep some things quiet, and the need to coordinate communications. But let's see something.
This is just one example, of course.
I suspect that a lack of communication (even just a simple answer to the question "Why?) is one of the largest sources of bad brand experiences. Think about the last time you were bothered by a brand. It probably had something to do what (and how) they told you something.
Most people are pretty reasonable when they understand your situation. And everyone -- reasonable or not -- at least knows what to do next when they're given more information. This probably saves the brand effort in the long run: who wants to deal with grumpy, confused customers?
So why all the secrets and mystery?
Sure, it's none of my business most of the time, but where's the harm in at least satisfying my curiousity?
And don't get me started on excuse-making...
Take Canadian Tire's recent decision to eliminate e-commerce from their Web site. Baffling most digital marketing professionals, the announcement was made with very little explanation. The reasons giben were, frankly, just vague excuses. Any competent team could (and should have) overcome any of the stated obstacles. So, are they telling us that they're incompetent, or is there something else that they won't open up about?
In either case, wouldn't a greater explanation in the first place be to everyone's advantage?
Many brands act like the marketplace, including their customers, must be kept in the dark. I don't know if it's because they don't trust anyone, or that they drastically over-estimate their competitors' capabilities, or some other reason.
My local Petcetera store just closed their doors. With about 48 hours notice.
No explanation, no apology, no easily-accessible information about who to contact with questions or concerns.
The store staff clearly had very little advance warning either -- they were taping up cheap-looking, photocopied "store closing" signs on the second-to-last day. They've been told that a new store will be opening, but have no idea when or where.
Let's assume the company had no choice. Maybe a legal issue requires them to leave. Maybe they're in a dispute with their landlord. Whatever.
Would it be that hard for head office to have a nice-looking poster printed, explaining the situation and apologizing for the short notice and inconvenience?
How about taking a few minutes to write a "cheat sheet" that could be distributed at the checkout, describing what do to in various situations (where to take returns, how to pick up ordered products, alternative locations for incomplete training classes, how to change grooming appointments...)?
I'm not saying they need to tell us everything. I understand the need to keep some things quiet, and the need to coordinate communications. But let's see something.
This is just one example, of course.
I suspect that a lack of communication (even just a simple answer to the question "Why?) is one of the largest sources of bad brand experiences. Think about the last time you were bothered by a brand. It probably had something to do what (and how) they told you something.
Most people are pretty reasonable when they understand your situation. And everyone -- reasonable or not -- at least knows what to do next when they're given more information. This probably saves the brand effort in the long run: who wants to deal with grumpy, confused customers?
So why all the secrets and mystery?
Sure, it's none of my business most of the time, but where's the harm in at least satisfying my curiousity?
And don't get me started on excuse-making...
Take Canadian Tire's recent decision to eliminate e-commerce from their Web site. Baffling most digital marketing professionals, the announcement was made with very little explanation. The reasons giben were, frankly, just vague excuses. Any competent team could (and should have) overcome any of the stated obstacles. So, are they telling us that they're incompetent, or is there something else that they won't open up about?
In either case, wouldn't a greater explanation in the first place be to everyone's advantage?
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Make It (at least a little bit) Personal
Some not-at-all-surprising results of studies by ChoiceStream, Harris Interactive, TNS Global, and TRUSTe:
1. People are more attentive to personalized advertising messages online
and
2. People are concerned about the privacy implications of being monitored online (which is what allows their messages to be personalized)
Nothing really new here. Almost any old-school direct marketer will tell you that mailings with the recipient's name and other personal info will usually get a better response than more generic pieces.
The two challenges are:
1. Getting past the contradiction. People like the results of personalization but not the process.
The solution to this one is education and familiarity. Over time, Internet users will get used to being tracked. The longer they can go without a negative experience, the better. The industry needs to actively educate these users, though. We need to clarify just how much information is monitored, how personally identifiable it is, and the potential ramifications. With a thorough understanding of things like Behavioural Targeting, I suspect that most users will not mind it.
2. Personalizing without scaring anyone. I'm still annoyed by the the number of completely un-targeted, non-personalized advertising online.
Okay, consumers are afraid of BT. Fine.
And many advertisers don't even understand it fully. That's a shame, but acceptable.
So, why not start things slow? You don't have to address your audience "personally", but at least start segmenting into some relevant groups.
How about the simplest, easiest, and one of the most basic things:
Do some geo-targeting, and change your messaging to reflect this -- dynamically serving ads that are relevant to that area... "Fly from Dallas to London for $320!", "Free shipping to Michigan", "Upcoming events in the Northwest"...
It's not difficult, and it has obvious advantages for both advertiser and audience. So why is so much advertising so untargeted (in both media buy and creative)?
1. People are more attentive to personalized advertising messages online
and
2. People are concerned about the privacy implications of being monitored online (which is what allows their messages to be personalized)
Nothing really new here. Almost any old-school direct marketer will tell you that mailings with the recipient's name and other personal info will usually get a better response than more generic pieces.
The two challenges are:
1. Getting past the contradiction. People like the results of personalization but not the process.
The solution to this one is education and familiarity. Over time, Internet users will get used to being tracked. The longer they can go without a negative experience, the better. The industry needs to actively educate these users, though. We need to clarify just how much information is monitored, how personally identifiable it is, and the potential ramifications. With a thorough understanding of things like Behavioural Targeting, I suspect that most users will not mind it.
2. Personalizing without scaring anyone. I'm still annoyed by the the number of completely un-targeted, non-personalized advertising online.
Okay, consumers are afraid of BT. Fine.
And many advertisers don't even understand it fully. That's a shame, but acceptable.
So, why not start things slow? You don't have to address your audience "personally", but at least start segmenting into some relevant groups.
How about the simplest, easiest, and one of the most basic things:
Do some geo-targeting, and change your messaging to reflect this -- dynamically serving ads that are relevant to that area... "Fly from Dallas to London for $320!", "Free shipping to Michigan", "Upcoming events in the Northwest"...
It's not difficult, and it has obvious advantages for both advertiser and audience. So why is so much advertising so untargeted (in both media buy and creative)?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Anti-Social Behaviour
I'm starting to dislike the term "social media" more and more every day.
First of all, it seems like everybody who uses it considers themselves a "social media expert". No you're not. Enthusiast does not equal expert.
Secondly, it really feels like the flavour of the week. For a while, "banner ads" (another term I dislike -- a banner is just one format within a broad spectrum) were the king. Then e-mail became the sexy online marketing tool. Then SEO. Then SEM. Then Blogs. Then podcasts. And now "Social".
Thirdly, too many people are focusing on the tools rather than the spirit. Facebook is just one social network. Twitter is just one social communications channel. Adding customer comments to an e-commerce site is just one way to enable conversations.
All of these factors combine to create a situation where the true value of consumer-driven decision making, open communication among stakeholders, etc. are lost. Or at least buried under a lot of nonsense, jargon, and expense.
Social media shouldn't be a fad. It shouldn't be identified by a set of tactics.
Here's the thing:
The Internet is inherently social. Actually, even pre-WWW, online communications have been inherently social. Ever since the early days of bulletin boards, Compuserve, AOL, and so on, the main attraction has been sharing and communicating with other users. Discussing brands online is nothing new.
And this goes beyond digital channels.
Good marketing is, and always has been, inherently social. Back when "brand" was, quite literally, a reference to markings on livestock, how did anyone know which brand had which qualities? Simple: by talking to other buyers, sellers, users, etc.
What has changed recently, prompting the excitement over social media for the last couple of years, is that technology has made these converstations easier and more prevalent. The tools are great, but they're only enablers.
We need to make "being social" part of every campaign, product, conversation, and communication. Think of ways to connect people. Think of ways to improve the chances of your message can be spread. THAT is social.
It might mean setting up a YouTube channel or a MySpace page, sure. But it also might mean any number of other tactics, techniques, and methods that don't fall nicely into an existing toolbox.
First of all, it seems like everybody who uses it considers themselves a "social media expert". No you're not. Enthusiast does not equal expert.
Secondly, it really feels like the flavour of the week. For a while, "banner ads" (another term I dislike -- a banner is just one format within a broad spectrum) were the king. Then e-mail became the sexy online marketing tool. Then SEO. Then SEM. Then Blogs. Then podcasts. And now "Social".
Thirdly, too many people are focusing on the tools rather than the spirit. Facebook is just one social network. Twitter is just one social communications channel. Adding customer comments to an e-commerce site is just one way to enable conversations.
All of these factors combine to create a situation where the true value of consumer-driven decision making, open communication among stakeholders, etc. are lost. Or at least buried under a lot of nonsense, jargon, and expense.
Social media shouldn't be a fad. It shouldn't be identified by a set of tactics.
Here's the thing:
The Internet is inherently social. Actually, even pre-WWW, online communications have been inherently social. Ever since the early days of bulletin boards, Compuserve, AOL, and so on, the main attraction has been sharing and communicating with other users. Discussing brands online is nothing new.
And this goes beyond digital channels.
Good marketing is, and always has been, inherently social. Back when "brand" was, quite literally, a reference to markings on livestock, how did anyone know which brand had which qualities? Simple: by talking to other buyers, sellers, users, etc.
What has changed recently, prompting the excitement over social media for the last couple of years, is that technology has made these converstations easier and more prevalent. The tools are great, but they're only enablers.
We need to make "being social" part of every campaign, product, conversation, and communication. Think of ways to connect people. Think of ways to improve the chances of your message can be spread. THAT is social.
It might mean setting up a YouTube channel or a MySpace page, sure. But it also might mean any number of other tactics, techniques, and methods that don't fall nicely into an existing toolbox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
