Advertising

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.

The iPad has arrived. Now what?!

Today, as I was riding in on the subway, reading the New York Times on my new iTouch, I stumbled upon an article about Apple's launch today (Wednesday Jan. 27) of its tablet product, or iPad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_zI21XEo0Q

Being an Apple fan from way back I couldn't help but feel a sense of real excitement. It got me reflecting on how much the Apple brand has meant to me over the years. And I'm not alone. The excitement that's building up in the media and among the Apple Faithful is almost palpable and very real.

I bought my first Mac (Mac Classic II) back in 1993ish. I was working at an agency and wanted a way to be able to work on those weekends when I was going back home to Kingston to visit the folks. The idea of a portable computer was exciting. Imagine, being free to take your computer anywhere. It was only 14 or 15 lbs. Oh, you PC people chained to your desks. How quaint.

Then when the first Apple notebooks came out, I was fortunate to be working on the Apple account and helped develop a launch campaign for them. (Best. Account. Ever.) The objective, as outlined in the brief, was to get the public over the mental hump of being able to work anywhere. Imagine sitting in a park or in a coffee shop clicking away on your laptop computer. Why, you could even work from home!

Then of course, the iPod changed everything. The recording industry, advertising, interaction (or lack thereof) between people in public places...everything. The iPhone then revolutionized how we think of what a phone is and what it can do. People could earn money and express their creative by developing Apps. We were now all working for Apple.

Walk into any mall where an Apple store exists and you'd think they were giving stuff away for free in there.

And now the anticipation for the iPad is reaching a fever pitch. People can taste it. The article in the NYT suggests that it's going to do for newspaper publishing what the iPod did for music. They're counting on it because we all know where the newspaper industry is headed. But will our collective love for all things Apple mean that we'll be willing to pay for things like the Star or the NYTs online through the Slate, when so much of the same information can be found on free sites elsewhere.

That's just one fascinating question we as marketers should be watching and reading about -- probably on our iPads.

Bryan Tenenhouse

Why I'm Optimistic

Fear not marketers and agency types. I am here to tell you that the future of our business is in good hands. I have just started teaching in the Communication Arts program at Seneca@York. And I'm pleased to report that I'm meeting young people who are working hard to break into our industry. They are passionate, creative, intelligent and hungry to learn.

The course I'm teaching is basically a workshop where students have 10 weeks to produce work toward building the perfect portfolio -- one they can take around to prospective employers. Or at the very least, Creative Directors who will give them an internship.

When I started in this industry, there were no courses at Humber or Seneca or Centennial for aspiring copywriters or art directors. I had no portfolio and wouldn't have known how to create one that would resonate with a Creative Director. I had a resume and the passion to break in and that was about it.

Today they have the passion but they have so much more. They have a place to learn. A place to prepare for "the real world". Although I have to tell you, the world they're living in is pretty real. If their work isn't up to snuff at the end of the 10 weeks, they don't pass and they don't get their internship. That's the real world they're living in. So it'll be interesting to see how the work develops and who makes the grade.

From what I've seen so far though, there's hope.

I'll keep you posted.

By Bryan Tenenhouse, Creative, The Tenenhouse Project

It’s the Pace of Change That’s Disruptive, Not Social Media

The way we receive and distribute information has always changed throughout history. As marketers, why would we expect anything different going forward?

Initially, the predominant flow of information from community to community, and generation to generation, was by ‘word of mouth’. Early written communication consisted of pictures and paintings which told a story to be interpreted by the viewer. As language and society evolved, information started to be recorded in the written word of scribes. The origin of the word history (or ‘his story’) likely stems from each scribe or artist taking some creative license to adapt the subject matter to the times, the views and expectations of their respective patrons, and their own their own beliefs and biases. And then there’s the arrival of the printing press which enabled the age of mass communications, a precursor to today.

Personal communications have also seen radical change. Up until the early 20th century, the predominant, most efficient and effective way to communicate when face to face was not possible was to send a letter. The first telephone poles erected were met with the same doubt as the Orville brothers’ flight plans – now nary a day goes by without one’s mobile acting as a body appendage. The fax machine was something out of a Star Trek episode and email was an internal only communications tool supported with memos and formal business letters.

Social media has enabled the age of mass personal communications - everyone can create, distribute, and receive multimedia content on demand. However, the existence of social media is no more or less disruptive than its forbearers – the printing press, radio, telegraph, telephone, computer, internet, and so on. What is different is the pace of change. In the past four decades, we have seen more change in how we communicate en masse and personally, than we have in the last 500 years.

While change is a constant, three truisms have emerged that marketers need to pay attention to:

• Each time a new communication vehicle takes hold, the middleman or messenger is relegated to a lesser role. From a marketer’s perspective, that means less and less control over the message.
• Old channels don’t burn out, but fade away. As the pace of change in the way we communicate continues to accelerate, the resulting communication channel is increasingly splintered. For marketers, that means social media should be part of the mix, not the whole mix.
• While individual forms, platforms and service providers, may come and go, once a groundswell is created for a new mode of communication, resistance is futile. The question is not whether to adopt, but how if you haven’t already and to keep your eyes, ears, and fingers peeled for the next disruption because I guarantee you it's coming.

Change is the disruption, social media is the effect.

By Jenn Markey, a principal with M3C Group

Subconsciously Slaying The Naysayers

There was turkey, some new books, more turkey, and a few conversations spent defending the ethics and practices of marketing. Being home for Christmas gave me the chance to talk about advertising with people who don’t spend much time thinking about it - which is actually extremely refreshing. You see, as soon as you spend too much time inside the marketing space warp, you risk forgetting about the conventional perceptions most people have about what we do. It’s necessary to step back every once and a while and listen to the organic views they have on brands and their strategies.

However, I occasionally speak with people who have an overly aggressive viewpoint. It typically consists of marketers being evil, brainwashing, corporate devils that are out to destroy society. I call these people hippies. Regardless, they are consumers and we must pay attention to them. The first question I am typically asked is ‘Why are there so many bad ads out there?’ This is a valid question and one that has plagued the industry. There’s way too much crummy advertising. It’s undeniable.

Not every client can afford to hire a top-tier agency like BBDO or Taxi to create campaigns for their business. It’s hard to develop a clever concept, execute it perfectly, and have everyone love it. So, my defense goes something like this… You have to look beyond the cutesy jingles and cringe-worthy puns we see happening far too often. Advertising is all about positioning and presence. These two things happen on an almost subconscious level. For example, ask anyone to name off a couple adjectives describing Telus. Unless they’re a disgruntled customer, you’ll hear words like fun, silly, cute, and cool. Why would this reaction occur? Have you ever had a personal interaction with any Telus rep that could be described by one of these adjectives? The answer is probably no. It doesn’t matter though, because Telus has strategically positioned themselves this way by using effective branding and great TV spots that feature lemurs and festive hippos.

Apple is another great example. Many people say they are immune to advertising, yet they sure know how cool Macbooks are… Maintaining a strong media presence also works to improve the perceptions and trust of consumers. Effective media planning and solid frequency provides a sense of legitimacy to any product. It’s what separates brand names from cheap imitators. This is especially true for goods that the public doesn’t generally have a strong opinion towards – like pain-relievers, for example. By maintaining a prolonged and successful marketing presence, Tylenol and Aspirin have built rock-solid brand loyalty amongst consumers. I’m sure the no-name acetaminophen would work just as well and cost a dollar less, but I want the legitimacy of Tylenol. I’m willing to spend the extra money for an established product. I don’t think many people can recall a specific ad for Tylenol that was overly charming or memorable, but I’m sure they possess the same perception. Advertising is all about the intangibles. It’s built upon developing relationships – sometimes without the consumer even knowing – so that brands can eventually become successful.

So next time you run into one of these anti-advertising hooligans, let them think whatever they want. Chances are, they’ve already fallen victim to the genius of our work. And they don’t even know it.

By Brook Johnston @ marketingman.ca

Co-workers for a while. Friends for life.

Let’s face it, I’m writing this blog because it’s my turn. I’ve been asked before but always managed to wiggle my way out of it. Until now. “Do one for December,” I was told. And, like all good creative people, I respond well to deadlines. Sort of.

Finding a topic was my biggest challenge. My first idea, albeit an obvious one, was to talk about deadlines. After all, asking a Creative Director to take time out of a really hectic December schedule to write a blog is basically asking for a commentary on deadlines. Why must everything be done before December 24th?

My next topic idea was to discuss what a tough year 2009 was. And boy was it! I’m glad to see the end of this one. But as a veteran of the business, I have to admit, I’ve seen worse. I’d be happy to swap battle stories with any other vets out there – over a glass of wine of course.

Other topics entered my frantic brain, but they all felt too negative. An old memory flashed through my mind. Once, when I was in my 20’s and looking to switch agencies, I discovered I didn’t get a job I wanted because the Creative Director thought I was bitter and jaded. And that was before I actually became bitter and jaded. Hmmm… Happy thoughts…. Happy thoughts…

Then I received a phone call from a friend, one of my best friends in fact, inviting me out for drinks. And I knew I had my topic. Sure it’s a tough, relentless, harsh, often thankless business (happy thoughts, happy thoughts), but it can also be very rewarding. In particular, in the friendships you make.

My friend, let’s call her Beth, and I met over 10 years ago – working at the same direct marketing agency. As creative partners (she’s an art director, I’m a writer), we bonded over 3am arguments over which concepts were stronger, over headlines that were too long, or layouts that just didn’t work. We shared the joy of a brilliant idea and the panic of a bad one.

Life eventually took us in different directions – different countries in fact – but we never lost touch. And now, back in the same city, we talk pretty much daily… even if it’s just to complain about something.

And Beth isn’t the anomaly. Many of the people I’ve worked with over the years have become good friends. We invite each other out for lunch, coffee and drinks. We go to each other’s parties. We’re facebook friends. We email each other youtube videos. We tell stories and laugh at the things that once made us hide out in the bathroom and cry. We dance together at the CMAs. And we hug… every time we see each other.

Recently an intern asked me, “what’s the best part about being in the advertising business?” And I had trouble answering her. (“You’re bitter and jaded,” flashed through my mind again.) But now that I’ve had time to think about it, I know what I’d say: it’s the people you work with. Friends. Friends for life.

By Shelley Sutherland, Vice-President, Creative Director, Rapp Canada (and CMA Direct Marketing Council member)

"Confirmation Bias" and Brand Loyalty

Our minds hate change. Several studies have shown that people are twice as likely to seek information that confirms their beliefs than they are to consider evidence that contradicts them. This "confirmation bias" can influence how consumers and marketers make decisions.

Henry Ford famously said, "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have asked for a faster horse." In other words, the road to true innovation is rarely illuminated by customers telling you what to do next; they may often not know what they want next or rely on a "confirmation bias" about their preferences.

Most innovative marketers say that fighting confirmation bias is a never-ending battle. But if you can't conquer this gremlin of your own mind, you don't stand a chance of outwitting your competitors.

We see this behaviour in all our decisions. A case in point is how retail investors hold on to stocks in a falling market, believing that the markets will rise, without any empirical evidence that this is likely to happen. Consumer confidence is a big driver of purchase behaviour. If consumers believe this recession will last a lot longer than it will because they recently lost their jobs, they are likely to scale back discretionary spending even after they find a new job because of a "confirmation bias".

In short, the human mind acts like a compulsive yes-man who echoes whatever you want to believe. Psychologists call this mental gremlin the "confirmation bias". A recent analysis of psychological studies with nearly 8,000 participants concluded that people are twice as likely to seek information that confirms what they already believe as they are to consider evidence that would challenge those beliefs.

Why is a mind-made-up so hard to penetrate?

Psychologists say its easier for consumers to repeat decisions than to take new ones. Whatever decisions consumers are inclined to make, are the decisions consumers are likely to go about justifying. It's simply easier to focus our attention on data that supports our preferences, rather than to seek out evidence that might disprove it. "Confirmation bias" is one of the biggest drivers and often under reported influencers of brand loyalty. It transcends the usual influencers such as product performance, emotional empathy and brand recognition.

It also is easier for people to rationalize than to be rational. Consumers and marketers are very good at cooking up post-hoc explanations of why our predictions didn't work or why we made some decisions. We tend to reinterpret our failures as near-misses.

The more you learn, the more certain you become that you are right. While gathering more data makes people more confident, it doesn't make their predictions much more accurate. Each new fact makes you more inclined to find another fact that resembles it, reducing the diversity and value of your information.

Confirmation bias contaminates the thinking of brand preferences of consumers. A lot of psychological traps can be combated with humility, but on this one, that doesn't help. For example, several North American auto companies missed the significant growth opportunity in fuel efficient cars because they clung to outdated strategies for gas guzzling SUVs and eroded brand value with carrots such as 'employee pricing'.

So how can marketers counteract confirmation bias?

A way to approach it is to imagine that you have looked into a crystal ball and have seen that your strategy has gone bust. Next, come up with the most compelling explanations you can find for the failure. This exercise, which some of the most innovative and successful marketers have integrated into their research process, can help you realize that your beliefs regarding why consumers might or might not prefer your brand might not be as solid as you thought.

Try estimating the odds that your analysis is wrong. Let us say that you reckon there is a 20% chance of an adverse outcome; that is like saying you will be proven wrong one in every five times. This way, if the investment does go awry, you will be less likely to dig in your analytical heels and desperately try to prove that you are still right. This procedure provides "psychological cover for admitting that you're wrong."

Show your ideas and strategies to another person you respect whose ego isn't already invested in the decision. Ask: If you didn't have to take this decision, would you still agree with it?

Run an imaginary strategy alongside your real one. There, you can change it at will, with no risk to your brand portfolio. On that blank slate, would you do more—or less—of your existing approach to strategy and consumer engagement? Some organizations require each team member to run a stress test of their brand portfolio and to justify any differences between their paper strategies and the company’s real-world plans. It helps senior executives know what people really think.

Before you decide on a marketing or business strategy in the first place, write down a statement of what would compel you to change your view of the strategy. If any of those influencers come to pass, the written record will make it harder for you to pretend nothing has changed or that you don't have to do anything in response.

Please email me if you would like to receive Arcus Consulting Group's series on "Better consumer engagement strategies".

Bold or Brash?

While researching competitive ads in the not-for-profit category, our team came across a campaign that literally stopped us in our tracks.

The stark, contrasting, powerful imagery did such a good job at conveying a message that very little copy was needed to communicate the story. Regardless of how we individually felt about what we saw and the campaign overall, we believe that the ads delivered the message that was very likely set out as an objective in the orginating creative brief.

To be clear....I haven't seen the brief....but everyone knows that you should be able to guess what the creative strategy was if the ad was designed and written effectively.

I'd bet the farm that it went something like this:

Project Requirements: Develop a national print campaign

Communication Objective: Increase awareness of how little it costs to contribute to life saving, sustainable solutions to aid the poor in developing countries

Business Objective: Raise $XX funds to support programming for basic human needs: food, water & shelter

And if this was the brief - then this ad DELIVERED. In this business we talk about taking risks, being bold and getting your message out there by being innovative and smart and interesting. But it is quite often easier said than done.

These ads did all of those things. And to add to their credit, they have some enviable industry accolades as well. I can't vouch for whether or not they actually raised awareness funding - but I strongly suspect they succeeded on both accounts.

So I'm curious....are these ads bold? Or are they just brash? If they work to solve the stated objectives, but make you feel uncomfortable and just a little bit icky - is the creative strategy still working? I vote yes...but am interested to hear what you think.