Visit the CMA Website Canadian Marketing Blog

Welcome to the CMA - Canadian Marketing Association - Blog. This Blog is an initiative of the CMA Digital Marketing Council. All marketing-related topics are fair game: branding, strategy, online, offline, marketing trends, technology, direct marketing, market research...and more.


Bryan Tenenhouse

With 20 years of integrated agency and marketing experience working on everything from Apple and American Express to Volkswagen, Bryan has established himself as one of Canada's top creative professionals. With extensive expertise in almost every conceivable business category, a deep understanding of customer loyalty and retention, and experience working in every channel including broadcast, print, radio, dm, online, outdoor and in-store, Bryan knows how to build and support brands while generating award-winning business results for his clients.

As Vice-President, Associate Creative Director at Wunderman from 1995 to 2000, Bryan lead creative on such diverse blue chip accounts as RBC Royal Bank, Apple Canada, AOL Canada, AT&T, Canadian Tire Financial, Diners Club International and many others. Then in the year 2000, Bryan moved to Arnold Brand Response (ABR, formerly Vickers & Benson Direct & Interactive) as SVP, Creative Director. During his tenure, the agency was voted one of the top three direct agencies in the country two years in a row by Strategy Magazine. While at ABR he provided creative leadership on such well-known integrated accounts as Canada Investment and Savings, Hbc Credit and Loyalty, Tourism Toronto, Canadian Tourism Commission, BMO Bank of Montreal, Volkswagen, Sprint Canada and many more.

Bryan joined Draft in April of 2006 as EVP, Chief Creative Officer where he lead creative on such blue chip accounts as Canada Post, HP, Ontario Lottery and Gaming, FedEx, Ministry of Health and Johnson & Johnson to name a few. The agency then merged with DRAFTFCB late in 2006. Bryan spent the year successfully transitioning accounts and staff then started his own strategic creative consultancy, The Tenenhouse Project, in November 2007.

Bryan is the recipient of multiple Canadian Marketing Association (CMA/RSVP) Awards for almost every year he's been in the business, plus several international awards including a Gold International ECHO Award for Apple Canada. He is also the recipient of several Mobius Awards and various other business category awards such as "Best in Show" at the Electronic Retailers Association Awards.

Bryan has established a leadership role within the country's largest industry association as a member of the Canadian Marketing Association's Board of Directors. He was founding Chair of the CMA's Direct Marketing Council and has served as a member of CMA's National Conference Committee. Bryan was also a founding Jurist for the National Advertising Awards 2006 (Direct) that sends its winners to the Cannes Festival, and was Chair of the Direct Jury for 2007. He is frequently asked to speak at industry conferences and accredited marketing programs across the country. His articles have appeared in both Marketing Magazine and Strategy.

Bryan Tenenhouse - CMA Blog Contributor
 

Comparing Apples to Apples.

Recently, I have had the same conversation with two separate people. We were talking about the Dove Revolution campaign. The people with whom I was speaking both said they couldn't believe how well that spot had done at Cannes. It did well in the interactive category. They were aghast that what was basically a television spot would do so well in an integrated category of an award show. After all, there was no real interactive component. How dare they. There was no "online experience" to be had. Nothing to do but watch the spot. I've heard this lament time and again about various campaigns. In fact, the same argument has been waged in the pages of Marketing Magazine recently where, in the letters to the editor section, one Creative Director took another Creative Director to task for arguing that a television spot or outdoor billboard posted on YouTube does not make it "online creative". Perhaps not. But here's where I have to play devils advocate.

To my mind, the internet is obviously a place where you can interact with creative. But it's also much more than that. It's also, like television, a place where you can build a brand and create awareness. Like a direct marketing campaign, it can generate a lead, collect customer information, be extremely personalized, and provide an offer. Like a retail promotion, it can get you to enter a contest and win something spectacular.

Of course, the online space is a discipline. There's a way to produce online creative that is obviously different from how you develop other creative, and you have people who specialize in the space. But it's also a channel with the power to build awareness, generate a response, and engage a consumer.

And that brings me back to the campaign that started the conversation in the first place, the Dove Revolution spot, and the reason I'm writing this post. This was my role as the devil's advocate in my conversation with my friends.

The Dove campaign won at Cannes because it was brilliant creative. Plain and simple. It didn't matter where it appeared. It ran online, but why can't the online space be used to build a brand and generate PR? People who work in the online space know its potential. But do they harbour, dare I say it, some bias that online advertising can only be immersive and clickable? Only "interactive"?

Then, after having had both conversations, I had a revelation. Perhaps the award shows themselves (like Cannes) are creating this controversy and encouraging this argument. Perhaps the problem isn't the creative. Perhaps it's the way the work is submitted and judged. Maybe it's the categories in which the creative must be entered. Was the Dove campaign competing with work that was more experiential? Were apples being compared to apples? And if not, why not? Why don't interactive award shows create categories that break the work down into the objectives of the campaign. Mass/Awareness online ads should compete with online ads that were created to do the same job. Promotional campaigns should compete with campaigns against those objectives. And so on. Perhaps they'd have to rethink how the whole award show is built. Perish the thought!

In the mean time, don't blame the Dove campaign for being beautiful. Just let it compete with its own kind.


  • Comment on this post
  • Send 'Comparing Apples to Apples.' to a Friend
  • Permalink
Apr. 04 2008 09:00 AM | Comments 1 posted | Categories Advertising - Branding - Customer Experience - Digital - Direct Marketing -

Name that Spot!

I just saw a car commercial while watching one of my guilty pleasure shows (don't ask) and paused it before any branding revealed itself. I turned to my wife, who had seen the spot several times, and asked her who the commercial was for. She couldn't remember and neither could I. We both took a guess and we were both wrong. The logo isn't actually revealed until the end of the spot. Go figure. Here are descriptions of 5 current spots running on Canadian television (including the spot in question). See if you can name the products they're for.

1. A team of contortionists form the shape of a car.
2. A woman puts her baby to bed. An alarm goes off and the baby is now a teenager getting out of bed. In the next shot, we see him kissing his mom goodbye and leaving the house as the mother looks on lovingly.
3. A computer is pulled out of an inter-office envelope while a cool song is playing in the background. (Come on, that one’s easy.)
4. A woman is climbing on a rock wall as a grandmother repels down beside her. A microwave then drops down on a rope. The grandmother opens it, takes out the product (still hanging from the rope) and feeds the younger woman this product.
5. Two identical fish float unto a white background to a cool song.

Clearly some of the above spots are more effective and memorable than others. Some are easy to connect to their product because the product is central to the concept of the commercial. The creative doesn’t overpower the message or the product. Or the brand is so consistent across all media that the spot could only be for that product.

The key benchmark for evaluating whether a TV commercial works or not is, can you remember what the commercial was for after being entertained by it. Do you remember it the next day or a week later. If the answer is no, the spot in question wasn’t worth the money it took to produce it, or the cost of the media. It wasn’t worth a dollar. It’s that simple.

  • Comment on this post
  • Send 'Name that Spot!' to a Friend
  • Permalink
Mar. 31 2008 09:00 AM | Comments 4 posted | Categories Advertising - Branding - Digital - Direct Marketing -

What Diamond Shreddies says about us.

Every so often a campaign comes along that is truly smart, fun and memorable. The new Diamond Shreddies campaign is all three.

You've probably seen the billboards. Of course there are commercials too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZeAwpPqnJU

So, what's so great about this campaign? Basically, it deconstructs everything we do as marketers, advertising professionals, clients, and customers. For example, I use a certain brand of razor. It has a blue strip across the top. Apparently, when the blue stripe turns white, it's time to start a new blade. If you've ever seen a picture of me, or met me, you know I go through a lot of blades. The marketers of those razors are brilliant. I know it's smart marketing. And I know why they added the blue stripe. I’m onto them. But I admit that before they added that little blue stripe, I used those blades at least a week or two longer than I do now and amazingly they worked just fine. Go figure.

So when the truly brilliant makers of Shreddies came out with new and improved Diamond Shreddies (urban legend has it that an intern at their agency actually came up with the idea) they not only turned the fractured mirror back on us as marketers, they also stuck a finger in the ribs of today's gullible consumer. Take a look a this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOuC5jjTZOI&feature=related

Having sat in countless focus groups, I can’t believe how spot on this little viral video is. Poor consumer. They didn't stand a chance.

I’ve never been much of a breakfast cereal eater. But now that Shreddies come in diamond shapes, I’m seriously considering them as a snack.

  • Comment on this post
  • Send 'What Diamond Shreddies says about us.' to a Friend
  • Permalink
Mar. 03 2008 09:00 AM | Comments 9 posted | Categories Advertising - Branding - Customer Experience -

The Decline (and Rise) of the Creative Brief

Now that I've started my own company, I'm reminded of how critically important the Brief Document is to developing creative. And not just good creative, but insightful, smart, relevant and strategically sound creative.

If I had to assign a grade to the average Brief I've seen over the years, I'm afraid I'd be pulling the parents into the classroom to discuss my concern for the child's future. In fact, the future of the Brief, I believe, is in serious jeopardy unless changes are made.

When I first started in this business, Briefs were treated with the respect they deserved -- both by the account people developing them and by the creative people inspired by them. I use the word "developing" up there in the previous sentence because that's really what should be happening -- and back in the old days, that is what happened. Briefs were developed by account people who understood that Briefing Documents were their opportunity to inspire brilliant creative. They weren't just filling out a form or transcribing the Client Brief from one template to another template. (Or worse, doing nothing at all.) They were developing a Creative Brief that added value, a unique perspective, clarity, and most importantly, inspiration.

Client Briefs and Creative Briefs are not the same thing.

Client Briefs contain marketing data, extensive background, customer data, research, the demands of several constituents (product managers, their bosses, marketing managers, their bosses, etc.).

Creative Briefs should be an important distillation of Client Briefs -- not just a cut and paste of the Client Brief into the Agency Creative Brief template. The Agency Creative Brief is an opportunity for the agency to gain consensus. It should be used to ensure that there is a common understanding of what is being asked by the client. The focus should be crisp. Once developed, it should be discussed, face to face with the client to ensure that what they're asking for is being understood and communicated.

When I became an Associate Creative Director, one of the Account Directors with whom I worked suggested that I review the Briefs his account team wrote before they went back to the client or were briefed into a creative team. At the time I thought that was an unusual request. But then I realized that the Creative perspective on a Brief is different than the Account Team's or Client's perspective.

I've reviewed Briefs ever since. Upon review, I would have a discussion with the Account Person and if I had any questions or if I needed clarification, they could be addressed either by said Account Person or by the client before using up valuable Creative Team time. (Too often, the strategy gets figured out during the Creative Development process instead of during the Briefing process.)

By the time the Creative Team was briefed, the Brief would be strategically sound, clear and creatively inspiring. And that means, the creative product would be right the first time. (Right the first time from the client's perspective -- because the work would fit the brief like a glove.)

So how do you know if your Brief deserves a passing or failing grade?

1. There can only be ONE Key Communication Objective. It should be one sentence. No longer. And it should be directly linked to the Customer Net Takeaway section of the brief.

2. Think about the Consumer Problem. The Brief should clearly and simply communicate what the consumer problem is. Your product or service is the Solution to that problem. And the features and benefits are the Proof that your product or service delivers. (I've just told you the secret structure to any campaign in any channel. I guarantee it works.)

3. The Features and Benefits. They are not the same thing! Knowing the difference and communicating them clearly make all the difference.

4. The Product is not the Offer. Make sure the offer is clear and it'll be clearly communicated in the Creative.

5. There is such a thing as too much information. Say everything as economically as you can and everything will be that much clearer.

6. Target Audience. If there's only one target, great. If there's more than one target, then you probably need a matrix breaking down how the Key Communication Objective changes against each target.

7. What does the Target Audience currently think? And what do we want them to think once they've been exposed to our campaign? This is important because it gives the Creative Team inspiration for how to overcome customer objections to your offering.

There is so much more that could be written about the Brief. And you're probably reading this and thinking how basic it all seems. But if you can answer YES to any of the following questions, then it might be time to think about briefing differently.

1. Does it ever seem like the Agency/Creative Team isn't "getting it"?
2. Do you ever sit in creative presentations and think "this isn't what I asked for"?
3. Do your Creative Teams ask too many questions after they've already been briefed?
4. Does it ever take more than one round of Creative to get what you thought you were going to get?
5. Do you feel like your Agency isn't adding any value?

I guarantee that if you challenge your Agency to write a Creative Brief, (or as an Agency, if you take the time to develop a Creative Brief for your teams and your Client) you will get better Creative, faster. You will cut down on the rounds of changes/new concepts. And that means you will be paying for fewer hours.

People think "process" takes up too much time -- then end up paying for the extra hours when the work needs to be done the second time.

Stop the insanity. Fix the Brief.


  • Comment on this post
  • Send 'The Decline (and Rise) of the Creative Brief' to a Friend
  • Permalink
Feb. 27 2008 09:00 AM | Comments 3 posted | Categories Advertising - B2B - Branding - Direct Marketing - Integration -

Switching Sides

I've been watching the U.S. Presidential race with great interest. (My wife would argue too much interest.) I've seen every debate. I've watched every Sunday morning political show. I enjoy Chris Matthews' Hardball on MSNBC (even though he can't seem to speak without spitting). And I admit I find the whole process much more engaging than our own election process. I'm not sure why. But that's another story.

The reason I raise this is because now with McCain the Republican front runner, I'm amazed that there are segments of his own party (the evangelical and ultra-conservative right wing) who would rather switch to a Hillary Clinton than vote for one of their less conservative own. Ann Coulter, the patron saint of conservatism said as much herself just last week.

This got me to thinking about the idea of switching from a marketing perspective. After all, as Marketers, we try to get people to "Switch" to our brand, product or service all the time. I can't tell you how many communications and calls I've received (and avoided) from Bell recently to get me to switch back to them.

What the McCain example seems to reinforce is that the big "Switch" doesn't so much happen because we ask people to switch. People tend to switch because they are forced to. I'm sure there are many reasons, but bad service (as the conservatives might argue in McCain’s case) and sudden price hikes come to mind.

After many years of being a loyal Palm Treo user, I recently switched to Blackberry because the Palm Treo I was using wasn’t holding its charge. After three replacement units I finally switched. When service goes bad, it doesn’t matter how loyal a customer you’ve been. You’re more likely to look for an alternative.

Of course, another incentive for switching is lower price. So if I actually were to answer Bell’s call, I would likely find out how much I could save. But convenience is a deterrent to change (as is inertia) and even dollars saved isn’t enough of an incentive, at least in this case.

So what is enough incentive for someone to switch? That’s the question I’m posing to you. And I bet it’s a question most Marketers struggle with. I’d be interested in hearing what works from your experience. (I’m sure McCain would be interested too. After all, his political life now depends on it.)

  • Comment on this post
  • Send 'Switching Sides' to a Friend
  • Permalink
Feb. 12 2008 09:00 AM | Comments 0 posted | Categories This and That -



Subscribe to our feed

May
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31




Blog Roll