The marketing world is enthralled by "Old Spice Guy" these days, with countless articles, blog posts, and keynote addresses talking about how well the campaign is performing in both traditional and new media. So here's one more.
As a consumer, I like the ads and I think their efforts in addressing the social media space are fun and unique. As a marketer, I appreciate that they're successfully breaking through a very cluttered marketplace and are successfully repositioning a very old and tired brand.
However, most "successful" marketing efforts are either great at driving sales or in building positive brand metrics. One is a short term measurement, the other is long term. Rarely does a campaign succeed at both.
I was initially skeptical of the Old Spice campaign -- in fact, it seemed to be failing in both areas, despite its apparent awesomeness.
For one thing, initial sales figures weren't impressive.
Beyond this, I still see many comments from people saying "Fun ads, but Old Spice reminds me of my grandpa, so I'd never wear it."
And... quick: name the specific product being advertised in this campaign. A lot of people aren't sure.
Even some of the "best" campaigns in the history of advertising failed to achieve both.
"I'd like to buy the world a Coke"
"Tastes Great / Less Filling"
"It's Patrick! He took out life insurance! Good for you son! At my age it's probably too late..."
You probably recognize all three of the above phrases.
Here's the thing: The first two didn't actually achieve the great immediate sales results (the second actually helped its competitor more than the advertiser itself, apparently). But they helped establish some powerful brands for years to come.
The third example is one of those "Man, I hate that ad" spots. It's hardly endeared the advertised brand to the public. But it works. The horribly-written, terribly-acted TV commercial ran for years and years because it continually sold insurance.
One of the challenges as an outside observer is not knowing how many hits there are for every shot fired, so to speak.
Case Studies are great. I love to learn about what works and would much rather see a real world example than some academic, theoretical opinion. But we only get to see the best-of-the-best and the worst-of-the-worst when it comes to case studies. We'll surely see plenty more analysis of The Old Spice Guy campaign in years to come. The folks who created it will be the stars of the marketing industry conference circuit for at least a few more months.
But what about the brand's relative failures (or the ad agency's failures for other clients)?
Old Spice had a great (from an "entertained consumer" perspective) campaign featuring Bruce Campbell a few years ago. Very very very similar to the current ads (even including some cool online stuff, before the exact same activities were labeled as "social media"). But these didn't move the needle. They got some word-of-mouth, a few gazillion plays on YouTube, and so on, but never really caught on with the public. Clearly, based on the latest campaign, the strategy and creative direction is a good one for this brand, and yet it clearly isn't a formula for automatic success.
I'm fascinated by this "X Factor". Hollywood has shown us that it's almost impossible to predict which movies and TV shows will be a hit. Two almost identical shows will almost always have completely different results (and it's just as likely that the lower-budget, cheesier, dumber, less-marketed one will actually perform better). Same seems to go with marketing. The people behind Old Spice's resurgence probably had their fair share of unremarkable campaigns in the past, and will probably be hit-and-miss with their future efforts. If these people -- who seem to "get it" and have clients with deep pockets -- can't be consistently amazing, what hope do the rest of us have?
If any of my clients are reading this: big budgets help. It's pretty clear that the "Guy" campaign has a lot more financial support than the Bruce Campbell one did. It's almost always a good idea to spend more. The latest campaign is one of the very few examples of campaigns where it was worthwhile to advertise during the Super Bowl, for example.
But there are also countless examples of campaigns with big money, "star" creative teams and more, that have failed miserably.
Maybe it's a form of chaos theory. There are just so many variables when dealing with unpredictable things (like human beings) that the same actions will rarely generate the same results every time.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Sell The Dream, Or Make It Painless?
I'm considering buying a home automation/distributed media system for my new house. Nothing fancy, but something that will let us listen to music in various parts of the house, maybe control some of the lights from a central location, and so on.
Researching my options, it seems that most suppliers really focus on a "sell the dream" approach. They showcase the ultimate system, featuring drool-worthy photos and descriptions of amazing, futuristic homes. As much as this makes me want one even more, it also has the opposite effect of scaring me away. There's no way I can afford a powerful mega-system. My rational side starts immediately thinking of reasons not to buy: I'm not really going to use it that much... it's not really hard to manually turn on the lights... I could buy a separate stereo system for each room for the same price...
Even the suppliers that emphasize the affordability of their offerings still position them as a luxury item.
Perhaps some of them would be wise to focus on entry-level consumers and realize that most of us probably won't just jump in to the full-meal-deal. Concentrate on communicating some bite-size pieces that anybody with a decent job could (and should! darnit) buy today. They can always up-sell us later in the process, of course.
Researching my options, it seems that most suppliers really focus on a "sell the dream" approach. They showcase the ultimate system, featuring drool-worthy photos and descriptions of amazing, futuristic homes. As much as this makes me want one even more, it also has the opposite effect of scaring me away. There's no way I can afford a powerful mega-system. My rational side starts immediately thinking of reasons not to buy: I'm not really going to use it that much... it's not really hard to manually turn on the lights... I could buy a separate stereo system for each room for the same price...
Even the suppliers that emphasize the affordability of their offerings still position them as a luxury item.
Perhaps some of them would be wise to focus on entry-level consumers and realize that most of us probably won't just jump in to the full-meal-deal. Concentrate on communicating some bite-size pieces that anybody with a decent job could (and should! darnit) buy today. They can always up-sell us later in the process, of course.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Oversight, Ignorance, Compromise, or Dumb?
Walking the dog today, I passed a house that got me thinkin'.
No camera with me, so I'll have to describe it.
The front of the house faces south. It's a two-level with a garage on one side. The first floor looks pretty normal: front door, windows... But the second floor facing south is all roof. A steep roof-line runs from the top of the first floor all the way to the top. No windows or anything. It's not just a giant attic, though, as there appear to be windows at the back of the house.
Why would someone design their house like this?
It's not a particularly busy street. It's in a rural area, on a large lot, well away from the road.
Why not have a few windows on the south side? Living in the northern hemisphere, southern exposure is usually a key location benefit for real estate properties.
I can only think of four reasons someone would choose this design:
1. Oversight. Very unacceptable for professional designers and builders, but excusable for a homeowner who lacks experience. This seems like a fairly major thing to overlook, though. So, perhaps it's better described as:
2. Ignorance. Same description, bigger scale.
3. Compromise. Hopefully this is the most likely explanation. Every window that's installed, every angle that's cut, etc. has a cost attached. Maybe the budget didn't allow for this side of the house to look good. Maybe the owners preferred putting their efforts elsewhere. Maybe they recognized that this design direction wasn't perfect, but gave them the best results for their priorities (for example, if they like lots of un-broken wall space but couldn't make the rooms larger).
or
4. Dumb. Some choices are just unexplainable. Maybe you could call it "personal taste", but this particular case seems as much about utility as tastes.
I wonder if I could apply the same four reasons to other baffling decisions that I see made around me.
No camera with me, so I'll have to describe it.
The front of the house faces south. It's a two-level with a garage on one side. The first floor looks pretty normal: front door, windows... But the second floor facing south is all roof. A steep roof-line runs from the top of the first floor all the way to the top. No windows or anything. It's not just a giant attic, though, as there appear to be windows at the back of the house.
Why would someone design their house like this?
It's not a particularly busy street. It's in a rural area, on a large lot, well away from the road.
Why not have a few windows on the south side? Living in the northern hemisphere, southern exposure is usually a key location benefit for real estate properties.
I can only think of four reasons someone would choose this design:
1. Oversight. Very unacceptable for professional designers and builders, but excusable for a homeowner who lacks experience. This seems like a fairly major thing to overlook, though. So, perhaps it's better described as:
2. Ignorance. Same description, bigger scale.
3. Compromise. Hopefully this is the most likely explanation. Every window that's installed, every angle that's cut, etc. has a cost attached. Maybe the budget didn't allow for this side of the house to look good. Maybe the owners preferred putting their efforts elsewhere. Maybe they recognized that this design direction wasn't perfect, but gave them the best results for their priorities (for example, if they like lots of un-broken wall space but couldn't make the rooms larger).
or
4. Dumb. Some choices are just unexplainable. Maybe you could call it "personal taste", but this particular case seems as much about utility as tastes.
I wonder if I could apply the same four reasons to other baffling decisions that I see made around me.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Aren't Greyhounds Supposed To Be Fast & Sleek?
Want to play a fun game?
Try to book a ticket on Greyhound Canada from Victoria, BC to Nanaimo, BC with the following restrictions:
- pick a travel date that is around 7 to 9 days from today
- choose to buy a 7-Day Advance Purchase ticket
- go through the process as if you're buying the ticket on behalf of someone else
Perhaps start with their Web site at www.greyhound.ca
What's that? Even though tickets appear to be available for the trip you can't buy them online? Hmmm. Strange.
Maybe it's worth a phone call to the toll free number listed on the site. Let's see... according to the Need Help? link shown on the page, that number is 1-800-231-2222. Okay.
Oh. That number is for trips within the United States, is it?
At least there's an option on the automated phone system for trips within Canada. Maybe try that? Alright, that just gives another phone number. 1-800-661-8747, gotcha.
Ahh, another phone system. Fun.
Okay, let's walk through the process.
Select an option to get ticket info (since there is no option to just "Buy").
A seemingly-random selection of departure cities is given. Nope, none of those.
Okay, type "8" for cities that start with T, U, and V.
Nope, none of those are correct either. Nope, we don't need to hear more "T" cities. Oh, thanks for informing us that there are no "U" cities -- good trivia to tell the grandkids one day.
Alright, select the option for more "V" cities. Yay, there it is.
And... repeat the process for the destination city.
Now listen to a list of all the departure and arrival times for that route.
I guess it's time to talk to an agent now that it finally provides that as an option.
Let's tell them our relevant info. Departure city. Destination. Date. Time...
What's that? Why, no, actually, the credit card being used to book the trip is not in the same name as the traveler. But it's a valid card. Honest!
There's an $18 fee for that? Why, that's almost as much as the ticket price! What on earth does this fee cover? If the credit card is invalid, what good does it do for them to add an extra fee anyways? Ohhhhhhh, I see: the ticket agent has absolutely no empowerment and only basic training. Alrighty.
Hold on, let's grab the traveler's credit card info, then. Okay, got it.
Ready. Let's get a-buyin'!
Excuse me? There's a $6 fee for booking by phone? What's that about? They're encouraging use of the Web site? Okay, fine. But the ticket isn't available through the Web site...
Aha! So the ability for purchasers to print their own ticket at home is only available in certain cities. Which means that Greyhound want to mail a ticket. Which takes up to ten days. That's why you can't book online. So, really, if you want a 7-Day Advance Purchase fare, you have to book at least 10 days in advance. And be available to collect the ticket in the mail when it arrives (not much good if you're, say, traveling around the country at the time).
But if you book by phone, they can somehow have your tickets waiting for you at will-call... Right.
Wow.
Amazing that airlines, hotels, and countless other businesses manage to sell bookings(and other products and services) worth thousands of dollars without these sorts of restrictions.
No way to just give a confirmation number and show ID at the ticket booth? Nope.
No way to just print an e-mail or other basic content instead of a full "ticket"? Nope, only for certain cities. ("What does that have to do with anything?" is, of course, the next logical question).
Alright, game over.
Does Greyhound actually successfully sell any tickets online or by phone? Does everybody end up paying extra fees just to get the process complete?
The above is, as you've probably guessed, based on an actual occurrence. And it went on from here. Just imagine the above stretched out over several phone calls trying to find someone who can expedite the process or waive the ridiculous fee(s). Ugh.
Sure, this particular situation just happens to be a weird exception that falls between the cracks (cities without full ticketing capabilities, dates that are more than one restriction allows but less than another, etc.). If this was the extent of the problems it would be forgivable.
But the issues seem to be systemic.
The customer service and ticket agent staff are next to useless. No apologies or efforts to make the process smoother. No suggestions for how to deal with the problems. No effort to make the eventual purchase process go as quickly as possible.
The IVR phone system has got to be the worst I've ever encountered. Ever. Really: Try it out. Call the above phone number (it's toll free) and pretend to book a ticket. Time how long it takes to get to any useful info. God forbid you want to just buy something right away.
The Web site is some antiquated thing that looks like something I would have been ashamed to produce in 2001.
The fare and fee structure looks like something designed by a sociopath.
I could go on for hours outlining just a few of the things wrong with this company. And the worst part: this is before even setting foot near their actual facilities or staff. I shudder to think what they'll screw up. Can I actually trust them to have a record of the ticket at will-call? Will there be room on the bus? Will the bus be even running?
I wonder if the reason Greyhound has a virtual monopoly on most routes is that their potential competitors see only a handful of people traveling and assume that there's no demand. Little do they know that most of the potential customers are still waiting on hold somewhere.
Try to book a ticket on Greyhound Canada from Victoria, BC to Nanaimo, BC with the following restrictions:
- pick a travel date that is around 7 to 9 days from today
- choose to buy a 7-Day Advance Purchase ticket
- go through the process as if you're buying the ticket on behalf of someone else
Perhaps start with their Web site at www.greyhound.ca
What's that? Even though tickets appear to be available for the trip you can't buy them online? Hmmm. Strange.
Maybe it's worth a phone call to the toll free number listed on the site. Let's see... according to the Need Help? link shown on the page, that number is 1-800-231-2222. Okay.
Oh. That number is for trips within the United States, is it?
At least there's an option on the automated phone system for trips within Canada. Maybe try that? Alright, that just gives another phone number. 1-800-661-8747, gotcha.
Ahh, another phone system. Fun.
Okay, let's walk through the process.
Select an option to get ticket info (since there is no option to just "Buy").
A seemingly-random selection of departure cities is given. Nope, none of those.
Okay, type "8" for cities that start with T, U, and V.
Nope, none of those are correct either. Nope, we don't need to hear more "T" cities. Oh, thanks for informing us that there are no "U" cities -- good trivia to tell the grandkids one day.
Alright, select the option for more "V" cities. Yay, there it is.
And... repeat the process for the destination city.
Now listen to a list of all the departure and arrival times for that route.
I guess it's time to talk to an agent now that it finally provides that as an option.
Let's tell them our relevant info. Departure city. Destination. Date. Time...
What's that? Why, no, actually, the credit card being used to book the trip is not in the same name as the traveler. But it's a valid card. Honest!
There's an $18 fee for that? Why, that's almost as much as the ticket price! What on earth does this fee cover? If the credit card is invalid, what good does it do for them to add an extra fee anyways? Ohhhhhhh, I see: the ticket agent has absolutely no empowerment and only basic training. Alrighty.
Hold on, let's grab the traveler's credit card info, then. Okay, got it.
Ready. Let's get a-buyin'!
Excuse me? There's a $6 fee for booking by phone? What's that about? They're encouraging use of the Web site? Okay, fine. But the ticket isn't available through the Web site...
Aha! So the ability for purchasers to print their own ticket at home is only available in certain cities. Which means that Greyhound want to mail a ticket. Which takes up to ten days. That's why you can't book online. So, really, if you want a 7-Day Advance Purchase fare, you have to book at least 10 days in advance. And be available to collect the ticket in the mail when it arrives (not much good if you're, say, traveling around the country at the time).
But if you book by phone, they can somehow have your tickets waiting for you at will-call... Right.
Wow.
Amazing that airlines, hotels, and countless other businesses manage to sell bookings(and other products and services) worth thousands of dollars without these sorts of restrictions.
No way to just give a confirmation number and show ID at the ticket booth? Nope.
No way to just print an e-mail or other basic content instead of a full "ticket"? Nope, only for certain cities. ("What does that have to do with anything?" is, of course, the next logical question).
Alright, game over.
Does Greyhound actually successfully sell any tickets online or by phone? Does everybody end up paying extra fees just to get the process complete?
The above is, as you've probably guessed, based on an actual occurrence. And it went on from here. Just imagine the above stretched out over several phone calls trying to find someone who can expedite the process or waive the ridiculous fee(s). Ugh.
Sure, this particular situation just happens to be a weird exception that falls between the cracks (cities without full ticketing capabilities, dates that are more than one restriction allows but less than another, etc.). If this was the extent of the problems it would be forgivable.
But the issues seem to be systemic.
The customer service and ticket agent staff are next to useless. No apologies or efforts to make the process smoother. No suggestions for how to deal with the problems. No effort to make the eventual purchase process go as quickly as possible.
The IVR phone system has got to be the worst I've ever encountered. Ever. Really: Try it out. Call the above phone number (it's toll free) and pretend to book a ticket. Time how long it takes to get to any useful info. God forbid you want to just buy something right away.
The Web site is some antiquated thing that looks like something I would have been ashamed to produce in 2001.
The fare and fee structure looks like something designed by a sociopath.
I could go on for hours outlining just a few of the things wrong with this company. And the worst part: this is before even setting foot near their actual facilities or staff. I shudder to think what they'll screw up. Can I actually trust them to have a record of the ticket at will-call? Will there be room on the bus? Will the bus be even running?
I wonder if the reason Greyhound has a virtual monopoly on most routes is that their potential competitors see only a handful of people traveling and assume that there's no demand. Little do they know that most of the potential customers are still waiting on hold somewhere.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Everyone's A Winner Baby
The idea of "best" is incredibly arbitrary and fleeting. Even in areas where reliable, absolute data is available, results seem to change on a constant basis.
(Before I get started, here's a previous post about what I think of "Best").
In the world of sports, why does the gold medal winner at the Olympics only finish is seventh place at their event's World Cup a few weeks later? Why is it so rare for a particular golfer or race horse and jockey or Nascar driver to win multiple big events in a single season?
If you're the best at something, shouldn't you be winning event after event, show after show, award after award?
The most obvious explanation is that there are an enormous number of variables in every activity. Even the best athlete in the world can have a bad day. Track conditions vary. The whole "butterfly beating its wings" thing comes into play.
This might explain the differences on a particular occasion, but shouldn't things average out over time? A single race or run or game might go badly, but the "best" should bounce back and be on top again soon afterwards. A lot of the time, though, this doesn't seem to be the case -- someone who has been declared the best at some point will typically see results that go up and down for years at a time.
Another explanation is the simple arbitrary nature of the term. What does "best" even mean? In many ways, it's like "quality" -- something I've complained about previously. Even when something can be judged based on absolute, irrefutable data it's still debatable which data is actually the most important, how results should be weighted, when variables should be taken into account, etc.
And a third explanation relates to timeframes. Is consistency over the long-run more important, or is it better to have an absolutely stellar performance once in a while? Again, this is arbitrary, but it's interesting how it relates directly to marketing vs. sales -- marketing is more concerned about consistency in the long run and driving towards lifetime achievement whereas sales is much more about doing really well this time (even if it means doing nothing to improve your chance of success next time).
It's pretty clear that these issues regularly pop up in the business world. A simple example is how Canada's three big cell phone companies have been arguing over claims of "fastest", "most reliable", and even just "reliable" lately.
In the end, if you're truly the "fastest", "best" or whatever, shouldn't it be obvious? Would you really need to constantly prove yourself? Why don't you go out and win a dozen big events in a row if you're so awesome? You probably don't even need to say so; people will just know.
(Before I get started, here's a previous post about what I think of "Best").
In the world of sports, why does the gold medal winner at the Olympics only finish is seventh place at their event's World Cup a few weeks later? Why is it so rare for a particular golfer or race horse and jockey or Nascar driver to win multiple big events in a single season?
If you're the best at something, shouldn't you be winning event after event, show after show, award after award?
The most obvious explanation is that there are an enormous number of variables in every activity. Even the best athlete in the world can have a bad day. Track conditions vary. The whole "butterfly beating its wings" thing comes into play.
This might explain the differences on a particular occasion, but shouldn't things average out over time? A single race or run or game might go badly, but the "best" should bounce back and be on top again soon afterwards. A lot of the time, though, this doesn't seem to be the case -- someone who has been declared the best at some point will typically see results that go up and down for years at a time.
Another explanation is the simple arbitrary nature of the term. What does "best" even mean? In many ways, it's like "quality" -- something I've complained about previously. Even when something can be judged based on absolute, irrefutable data it's still debatable which data is actually the most important, how results should be weighted, when variables should be taken into account, etc.
And a third explanation relates to timeframes. Is consistency over the long-run more important, or is it better to have an absolutely stellar performance once in a while? Again, this is arbitrary, but it's interesting how it relates directly to marketing vs. sales -- marketing is more concerned about consistency in the long run and driving towards lifetime achievement whereas sales is much more about doing really well this time (even if it means doing nothing to improve your chance of success next time).
It's pretty clear that these issues regularly pop up in the business world. A simple example is how Canada's three big cell phone companies have been arguing over claims of "fastest", "most reliable", and even just "reliable" lately.
In the end, if you're truly the "fastest", "best" or whatever, shouldn't it be obvious? Would you really need to constantly prove yourself? Why don't you go out and win a dozen big events in a row if you're so awesome? You probably don't even need to say so; people will just know.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
A Theory About Social Media Experts
If you've read this blog before, you've probably noticed that I have a bit of a problem with the over-use (and sloppy usage) of the term "social media".
In a nutshell, the Internet is inherently "social" (weren't e-mail, chatrooms, and discussion boards the first widespread uses of the Net?) and good marketing is also inherently "social" (great marketing is shared, sharable, parodied, copied, etc. and always has been). The idea behind social media is nothing new and often merely refers to the growing ease with which new tools let us work.
I have a new theory:
This term is being used as a synonym for Digital Marketing as a whole, and I think it's largely due to people who previously missed the boat finally jumping on board.
If you're a marketing professional, you can't simply admit that you've been ignoring or under-valuing the Internet for the past decade. And you'd look like a fool if you were to now brag about how you're embracing online channels. But if you position yourself as a "social media expert", well... that's a whole different story! You're on the cutting edge. You're pushing the envelope and embracing new stuff left and right.
Don't get me wrong -- there are plenty of true social media experts out there. These are people who understand the tools and have been actively evolving their skills and experience to the industry's current state.
As usual, though, the real experts are drowned out by countless others whose expertise is largely self-professed and often merely academic.
Next time you talk to a "Social Media Expert", ask them how they were using Digital Marketing in 1999, or 2003, or 2008.
In a nutshell, the Internet is inherently "social" (weren't e-mail, chatrooms, and discussion boards the first widespread uses of the Net?) and good marketing is also inherently "social" (great marketing is shared, sharable, parodied, copied, etc. and always has been). The idea behind social media is nothing new and often merely refers to the growing ease with which new tools let us work.
I have a new theory:
This term is being used as a synonym for Digital Marketing as a whole, and I think it's largely due to people who previously missed the boat finally jumping on board.
If you're a marketing professional, you can't simply admit that you've been ignoring or under-valuing the Internet for the past decade. And you'd look like a fool if you were to now brag about how you're embracing online channels. But if you position yourself as a "social media expert", well... that's a whole different story! You're on the cutting edge. You're pushing the envelope and embracing new stuff left and right.
Don't get me wrong -- there are plenty of true social media experts out there. These are people who understand the tools and have been actively evolving their skills and experience to the industry's current state.
As usual, though, the real experts are drowned out by countless others whose expertise is largely self-professed and often merely academic.
Next time you talk to a "Social Media Expert", ask them how they were using Digital Marketing in 1999, or 2003, or 2008.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Don't Bother
I've noticed a few sales lately, especially at the grocery store, where the savings are virtually nonexistent. "Regular price $1.19 a pound, now just $1.11"
I have to ask: Why bother?
Is the store really attracting much (any?) incremental sales from this? Are consumers really going out of their way to purchase the "special" products?
Even better, I came across the following promotion on a loaf of bread:
It's a little blurry, but the amazing promotional offer is a free toaster oven with 12 proofs of purchase, plus $18 shipping and handling. www.thinkbreadinstead.ca
I wonder how many redemptions they had. How many people:
a.) Even want a toaster oven
b.) Want that particular brand
c.) Are willing and able to save 12 proofs of purchase without losing them (and before the promotion expired)
d.) Are willing to pay $18 for shipping and handling
e.) Actually believe the "suggested retail price" is what they would have to pay otherwise
I could, of course, be completely wrong and this may have been an incredibly successful promotion. But it's hard to imagine anyone going out of their way to buy extra bread (or switching to this particular brand) in order to save a few bucks on a small appliance.
Shouldn't a special promotion offer -- especially one with plenty of marketing support -- be, y'know, special? It doesn't have to be the greatest offer in the history of the universe, but should be a little bit noteworthy and memorable.
(As an aside: I don't really get the whole "Think Bread Instead" promotion. Instead of what? How many people don't already consume bread as a staple? Are there really people out there who don't "think of bread" at most meals? Seems weird.)
I have to ask: Why bother?
Is the store really attracting much (any?) incremental sales from this? Are consumers really going out of their way to purchase the "special" products?
Even better, I came across the following promotion on a loaf of bread:
It's a little blurry, but the amazing promotional offer is a free toaster oven with 12 proofs of purchase, plus $18 shipping and handling. www.thinkbreadinstead.ca
I wonder how many redemptions they had. How many people:
a.) Even want a toaster oven
b.) Want that particular brand
c.) Are willing and able to save 12 proofs of purchase without losing them (and before the promotion expired)
d.) Are willing to pay $18 for shipping and handling
e.) Actually believe the "suggested retail price" is what they would have to pay otherwise
I could, of course, be completely wrong and this may have been an incredibly successful promotion. But it's hard to imagine anyone going out of their way to buy extra bread (or switching to this particular brand) in order to save a few bucks on a small appliance.
Shouldn't a special promotion offer -- especially one with plenty of marketing support -- be, y'know, special? It doesn't have to be the greatest offer in the history of the universe, but should be a little bit noteworthy and memorable.
(As an aside: I don't really get the whole "Think Bread Instead" promotion. Instead of what? How many people don't already consume bread as a staple? Are there really people out there who don't "think of bread" at most meals? Seems weird.)
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Give Me A Sign
I think I've written about this before, but it's an ongoing problem:
Want to improve your brand? Put up a few informational signs.
I'm not talking about advertising or other promotional activities, but simple directions and basic information.
I attended an Olympic hockey game last night. The venue is set up very differently from when it hosts NHL games: all spectators are being funneled to a single entrance area, then go through security checks, then proceed to the arena. Besides being a stupid process (instead of putting 20 metal detectors in one place, why not put 2 in each of 10 different places?), its also quite confusing. Literally thousands of people were circling the building in both directions trying to find an open entrance.
The maps in the official spectator guide are equally confusing. One shows the location of each of the entry "gates" to the arena, but another only vaguely indicates where the security entrance is.
Because of street closures, this all results in the need for a long walk around the building, several city blocks away and often walking in what seems to the opposite of the desired direction.
Staff and volunteers were helpful and were directing people in generally the correct direction, but still faced a lot of questions.
Meanwhile, I kept asking myself "Why don't they just put up a few signs?". Even a basic cardboard sign proclaiming "This Way to All Gates" every block would have been useful.
Why are the most simple solutions so overlooked?
Of course, it's not just a problem with big venues and huge events. How many stores actually clearly indicate where different products are? How many smaller events tell you which way to go? How many construction sites tell you about road and sidewalk closures before you get right up to the closure? How many businesses give you useful information about where to park?
Want to improve your brand? Put up a few informational signs.
I'm not talking about advertising or other promotional activities, but simple directions and basic information.
I attended an Olympic hockey game last night. The venue is set up very differently from when it hosts NHL games: all spectators are being funneled to a single entrance area, then go through security checks, then proceed to the arena. Besides being a stupid process (instead of putting 20 metal detectors in one place, why not put 2 in each of 10 different places?), its also quite confusing. Literally thousands of people were circling the building in both directions trying to find an open entrance.
The maps in the official spectator guide are equally confusing. One shows the location of each of the entry "gates" to the arena, but another only vaguely indicates where the security entrance is.
Because of street closures, this all results in the need for a long walk around the building, several city blocks away and often walking in what seems to the opposite of the desired direction.
Staff and volunteers were helpful and were directing people in generally the correct direction, but still faced a lot of questions.
Meanwhile, I kept asking myself "Why don't they just put up a few signs?". Even a basic cardboard sign proclaiming "This Way to All Gates" every block would have been useful.
Why are the most simple solutions so overlooked?
Of course, it's not just a problem with big venues and huge events. How many stores actually clearly indicate where different products are? How many smaller events tell you which way to go? How many construction sites tell you about road and sidewalk closures before you get right up to the closure? How many businesses give you useful information about where to park?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Extra Extra
I wonder why newspapers still seem to follow the old fashioned direction of creation splashy headlines and cover stories.
Once upon a time, newspapers were the primary source of news and information for most people. There were lots of competitors vying for readership, and multiple editions of each paper were published throughout the day (and night). Most readers would buy at least one of each day's newspapers from a store, newsstand, or even a good ole "Extry extry!"-style paperboy.
It made sense, then, that papers would not only compete for the best stories and other content, but would also try to write the biggest, most attention-getting headlines that they could.
Now, however, most markets have only a couple of newspapers. Even the huge ones only have a couple of editions each day. Circulation numbers might vary a bit from day to day, but are pretty steady these days -- people subscribe to their favourite, grab certain ones on the way to work, read certain ones at the office, etc.
For most consumers, newspapers are just one of many news sources they refer to throughout the day. The information they get from a paper is a complement to stories they'll see, hear, and read elsewhere.
Most people also know that the vast majority of content of any paper is non-exclusive.
So why do newspapers still act like a shocking headline is really going to help attract more readers and sell more papers?
Once upon a time, newspapers were the primary source of news and information for most people. There were lots of competitors vying for readership, and multiple editions of each paper were published throughout the day (and night). Most readers would buy at least one of each day's newspapers from a store, newsstand, or even a good ole "Extry extry!"-style paperboy.
It made sense, then, that papers would not only compete for the best stories and other content, but would also try to write the biggest, most attention-getting headlines that they could.
Now, however, most markets have only a couple of newspapers. Even the huge ones only have a couple of editions each day. Circulation numbers might vary a bit from day to day, but are pretty steady these days -- people subscribe to their favourite, grab certain ones on the way to work, read certain ones at the office, etc.
For most consumers, newspapers are just one of many news sources they refer to throughout the day. The information they get from a paper is a complement to stories they'll see, hear, and read elsewhere.
Most people also know that the vast majority of content of any paper is non-exclusive.
So why do newspapers still act like a shocking headline is really going to help attract more readers and sell more papers?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Pennies
Okay, a short one tonight:
What's with miniscule, almost non-existant, discounts?
I've been noticing this for quite a while, especially at the supermarket: items marked on sale for just a few cents below regular price.
Why bother? Is anyone actually rushing to buy extra Jello because it's $0.89 instead of $0.95? Anybody heading to the store just so they can pick up some special 1% off rice noodles?
All this does is make me think the store are being cheap.
What's with miniscule, almost non-existant, discounts?
I've been noticing this for quite a while, especially at the supermarket: items marked on sale for just a few cents below regular price.
Why bother? Is anyone actually rushing to buy extra Jello because it's $0.89 instead of $0.95? Anybody heading to the store just so they can pick up some special 1% off rice noodles?
All this does is make me think the store are being cheap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
