Advertising

The Success of Marketing A Weekly Publication

The New York Times recently lauded the success of The Economist in marketing to the sophisticated. The Brits have always been perceived as 'cool', but a British weekly publication has been a marketing success even in the U.S.A.? That's almost unheard of.

Bankers read it in first-class seats; hipsters read it on the subway on their way to work; boomers and Gen-Xers both love it. The newsweekly, a bible of global affairs for those who want to aspire to be worldly, did not become a success overnight. It took 25 years of clever advertising that appeal to the status-seeking reader to help the magazine get there.

I've always been a big fan and a subscriber for the past three years – not for the status, per se, but for its global and big-picture editorial content. I've been telling my friends that not a week will pass in my life unless I've read both The Economist and Hello Canada - the former for my intellectual curiosity and the latter for my pop culture update! I like The Economist's formal, proper English writing style and the choice of its macro subject matters.

Since the magazine first began printing a North American edition in early 1981, its circulation has increased more than tenfold. When The Economist began reporting figures to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in 1982, it printed about 80,000 copies and sold fewer than 8,300 on the newsstand each week. As of its last accounting, for the first half of 2010, the magazine sold an average of about 52,000 on the newsstand each week and had a total weekly circulation of just under 823,000. When almost every other weekly publication has been suffering a decline in circulation numbers and is struggling for survivial, The Economist's success is impressive.

As an avid e-book reader, I don't understand why The Economist is not available on Amazon's Kindle. The Kindle has been touted as a single-purpose, electronic device designed for avid readers, and that's why there are no photos on the device. Ironicially, The Economist also focuses on the writing and the reporting, with very few photos in the entire publication. With the increasing popularity of e-books, It should be just a matter of time before these two find a match for each other!

Lina Ko

Spicy Success

So unless you have been completely off the grid (which is possible) you have probably seen the Old Spice advertising campaign. Yes, the cheeky one which features former NFL football player Isaiah Mustafa playing the role of "Old Spice Guy."

A conservative guess is that Procter & Gamble (owners of the Old Spice brand) spent tens upon tens of millions of dollars on a massive advertising campaign according to an agency side friend of mine. The campaign was a recipient of the 2010 Cannes Lions Film Grand Prix and received an Emmy nomination for outstanding commercial. Yes, this is the very same brand that I previously associated with my beloved grandfather.

If that wasn't enough this campaign was then taken to the next level. What was done exactly? The agency responsible for Old Spice (Wieden & Kennedy) launched a terrific social media campaign that built on the previous campaign momentum.

For a limited time period, fans could interact with Old Spice guy via Twitter, Facebook and/or YouTube and ask questions. The Old Spice Guy then replied in personal manner to those blessed enough via a 30 second YouTube spot. The social media campaign is brilliant from a creative perspective and didn’t cost a lot (compared to prior media expenses) to engage with fans besides the cost of employing the actor, writers who scripted the responses, production expenses and other ancillary costs.

Here is an example of one answer by the Old Spice Guy to a question posed by the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team via Twitter.

You may not like hockey. You may not like Old Spice. But you must admit this is a brilliant concept. An agency team responded to roughly 200 questions in a personalized manner within a 48 hour timeframe. We’re talking real-time answers that were hilarious, in character and in keeping with the desired brand positioning and creative goals. As Leigh Himel points out, it would be pretty cool to see what the agency creative brief looked like. Especially when having to sell a typically conservative organization like P&G.

From personalized answers to celebrities to marriage proposals the whole gamut was covered. The agency also wisely leveraged momentum built up by previous mass media advertising and media coverage that created the persona of Old Spice Guy. They also did little things like leverage the promoted trending topic on Twitter. I don't suspect it cost that much and the agency probably didn't have to do it as the campaign became an organic trending topic all on its own but it's still a good type of marketing insurance to have.

There has been some debate as to whether this social media campaign was successful. The digital results according to P&G speak for themselves. Nearly 105 Million YouTube views, 1.2 Billion media impressions, 2700% increase in Twitter followers, 800% increase in Facebook fan interaction, 300% increase in traffic to the Old Spice website. Not to mention the countless sharing, promotion and mashups created by fans. In my view you have clearly hit a nerve when consumers start creating their own derivations of a commercial. (*Warning about the language contained in the aforementioned link as typically happens lately when Mel Gibson is involved.)

My friend Tamera is firmly of the belief that this social media campaign was a success. Other detractors take the view that digital metrics are window-dressing and the creative was very juvenile. Everyone has an opinion and rightly so.

So it really all comes down to sales, right? Show me the money! That's what P&G shareholders and executives ultimately care about. According to Neilsen, sales of Old Spice Body Wash rose significantly since they launched the campaign. Kind of tough to argue with those numbers even if they are projections. Ultimately the folks at P&G will know the truth.

But I think there are bigger questions in all this. For the agency folks, is your shop capable of pumping out this kind of quality content in a very short time frame for a digital campaign? We’re not talking about days or weeks but minutes and hours to engage with potential customers. We’re talking about your creative directors & content writers working closely with the social media marketers, talent and production team in a truly integrated manner. Do you have the creative juices that leverage previous marketing efforts and support them? Do you truly understand the philosophy of engagement and conversation with customers? Because that is exactly why the Old Spice social media campaign was successful.

And those of us on the client side need to face the music also. As Dave Stubbs aptly notes in a terrific post, P&G put a lot of trust in their agency to pull this off. To react with the speed required means there wasn’t time for 4 different layers of approvals. There wasn't time for a full financial audit about costs on a line by line basis. There wasn't time for every pixel and prop to be mercilessly scrutinized by the brand police. So here is the rub. Can you do that in your company? Do you empower your agency to make bold decisions without fear? Have you built up enough trust with agency partner(s) where you are willing to put your neck on the line when executives start asking pointed questions in the boardroom?

Those are the spicy questions we must all (including myself) ask ourselves. And no amount of Old Spice will cover that up.

Sulemaan Ahmed

Group Think is the Result of Groupthink

Group think is the nemesis of qualitative research. The more senior you go in any organization, the more dismissive of focus groups managers become because of "group think." And, indeed, watching focus groups, as I have done innumerable times, it could appear that group think is impacting the dynamic.

Of course, one manager's group think is another manager's consensus. I mention this as an aside, but it is true that when 6 people in a group like the concept, this is a sign of a great concept. When six people in a group dislike the concept, it's clearly group think. Of course, if you hate the concept, then this works the other way around. Which leads to:

Bernstein's First Law of Group Think: The intensity of group think in any focus group is indirectly proportionate to the degree that the group reflects the observers innate bias.

But, I digress.

Group think is the inevitable result of recruiting homogenous groups of people. Why are we surprised that people who are in the same targeted age group, same target education level and use the same products with the same frequency, share the same opinions about the brand, product, category, and so on. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if there is no group think, then the recruiters have done a lousy job. And, perhaps even more controversially, the reason why professional respondents (i.e. those who attend many focus groups and don't absolutely fit the criteria) are generally more interesting than actual respondents (those who do fit the criteria and have little or no experience withfocus groups) -- they are, in fact, not the same as everybody else in the room and are therefor are more likely to have different opinions!

Think of it like this:

In her brilliant (must read for all marketers) book, The Art of Choosing, Sheena Iyengar points out three aspects of personhood that help clarify this issue:
1. People are more alike than they think
2. What people believe about themselves (or what people would want other people to believe about them) does not vary much from person to person
3. Each person is convinced that he or she is unique

So, if this applies to all people, imagine how much these lack of differences are magnified in a homogenous group. Group think is not group think in the sense of people following a leader in spite of their own personal opinions. Group think is simply group agreement.

So what?

Couple of things.
1. The next time a client complains of group think, stick your finger in your ears and hum loudly
2. Don't recruit homogenous groups to focus groups. Try recruiting different people, try mixing the cohorts -- mix frequent users with terminal rejecters; mix 35 to 49 with 18 to 29; mix males with females; mix high income with low income. In any case you are better off doing two groups of mixed A and B than one group of A and one group of B
3. Read "The Art of Choosing" and get back to me .

And, for your added enjoyment, check out our new web site.

Laurence Bernstein

Measuring Social Media

Measuring media has been a challenge of business for a long time. I even wrote a controversial blog entry here on
The Fallacy of Return On Investment in Marketing.

Now with internet, social media and web 2.0, the challenge is even greater. This new media has "democratized" the press and proliferation is huge. Tracking this new media and combining it with "old media" measurement is the new goal.

Let's first remember how much the media world has changed. Media was formally shout box from Brands to Consumers: TV, Radio, and Print: that was about it. Then technology and the Internet came along with a major curveball.

The world went online. All the news, weather, sports - everything went online. The sources of information increased dramatically. Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin etc became easily accessible to all. Plus, these medias had influence. But their influence varied based on the number and character of each site. They are not all of equal value. It depends on the quantity and quality of the readership. Measuring the sentiment and changes in sentiment became a challenge.

Listen carefully. The noise on the internet is your customers. Your place is determined by your competitors. You need to see where you stand. Measuring it is the new challenge. Twitter, Blogs and Web sites can make and break companies. And there is no professional editor checking facts. But the media value still impacts. Measuring social media is not like measuring the news. These are your very customers, the most passionate of the bunch, talking about the very products you
are trying to sell. Listen to nuances, the qualitative component of discussion. Discover the context, associated topics and sentiment-laden words. And then check for volume, exposure, and statistical relevance. Your focus groups are
fine, but this is better.

The world has shifted from a few huge media sources to a multitude of small ones. The tough challenge is - how do you measure all this new media? What is the value of it. The new term is Media value. Measuring it is the new challenge.

Marketing Impact Measurement - Whether it's a product launch, public relations push, or advertising campaign, you need a yardstick to measure the reaction. In today's world, Media is leveraged such that you may pay for your first set
of eyeballs, but the rest come as word-of-mouth. Media Value is a new way of attributing impact and measuring the success or failure of marketing initiatives. Your tracking studies can work, but this is better (and cheaper).

Brand awareness is the key. Where does your brand stand? Where do you stand compared to the competition? And importantly, is the perception changing positively or negatively? Knowing what people feel about brands is important. Or trying to get a brand onto the radar. Not only awareness, perception, sentiment. All these are key components.

It is good to have an early warning system. Something that can tell you if sentiment is changing for or against you or for or against a trend. It is also great to know and understand the value of that media.

Measuring marketing impact is the key. Social media can give valuable feedback on the success (or failure) of a media campaign. Having the public comments and weighing them can provide critical decision making data.

Marketers are turning to things like media value reports by General Sentiment to try to figure out the value of various social media mentions and to determine the trending - whether it is positive or negative.

Stuck in the '80's

Wall Street was on the big screen. Big hair bands were on the music scene. And traditional media ruled. Fast forward to 2010 and oh what a difference a few decades make. I lived the traditional media craze. If you had the numbers you had the advertisers – big business, government, franchises, retailers – everyone was clambering (will not quite clambering) but certainly willing to hear your story and pay your prices to have their message reach the masses.

A funny thing happened when technology i.e. the internet came on the scene. No longer were you forced to love what the majority loves; you had options. Think 70’s television – 3 networks – prime time, a hit show – bingo you’ve reached 70% of America. Try to reach that same audience today - with over 100 television stations and a myriad of entertainment options – prime time television ain’t what it used to be – your cost would be through the roof.

So what does this mean to business/advertisers? If you’re media plan hasn’t changed a lot you’re missing a ton of opportunities. I know of a restaurant that funnelled a good chunk of their ad dollars into the yellow pages – not online yellow pages – traditional phone book yellow pages. Unfamiliar with google ad words they were sceptical that the internet could actually bring in customers and astounded that you don’t pay unless people click and view. Six months later with a new web-site, a face book fan club, an e-newsletter and google ads the web is outperforming their traditional media in leaps and bounds. They’re attracting customers from a much wider geography and customers are dining their more often.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not suggesting you ditch all of your traditional media. I am suggesting you get really clear on your target market or as my friend Marty refers to it your “unique buying tribe” and connect with them where they hang out so to speak. You wouldn’t think of wearing big shoulder pads with a bad perm and a matching suit and earrings – think Working Girl (if you’re female) or donning a pink tie and puff (if you’re male or of course Donald Trump) today so why would you stick with the same advertising strategies? Fashion and advertising in 2010 is very different and hopefully more ah tasteful.

Design Intelligence

Kev (my business partner) and I were chatting about the influence of design in marketing. He has great insights into design intelligence. Like most great insights, it's stuff that is floating in the back ground of our minds but too often we don't let it come to the forefront and really impact our work. He sees design intelligence for marketing as one of the most critical components for impacting and motivating choice. But too often marketing teams don't use design intelligence. Some designs are totally consumed by layout. That's the technical skill behind great design: white space, typography, use of colour, clean lines, careful attention to grids. While great layout makes the piece pretty -- it's doesn't push the edges towards brand personality, marketing principals and offer insight.

On the other extreme are the marketing teams who sacrifice design intelligence for fine art. Fine art is focused on the visual experience -- not the message. The message is often subtle or determined by the viewer. It belongs on living room walls and museums. Great marketing motivates and inspires action. Design intelligence starts with understanding the overall goal, the underlying challenge, the audience, human motivations and, maybe most of all, takes the designer out of the picture. As we were chatting, we were musing about a piece that we did for a client many years ago. Both of us hated it. While the offer was intact and the design intelligence was strong in understanding the overall brand and the motivations of the direct audience -- our visual minds were really turned off. It was the second highest performing acquisition piece that year. That taught us a lesson.

Our overall goal was to communicate to the audience. Frankly, neither of us were the audience. While neither Kev or I would be motivated by this piece -- we were not the people the client wanted to motivated. The biggest mistake marketers make is to allow our own preferences to interfere with truly understanding the audience. One more story.... when my son was about 2 years old my husband and I worked in a kid's program. One of the features of the program was a dorky beanie that had a helicopter blade on the top. On the way home I was nattering about the lack of sophistication of the premium when Chris piped up from his car seat: "I can hardly wait until I can get one of those hats!" The designer of the program was bang on in assessing the level of sophistication of the audience. Design intelligence refuses to be tainted by personal taste. It is objective, rational and results oriented.

Barefoot Creative is looking for a designer as I write. Without a question we are looking for a designer with design intelligence!

Gayle Goossen

More on B2B Advertising-- Whatever Happened to The Man in The Chair?

The Man In The Chair was voted the best business ad of the decade (1950’s, that is) by Business Week Magazine and the best (#1) business ad of the entire 20th Century by B2B Magazine and Crain Communications.

The Man In The Chair is iconic – and even beat Intel which was voted the second best ad campaign of the last century.

This ad was sponsored by McGraw-Hill Magazine Division and is a classic from that era – featuring a very stern-looking executive sitting in his chair with both feet planted firmly on the ground, a scowl on his face, hands folded together in front of him with elbows resting on the armrest.

Leaning slightly forward he says: “I don’t know your company...I don’t know your company’s product...I don’t know what your company stands for...I don’t know your customers...I don’t know your company’s reputation. NOW – what was it you wanted to tell me?” Across the bottom is the simple selling proposition: sales start before your salesman calls – with business publication advertising. The great David Ogilvy considered this to be “the single best definition of advertising ever given”.

The origins of The Man In The Chair – the ad originated with Fuller, Smith and Ross advertising. It was written by a 31-year-old copywriter. A professional model was hired for the job but an account supervisor (Gil Morris) sat for a Polaroid shot (a rehearsal) – but his grouchy look was sufficiently stern that he wound up being used in the final shot.

The Man In The Chair re-visited – McGraw-Hill has made several attempts to update its iconic ad: in one version an Asian was used to reflect changes in business customers and the general population. But these tweaks were not enough for a B2B conference organizers last year. A complete re-make of The Man In The Chair was acted and staged for conference participants – to portray how new media paired with technology could be incorporated into an updated version of this ad which can be found on Youtube:

• The re-make features a harried man (a prospect) running around and talking to a salesperson on his cell phone – while checking his email and looking at LinkedIn.

• He confirms he received the sales proposal but “don’t know who you are”.

• The prospective customer checks with his online community and reports: “I don’t know your company" – either. The website is thin; they have no presence on LinkedIn and a former employee is blogging (negatively) about the company.

• NEW environment; SAME message.

So why has The Man In The Chair been given so much prominence for over 50 years?

• Mainly because it offers an ageless and focussed message – landing worthwhile new business takes repeated and concerted efforts. (Research at Harvard University established that a prospect must see an advertising campaign nine (9) times to take them from apathy to purchasing readiness.)

• The basic message is still considered to be valid – 50+ years later and even in the electronic age.

Ruth Lukaweski

Celebrating the Life and Work of Don Watt

To celebrate the life and work of Don Watt, heralded as a globally renowned marketer, advertiser and design icon – a special exhibit is taking place at the Ontario College of Art & Design in Toronto, Thursday April 22 – Sunday April 25, 2010.

Don Watt’s legendary career has been highlighted by numerous accolades including his inductions into the Private Label Hall of Fame and Canada’s Marketing Hall of Legends. Don was also recognized by the Harvard School of Business for business innovation and use of strategic design to effect change in consumer response.

Don's work with major retailers included developing brands and store designs that remain some of the world’s most recognizable. His portfolio includes the redesign of the Loblaw’s stores, No Name and President’s Choice; Wal-Mart Super Centres, Great Value and Sam’s Choice; Metro store designs and packaging; and Home Depot with its distinctive orange logo and innovative store concept. While working for Nestle, Don was the first designer to use photo-symbolism on packaging for their instant coffee. He also worked as a designer for A.V. Roe, working on the cockpit design for the Avro Arrow airplane, and worked on the design of the Canada Pavillion at Expo ‘67.

For those who would like to visit this exhibit - the exhibit hours are listed here. Admission is free.

If You Tell More, You Sell More?

Many advertisers still believe in the cliché, if you tell more, you sell more. It seems these advertisers think as they are paying for ads, they have a right to mention everything about their brand; its features, benefits, sales offer, tagline, slogan and their dog's name. In doing so, advertisers forget the main purpose of the communication is to connect and convey the idea, not to overload the audience with information.

Gone are the days when you could sell more by telling more. Hard core push selling is being replaced with soft and pull-creating marketing and branding. We live in a cluttered world. You go to Chapters and will find hundreds of books on a topic. You Google a topic and get thousands of results. Though how many of these are relevant, is anybody's guess. People are not hungry for information. They are satiated and have become selective information-seekers. It is critical to understand that less is new more.

Try following seven proven steps for building an effective and successful communication model and you would be laughing all the way to the bank.

1. If you are in a selling business, you are primarily selling solutions. Solution to the needs and pain points of your target market. So find out what are the needs of your customers, select one or two needs that you can serve best and provide them with better solutions for these needs. The emphasis is on providing solutions that are BETTER than your competition.

2. Build your concept / communication around the solution you provide. Convey how your solution is better and how it serves the needs, whatever it may be, good-looking hair, a slim physique, a medical concern or pet grooming.

3. Set your communication objective.

4. Develop a sticky creative with a tagline, copy and include graphics (picture) to accentuate the creative into an aspiration, as a picture is better than thousand words. Remember, just one concept or offer per ad and leave plenty of white space.

5. Determine touch points for your target market. Implement an integrated media plan, that is, use more than one medium. If relevant, include digital and social media. These are cost-effective mediums and provide for excellent monitoring and measurement. Using more than one medium and leveraging online options is an efficient way to enhance Reach and get in-market synergy for increasing awareness.

6. Frequency is critical in getting heard and noticed. Opt for higher frequency. I believe if you have to select between number of mediums and frequency, reduce number of mediums to increase frequency. It pays to segment the market and become an active player in it.

7. Complete the loop by measuring market response, campaign results and the ROMI. Try incorporating built-in measuring tools. A communication initiative stays incomplete until you measure its effectiveness, learn from it and tweak the model for greater efficiency and effectiveness in future.

Fazal Siddiqi

Consumers Are Ready But Is Your Brand Ready?

You have decided to build an online brand community and are now ready to get started. Before you begin developing a communication strategy and pulling the appropriate resources together, you will have to take a step back and evaluate what your company is ready for. In doing so, you will essentially save yourself some of the unnecessary headaches and aggravation that you would encounter if you were to skip the step altogether.

What is “social media”, “web 2.0”, “new media” and what is the ROI?

These are the questions that many in your organization may and will be asking. To present a comprehensive community development strategy to a team who may not be as well versed in the space will ultimately result in roadblocks, dilution of strategy and resistance that could quickly put a halt to any “knock ‘em out of the park” solutions that you may be able to put in front of them.

If they don’t get it, they won’t buy it.

Remember that the social web is growing rapidly and may be intimidating to some. The advertising industry is realizing a major shift and marketers are being forced to not only give up control to consumers but also to their subordinates who may be better versed in the channel and may be considered a threat to their own job security.

As a result, you may choose to follow these steps:

1. Conduct an organizational readiness test. Begin by assessing your current organizational culture. You can use this simple Readiness Quiz to help you identify existing gaps that may pose a challenge to your efforts while allowing you the ability to set realistic expectations to how quickly your vision can be realized.
2. Identify key stakeholders and understand their fears and concerns. To advance your mandate forward you will need the support and approval from various stakeholders across different departments. Due to the nature of the social web, legal, marketing, customer service and other groups will want to ensure their interests are being addressed. To neglect any one of them could result in costly delays and unnecessary friction.
3. Create an internal communication plan. You will need to define a champion who can lead this initiative and can see it to fruition. That person will be required to educate the various teams not only on the benefits of developing an online brand community but also on how it will impact their roles, department and the company at large.

   This will need to be a collaborative effort and will take time. Some will jump on board immediately while others will take time to come around. Patience, perseverance and consistent messaging will be the key ingredients to realizing success in this stage.

4. Identify and recruit champions. Similar to dealing with consumers, you will find your early adopters, influencers, mavens as well as your detractors when dealing with co-workers. Recognize who the engaged ones are and assign them a contributing role. Encourage those who are motivated to help as they will recognize the career growth opportunities and will serve as a much needed support in your efforts towards converting the cynics.
5. Define Rules of Engagement. This stage will require multiple departments at the table. Any action, role, responsibility as it relates to how employees, partners and associates engage online should be clearly defined. When someone posts a negative comment about the brand, how does the company respond, who is responsible for reaching out and where will the communication be made?

   Answering these types of questions will provide a feeling of comfort to parties throughout the organization and creates clear lines of responsibilities which will ultimately calm any concerns about job security should any issues arise.

6. Crawl, walk, run. Once you have been able to build a team with the appropriate top level support you may begin testing the waters. To jump into the social web with both feet right out of the gate may not be the best move while moving too slowly may result in a competitive disadvantage depending on the industry and category that your company plays in.

   Depending on your organization’s comfort level at this stage you will have to gauge how aggressive you should be at first before building momentum and handing control over to the consumers at large. Don’t forget to set the expectation that it takes time to build trust with your consumers although the payoff in the end will provide better business results if done properly.

7. Measure, learn and build momentum. At this point you will need to demonstrate quick wins while staying on track towards achieving the greater vision. Make sure to clearly define the key performance indicators and track them throughout the process. Such metrics could include engagement levels, net promoter score, brand sentiment, sales and even volume of brand chatter in social circles.

   These should be customized based on your objectives and should serve to provide a snapshot of how your communications are performing. Take what is working and build upon it while recognizing where the gaps lie so that you may work on filling them in.

   As you can see from above, the development of an online brand community involves much more than strictly creating a strategy to connect with consumers online. There are many moving parts with several different perspectives and interests that need to be addressed in order to move things forward. It truly needs to become a team effort to be done well!.

   Jeff Pontes

   • 
   • 
   • 

Multicultural Marketing

I recently attended the Multicultural Marketing Conference in Toronto. There were few good presentations by Corporate Canada, Ad agencies and Media on the initiatives within the ambit of Multicultural Marketing. The one I liked most was by Saul Gitlin, EVP, Kang & Lee. He provided 360 degrees information on marketing to multicultural markets based on his experience of working for clients in Canada and the USA. He talked about the language of comfort as the gold standard and advised considering brand maturity level for multicultural groups. For example, a well-known brand like RONA could be a new name for new immigrants.

There seems a growing interest in the multicultural markets and it is not just because of the recent (March 9th, 2010) Stats Canada report published on Projections of the diversity in Canada. The highlights of the report are as follows:

- By 2031, between 25% and 28% of the population could be foreign-born, a highest proportion ever. About 55% of this population would be born in Asia.
- By 2031, visible minority groups would comprise 63% of the population of Toronto, 59% in Vancouver and 31% in Montreal.
- The foreign-born population could increase approximately by four times faster than rest of the population.
- Canada could have between 11.4 million and 14.4 million persons belonging to visible minority group by 2031, more than double the 5.3 million reported in 2006
- The south Asian population could more than double from 1.3 million in 2006 to between 3.2 million and 4.1 million. The Chinese population is projected to grow from 1.3 million to between 2.4 million and 3.0 million.
- The Arab and West Asian groups could more than triple, the fastest growth among all groups.

The above Statscan projections are for 2031, for four 5-year plans in future, a long stretch of time in a rapidly changing world of marketing. Thus I believe the newfound interest for many marketers goes beyond the interesting demographics into the attractiveness of multicultural markets for its media consumption, family life cycle, young age, need for capital goods, accessibility and distinctive likes and dislikes.

Multicultural marketing is in its infancy and the companies entering now will drive the first-mover advantage. Market expansion and growth for Canadians companies would come from reaching out to the new markets segments. It’s about time to walk the talk. The challenge for marketers is to find out core insights and drivers for primary multicultural segments and develop an over-arching strategy and implementation for a cost-efficient market expansion. Another challenge is maintaining a balance between segment-focused implementation and aligning with the marketing execution in mainstream without loosing sheen and impact.

Fazal Siddiqi

Direct Mail: Content vs. Design

Imagine opening the mailbox and every piece of direct mail looked identical, the card stock was the same size, shape and colour—the only thing separating the two was content. Now imagine the same situation except the complete opposite—where every piece of mail had a different shape, size, and colour, but not a lick of content. So what is more important: content or design?

The beautiful thing about direct mail is that it is (without a doubt) the most measureable form of advertising available. It is not overly expensive; a company can directly tailor messaging to their target audience—current clients or potential new customers that match the demo/psych/geo of your audience profile. When conducting a direct mail campaign, one must ask: do I hire a graphic artist or a copywriter? Well, in my opinion, it all depends on how recognizable your brand is to your target audience. Large companies such as: McDonalds, Blockbuster, Rogers and Bell, contain a high level of brand recognition. The golden arches of McDonalds restaurant can be spotted a mile away on a foggy day by a 5 year old. So what does this mean in terms of a direct mail campaign?

People are much more likely to take interest in a mailing piece that they recognize. If they received a white piece of paper in the mail that read, “McDonalds, two can dine”, they would think of the offer as a prank. This is where design is vital in a campaign. Smaller companies may not encompass brand recognition as well as larger companies—this is where I feel content plays a more important role while still complementing design. A company cannot measure the success of their campaign if the mailing piece is just a design to build brand awareness. There needs to be an offer, a call to action, and more importantly, persuasive content.

Content will drive people to the product/location and word of mouth will build the brand. It can be argued that content is design—typography is a brilliant branding strategy that many organizations use. I asked a marketing professional, Lindsey Fair, what her take on the subject is, her response included, “Without sitting on the fence (because that’s a copout), I would have to say the design. If it doesn’t catch my attention to begin with I will never even read the content. But, content can make it or break it, the content is what can make me throw it out.” I would be very curious to read what other marketing professionals feel about this debate.

What do you think is more important in a direct marketing campaign—content or design?

By Eli Nicholson, a student at St. Lawrence College in Kingston, ON

A Need To Change

Our country is changing all the time and our advertising needs to change with it.

According to The Globe and Mail, “by 2013, one in three Canadians will belong to a visible minority. One in four will be foreign-born, the highest portion since the end of the last wave of mass immigration that began around 1910.” Companies have to change their advertising based on demographics because of our changing country. They need to get in touch with their target market and make sure they are not ignorant of these trends, so that their ads get in front of the target market they intend.

Currently if you were to look up multicultural advertising in the United States, you would see many marketing and advertising companies that specialize in just multicultural advertising. We are starting to get a few companies in cities within Canada, such as, Toronto and Vancouver, which both have a few agencies, but not nearly enough to service the demand. Should a company dedicate itself entirely to multicultural advertising? Or should multi-cultural marketing be integrated within marketing and advertising companies?

All companies in the marketing and advertising business should really understand the multicultural change we are facing, and start to do something about it. If they don’t, what does that say about us as Canadians? If we are we supposed to be the multicultural country that we are known for then we should start focusing on more multicultural advertising within Canada.

By Jennifer Saunders, Integrated Marketing Communications 2010 graduate, St. Lawrence College in Kingston, ON.

Running Away From Nothing

Your brand is your baby. You take special care of her, give her all kinds of attention, and wouldn’t dare let anyone corrupt her. That’s why we are so careful and anxious when connecting our brand to an external figure – like an athlete, or a TV show. When we do this, we feel that they become a living representation of our brand, and sometimes this can cause problems. Let’s examine a recent example. Jersey Shore is a reality(ish) series on MTV that follows several New Jersey natives with Italian backgrounds as they live together in a home for the summer. The group represents every negative stereotype associated with Italian-Americans. Most episodes are wont to contain copious amounts of drinking, clubbing, sex, fighting, and casual references to one another as “guidos” and “guidettes” - slang terms that most Italians find offensive. As a complete side note, I find it unbelievable that the general public and especially the media doesn’t understand that – like a large chunk of MTV’s reality programming – this show is being ironic; it’s an open parody of the ridiculous and laughable social behaviorisms that exist in North America. It’s a human case study in absurdity.

Right, back on track… Needless to say, many sponsors who didn’t fully understand what they were getting into fled from their advertising blocks upon seeing the controversial first episodes – including one that originally documented a female cast members getting punched in the face by a man at a club. The likes of Dell, Burger King, Nivea, Unico, and many more decided they had had enough and removed their ads from the Jersey Shore timeslot. But is this the right decision? This is where we must question our mindset as marketers. Our knee-jerk reaction is very simple: write-off Jersey Shore because it represents bad values that we don’t want consumers to attach our brand to.

Make sense right? Or does it? Maybe we are over-analyzing. After all, we’re not talking about branded content here. We weren’t directly a part of the show – we simply advertised during its timeslot. The show’s characters weren’t actually endorsing our brand and there was no product-placement. So why are we presuming that viewers are making a connection?

Let’s take this theory one step further. If company x advertises during a program like FOX’s 24, in which renegade secret agent Jack Bauer ruthlessly slaughters countless enemies in every episode. Does this mean company x now endorses murder? What if they advertised during Desperate Housewives - does this mean their brand represents and supports promiscuous sex and infidelity? Absolutely not. That would be a ridiculous assumption to make. …sort of like saying that anyone who advertises during Jersey Shore endorses the abuse of women?

What I’m about to say goes against a lot of traditional marketing theory, but the truth is this: consumers don’t judge your brand on every little thing you do. We’re not talking about a company whose main representative and the face of a franchise went off the deep end (a la the Tiger Woods debacle). We’re talking about timeslots. You should be selecting programs to advertise with based on ratings, demographics, and cost. In many cases, you can’t waste time worrying about content - because let’s be honest, consumers usually don’t care enough to make that connection.

As the inaugural season of Jersey Shore came to a close, their ratings reached close to 5 million viewers per episode, mostly comprised of young adults and teens. How could you possibly ignore this opportunity just because you’re scared that over-analytical consumers will make an obscure and stretched connection between your brand and the show’s content?
Never be too careful. Step back from your pie charts and focus groups, and get real. Your analysis of a consumer’s perception is likely far beyond what is reality. Read too much into issues like this, and you may miss out on a huge opportunity.

Brook Johnston

Who Won the Superbowl?

Okay, I admit it. While you're reading this during the week at some point after the SuperBowl aired and know who won, I'm sitting here writing this blog entry on SuperBowl Sunday instead of watching the big game. And while I'll be interested to hear who won (Go Saints?), I, like you, will go online tomorrow to find out who advertised and which spot was the funniest or most outlandish. And then I'll go on with my day and probably never think about those spots ever again.

However, the Superbowl is the most watched televised event of the year with some 100 Million people expected to watch. According to a recently televised report, a 30 second spot on American TV during the Superbowl will go for between $2.5 and $2.8 Million. That's about $80,000 a second!

But the larger question being asked these days, especially by a lot of young people I know, is whether that money could be better spent. Especially with everything that's going on in the world right now.

Now after years of producing some of the most memorable Superbowl ads in history, PEPSI is asking the same question and has decided not to run an ad. Instead, they're going online with "The Pepsi Refresh Project". http://www.refresheverything.com/

According to their "refresh everything" site, they're looking for people, businesses, and non-profits with ideas that will have a positive impact. "Look around your community and think about how you want to change it." Submit your ideas and vote on your favourites. Those chosen will be awarded up to $250,000 in grants in categories ranging from Health, Arts & Culture, and Food & Shelter to the Planet, Neighbourhoods and Education.

And the so-called Pepsi Generation is eating it up. This is just one example of what's going on right now. We saw the impact the internet and social media had and is having post-Haiti. This is more of the same great trend. The NetGeneration is getting involved and looking for something more fulfilling than a gratuitous 30-second spot where the money spent to buy the media could eradicate so many issues affecting Haiti, Cambodia and the Congo to name a few -- and those affecting us right here at home. Pepsi is on to something and other brands ignore the trend at their peril.