Earth Day is coming up.
I've been thinking about the environment as a "brand", and the various problems it faces as "products" under that brand name.
Global warming seems to be the "in" problem these days. For a while, acid rain was the thing to be worried about. The ozone layer was a big deal for a while. Deforestation occasionally creeps back into popularity.
Now, I'm not one of those stubborn people who refuse to believe that the environment is at serious risk. But I can sometimes see how those people keep the blinders on since it seems like global warming is just the latest of many environmental fads. Plus, there's so much (apparently) conflicting information out there. It's quite common, for example, to see stories of bizarre weather that seem to contradict the idea that the climate is getting, well, warmer. "Ski resorts have longest season ever", "Record low temperatures in Eastern Canada", and so on. Inevitably, somebody rolls their eyes in response to these stories and says "Yup, that global warming sure is a problem," with sarcasm practically dripping off their lips.
Part of the problem is obviously education ("climate" is not the same as "weather", patterns are much more complex than "warm = less snow", etc.).
But I think a major issue is very very simple: We need to stop calling it "global warming" and refer to the problem by the much more accurate (but, perhaps, less-sexy) brand name of "climate change". Lots of people already do, of course, but it needs to be the standard term.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Unintentional Copycats
Is it mere coincidence when multiple brands use very similar imagery, jokes, music, or other elements to promote their products and services?
Probably.
In one 24 hour period last week, I noticed both Mini (launching their new minivan thingee) and Koodo Mobile (launching their mobility service) using a cheesy 70s/80s style workout motif.
This seems to happen fairly often, but I wonder how frequently we (as consumers) don't see this sort of thing. I imagine there are lots of cases where an advertiser sees somebody else using "their" upcoming imagery, music, etc. in another company's campaign and has to immediately pull the plug on their own work to avoid looking like copycats.
It's avoidable in some cases. When reality TV first took off, every second brand seemed to be using a Survivor or Big Brother or Who Wants To Be... motif in their marketing. Same thing when rap became commercially successful -- almost every ad targeting kids and young adults used a (badly written) rap.
That's just laziness. It's one thing to try to associate with a trend. It's something else to cookie-cutter something obvious.
The Mini and Koodo example seems like one of those rare cases where the agency wasn't trying to cash in on a specific fad, but coincidentally decided on a similar theme -- probably for very different reasons.
And then there's the other end of the spectrum... Don't get me started on how almost every car brand simultaneously decided to offer "Employee Family Pricing". Yeesh.
Probably.
In one 24 hour period last week, I noticed both Mini (launching their new minivan thingee) and Koodo Mobile (launching their mobility service) using a cheesy 70s/80s style workout motif.
This seems to happen fairly often, but I wonder how frequently we (as consumers) don't see this sort of thing. I imagine there are lots of cases where an advertiser sees somebody else using "their" upcoming imagery, music, etc. in another company's campaign and has to immediately pull the plug on their own work to avoid looking like copycats.
It's avoidable in some cases. When reality TV first took off, every second brand seemed to be using a Survivor or Big Brother or Who Wants To Be... motif in their marketing. Same thing when rap became commercially successful -- almost every ad targeting kids and young adults used a (badly written) rap.
That's just laziness. It's one thing to try to associate with a trend. It's something else to cookie-cutter something obvious.
The Mini and Koodo example seems like one of those rare cases where the agency wasn't trying to cash in on a specific fad, but coincidentally decided on a similar theme -- probably for very different reasons.
And then there's the other end of the spectrum... Don't get me started on how almost every car brand simultaneously decided to offer "Employee Family Pricing". Yeesh.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
You're Not Japanese Just Because You Own a Toyota
Following up on some of the thinking in a previous post...
Social media is the sexy, "in" thing for marketing these days.
But far too many brands seem to think that simply having a Facebook profile, a MySpace page, a blog, an RSS feed, or even hosting a Wiki or forum equates to "doing" social media.
In order for it to truly work, and to be truly social, you have to honestly think of it as a community. A Facebook application is only social if people are actively using it and sharing it with others AND it inherently helps them communicate or share.
A Wiki is only social if the company is fairly hands-off and trusts other users to edit it appropriately.
A MySpace page is only social if it becomes a gathering place or a connector for likeminded (and not-so-likeminded) people.
Until your brand is regularly acting like a participant in the social media space, on par with every other user, you're still just sponsoring a marketing channel.
I like analogies...
If you move to another country, you're just a tourist. Even if you own all the gadgets and "stuff" that a local might own, you're still just visiting.
But, if you truly want to be a member of the community, you need to become friends with some locals, go where the locals go, speak the language (at least a little), eat locally-produced food, and actually understand your neighbours' beliefs, habits, styles, actions... You can still keep your own personality and approach to things, but you need to be honestly immersed in the culture, not just know about it.
Social media is the sexy, "in" thing for marketing these days.
But far too many brands seem to think that simply having a Facebook profile, a MySpace page, a blog, an RSS feed, or even hosting a Wiki or forum equates to "doing" social media.
In order for it to truly work, and to be truly social, you have to honestly think of it as a community. A Facebook application is only social if people are actively using it and sharing it with others AND it inherently helps them communicate or share.
A Wiki is only social if the company is fairly hands-off and trusts other users to edit it appropriately.
A MySpace page is only social if it becomes a gathering place or a connector for likeminded (and not-so-likeminded) people.
Until your brand is regularly acting like a participant in the social media space, on par with every other user, you're still just sponsoring a marketing channel.
I like analogies...
If you move to another country, you're just a tourist. Even if you own all the gadgets and "stuff" that a local might own, you're still just visiting.
But, if you truly want to be a member of the community, you need to become friends with some locals, go where the locals go, speak the language (at least a little), eat locally-produced food, and actually understand your neighbours' beliefs, habits, styles, actions... You can still keep your own personality and approach to things, but you need to be honestly immersed in the culture, not just know about it.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Welcome To 1987
Wow. I got a fax spam today.
It's hard to believe that any company still does this.
Then again, there are plenty of people who simply don't care how much they annoy potential customers.
Welcome to my "never buy anything from these people ever" list. Say hi to the guys who cut me off in traffic while driving a company vehicle, and the bank that insists on calling me weekly at dinnertime to try to sell me insurance.
It's hard to believe that any company still does this.
Then again, there are plenty of people who simply don't care how much they annoy potential customers.
Welcome to my "never buy anything from these people ever" list. Say hi to the guys who cut me off in traffic while driving a company vehicle, and the bank that insists on calling me weekly at dinnertime to try to sell me insurance.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Welcome To The Present
Why are so many organizations so old fashioned?
I'm buying a townhouse. The sale couldn't be closed today because it's a holiday for government staff. So what? The entire process is electronic. The appropriate data could have been entered into the system several days ago and set to take effect today.
I wanted to buy some groceries yesterday. The little veggie store that I wanted to shop at was closed because it was Easter Sunday. Why? I could understand closing early so that staff could have Easter dinner with their families. I could understand having just a skeleton crew on hand because of the extra cost of paying time-and-a-half to staff. But they didn't even bother opening. By comparison, I went to the big supermarket down the street and it was just as busy as any other Sunday. So it's hardly conceivable that it's just not worth opening.
We're in a multicultural society where not everybody celebrates the same holidays.
It's a 24/7 world where people are no longer just working 9-5, Monday to Friday.
Everybody seems to be busy all the time, and we need to take advantage of whatever free time we can get.
We don't need a human being to connect our phone calls, give us money at the bank, or send a memo for us.
It's not 1955 anymore, yet so many businesses and other organizations seem to think it is.
I'm buying a townhouse. The sale couldn't be closed today because it's a holiday for government staff. So what? The entire process is electronic. The appropriate data could have been entered into the system several days ago and set to take effect today.
I wanted to buy some groceries yesterday. The little veggie store that I wanted to shop at was closed because it was Easter Sunday. Why? I could understand closing early so that staff could have Easter dinner with their families. I could understand having just a skeleton crew on hand because of the extra cost of paying time-and-a-half to staff. But they didn't even bother opening. By comparison, I went to the big supermarket down the street and it was just as busy as any other Sunday. So it's hardly conceivable that it's just not worth opening.
We're in a multicultural society where not everybody celebrates the same holidays.
It's a 24/7 world where people are no longer just working 9-5, Monday to Friday.
Everybody seems to be busy all the time, and we need to take advantage of whatever free time we can get.
We don't need a human being to connect our phone calls, give us money at the bank, or send a memo for us.
It's not 1955 anymore, yet so many businesses and other organizations seem to think it is.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Too Much Attention on Too Few Examples
I was getting annoyed last night while reading an article about Facebook. In the writer's mind, that site is the greatest innovation in human history and is the de facto standard for "social" activities on the Internet.
It reminds me of a few years ago when everybody was saying "AdWords AdWords AdWords AdWords AdWords..."
I don't disagree that these are incredibly powerful, useful, and innovative tools. However, I get really tired of people who focus their attention so narrowly.
To me, Facebook itself isn't the exciting thing. The bigger picture is. It's about the massive influx of people willing and eager to socialize and share their lives online. There are literally thousands of social media and social networking tools out there. Facebook is just one of the sexiest right now.
Likewise, AdWords isn't the big deal. Accountability in advertising results, contextual targeting, and dynamic pricing are the really important things.
This narrow-minded focus on a handful of tools, rather than the greater trends, leads to several problems. It puts undue pressure on a small number of providers. It ignores the equally great small players.
But, most importantly, it limits future possibilities. I don't want people thinking "What would be a cool Facebook app?", I want them thinking "What would be another cool way for people to get together through technology and do some powerful things?"
It reminds me of a few years ago when everybody was saying "AdWords AdWords AdWords AdWords AdWords..."
I don't disagree that these are incredibly powerful, useful, and innovative tools. However, I get really tired of people who focus their attention so narrowly.
To me, Facebook itself isn't the exciting thing. The bigger picture is. It's about the massive influx of people willing and eager to socialize and share their lives online. There are literally thousands of social media and social networking tools out there. Facebook is just one of the sexiest right now.
Likewise, AdWords isn't the big deal. Accountability in advertising results, contextual targeting, and dynamic pricing are the really important things.
This narrow-minded focus on a handful of tools, rather than the greater trends, leads to several problems. It puts undue pressure on a small number of providers. It ignores the equally great small players.
But, most importantly, it limits future possibilities. I don't want people thinking "What would be a cool Facebook app?", I want them thinking "What would be another cool way for people to get together through technology and do some powerful things?"
Friday, February 22, 2008
Traditional TV Mentality
I saw this article on MediaBuyerPlanner.com about the return of the TV show Jericho. You may recall that Jericho was cancelled due to poor ratings, but brought back to life following a massive response by fans. I've never seen the show myself, but it has a substantial group of hard-core fans.
This is happening with increasing regularity, and it's great to see that broadcasters have opened their eyes (well, a little bit) to the fact that popular shows don't necessarily look that way immediately when you examine the numbers.
In the article, it explains that Jericho was brought back on a probationary basis to see if it could improve in the ratings. Unfortunately for fans, Jericho's ratings are actually worse than before.
I think this illustrates a major problem with "TV thinking". To the broadcasters and traditional advertisers, it's all about ratings and share. But Jericho fans are clearly nuts (ha ha - if you get this joke, write a comment to show how smart you are) for the program. Does it really matter if only a tiny percentage of the population watches it? Their devotion, I think, more than makes up for their relatively small numbers:
They're reliable. Advertisers know that these folks are going to be tuning in each week.
They're enthusiastic. Any group that can get thousands of people working together towards a (let's face it, quite trivial) cause must have a lot of energy and initiative.
They're distinct. Perhaps not a perfect audience for every advertisers, but surely there are some brands that are extremely relevant to this audience.
They're loyal. They've stuck with a show they love. A TV show is, essentially, a brand in itself. Isn't it logical to assume that these types of people will be loyal to other brands? Especially ones that they know have helped revive their favourite program...?
Which brings me to my second complaint about traditional TV: enough already with the 30-second spot. Just tacking on any ol' commercial to a program just because it reaches a certain vague audience (A25-54 or whatever) is just stupid. Maybe it works okay for generic programming like the news or a very broadly-targeted hit sitcom, but there's no reason to think this approach will work well with a niche show like Jericho.
Instead of trying to sell traditional advertisers on traditional ad units in the traditional way, CBS should be packaging Jericho in a special way.
How about trying to get Sony or Microsoft to sponsor the whole thing each week, and promote the heck out of the latest post-apocalyptic Playstation or XBox game? (a perfect fit with the show's subject matter and audience)
Or run each episode without commercials, but have a five minute intro and a five minute outro each episode featuring the show's creators endorsing something they love?
Or tie-in with related Web sites, with ads that drive viewers to those properties (and then try to sell to them at that point)?
Or totally support the fan's "special club" mentality with exclusive offers, etc.? Remember in "A Christmas Story" when Ralphie was anxiously awaiting his secret decoder, and then sat absolutely riveted to the radio waiting for his secret message? Imagine hundreds of thousands of grown adults doing something similar.
Obviously, these are just some crazy ideas, but my point is that we almost never see anything like these on TV. I really doubt it's because they don't work, simply because:
a.) Stuff like this was actually the norm for decades in the early days of TV
and
b.) It hasn't been done nearly enough recently to prove that it's a bad idea.
I guess my point is, Mr. TV Executive:
It's not always about how many people you can reach. Who they are, how you reach them, and what you say to them are AT LEAST as important.
This is happening with increasing regularity, and it's great to see that broadcasters have opened their eyes (well, a little bit) to the fact that popular shows don't necessarily look that way immediately when you examine the numbers.
In the article, it explains that Jericho was brought back on a probationary basis to see if it could improve in the ratings. Unfortunately for fans, Jericho's ratings are actually worse than before.
I think this illustrates a major problem with "TV thinking". To the broadcasters and traditional advertisers, it's all about ratings and share. But Jericho fans are clearly nuts (ha ha - if you get this joke, write a comment to show how smart you are) for the program. Does it really matter if only a tiny percentage of the population watches it? Their devotion, I think, more than makes up for their relatively small numbers:
They're reliable. Advertisers know that these folks are going to be tuning in each week.
They're enthusiastic. Any group that can get thousands of people working together towards a (let's face it, quite trivial) cause must have a lot of energy and initiative.
They're distinct. Perhaps not a perfect audience for every advertisers, but surely there are some brands that are extremely relevant to this audience.
They're loyal. They've stuck with a show they love. A TV show is, essentially, a brand in itself. Isn't it logical to assume that these types of people will be loyal to other brands? Especially ones that they know have helped revive their favourite program...?
Which brings me to my second complaint about traditional TV: enough already with the 30-second spot. Just tacking on any ol' commercial to a program just because it reaches a certain vague audience (A25-54 or whatever) is just stupid. Maybe it works okay for generic programming like the news or a very broadly-targeted hit sitcom, but there's no reason to think this approach will work well with a niche show like Jericho.
Instead of trying to sell traditional advertisers on traditional ad units in the traditional way, CBS should be packaging Jericho in a special way.
How about trying to get Sony or Microsoft to sponsor the whole thing each week, and promote the heck out of the latest post-apocalyptic Playstation or XBox game? (a perfect fit with the show's subject matter and audience)
Or run each episode without commercials, but have a five minute intro and a five minute outro each episode featuring the show's creators endorsing something they love?
Or tie-in with related Web sites, with ads that drive viewers to those properties (and then try to sell to them at that point)?
Or totally support the fan's "special club" mentality with exclusive offers, etc.? Remember in "A Christmas Story" when Ralphie was anxiously awaiting his secret decoder, and then sat absolutely riveted to the radio waiting for his secret message? Imagine hundreds of thousands of grown adults doing something similar.
Obviously, these are just some crazy ideas, but my point is that we almost never see anything like these on TV. I really doubt it's because they don't work, simply because:
a.) Stuff like this was actually the norm for decades in the early days of TV
and
b.) It hasn't been done nearly enough recently to prove that it's a bad idea.
I guess my point is, Mr. TV Executive:
It's not always about how many people you can reach. Who they are, how you reach them, and what you say to them are AT LEAST as important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
