The folks at the Politics and Technology blog advise on how to produce an inexpensive TV campaign. Produce the spot (which, thanks to digital video technology, is cheap and easy) but don't buy air time. And let a "lazy, bored" media do the rest. I love it.
*Clios are only awarded to ads that are broadcast or shown in movie theaters. But I guess a $264 buy in New Hampshire qualifies.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Can we talk???
I don’t typically like to quote the “big guys,” but I happened to like this one from Steve Greifer, Senior VP of Promotions at Digitas, as printed in the August edition of Promo magazine:
“Even when we’re not driving a final sale, we’re always driving to create a relationship….and incent people to give us information and continue the dialogue.”
I’ll forgive him for the use of the non-word “incent” because what Greifer says makes a lot of sense. It isn’t always about the sale or closing the deal. It’s all about continuing the dialogue. That isn’t always easy to measure, of course. But maybe that’s why measuring the performance of a single campaign doesn’t always give a complete picture. It’s what you do over time, over multiple campaigns. And if your clients/customers/prospects are willing to pick up the conversation where you last left off, ideally both talking and listening, then you’ve succeeded, at least partially, in building a relationship. And all good things follow from that.
Incidentally, this is why marketing professionals using the e-mail channel care about unsubscribe rates. It's a useful indicator for looking at what percentage of your list is wanting to shut down the dialogue and could tip you off to problems with your communications.
“Even when we’re not driving a final sale, we’re always driving to create a relationship….and incent people to give us information and continue the dialogue.”
I’ll forgive him for the use of the non-word “incent” because what Greifer says makes a lot of sense. It isn’t always about the sale or closing the deal. It’s all about continuing the dialogue. That isn’t always easy to measure, of course. But maybe that’s why measuring the performance of a single campaign doesn’t always give a complete picture. It’s what you do over time, over multiple campaigns. And if your clients/customers/prospects are willing to pick up the conversation where you last left off, ideally both talking and listening, then you’ve succeeded, at least partially, in building a relationship. And all good things follow from that.
Incidentally, this is why marketing professionals using the e-mail channel care about unsubscribe rates. It's a useful indicator for looking at what percentage of your list is wanting to shut down the dialogue and could tip you off to problems with your communications.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Subliminal advertising 2.0
In its June issue, Fast Company featured a write-up of a book by a former ad exec who has written an academic-sounding tome (with a textbook price of $45!) entitled “The Advertised Mind.” Apparently, the premise is that emotion is at the basis of all decision making and thus the key to marketing success lies in understanding how to trigger positive emotional reactions. Sounds innocuous enough (and pure common sense), on the surface anyway.
Then in the August edition of Business 2.0 we find an article on the emerging science of neuromarketing. Neuroco, a privately held firm in Great Britain, is at the forefront of this new discipline, melding neuroscience and clinical psychology with the heretofore fluffier discipline of advertising. The result? Sensory and psychic manipulation (my term) that’s thoroughly tested using electroencephalography technology (brain scans) before an ad goes prime-time.
The first sign that this obviously growing market research trend borders on troubling, if not alarming? None of the company’s clients (among them six multinational companies) were willing to talk about the research they’ve commissioned.
I do believe in delivering results—results that can be measured. And the neuro-marketing approach goes a long way toward taking the guesswork and capriciousness out of campaigns that companies spend countless dollars on with no guarantee of a return. In addition, it corrects what is a fundamental flaw with the focus group concept: what people say doesn’t always jibe with what they’re truly feeling or experiencing in the recesses of their minds.
But I viscerally object to such an approach, in part because it takes a lot of the fun out of marketing and, at the risk of sounding trite, it smacks of Orwell. In addition, I do think on some level it’s manipulation, perhaps even more insidious than so-called subliminal advertising. Call me a Luddite.
Perhaps I’m ascribing too much power to neuromarketing. After all, stimulating emotional responses and steering them toward a desired behavior is a tricky proposition; conceivably, such efforts could just as easily backfire.
Final soapbox thought: I shutter to think of the lawsuits coming down the pike that will blame criminal and other antisocial behavior on Proctor & Gamble or some other advertiser once neuromarketing really takes root. And you know what—given the lengths some companies might go to trigger just the right synaptic response, I just might be sympathetic to such claims.
Then in the August edition of Business 2.0 we find an article on the emerging science of neuromarketing. Neuroco, a privately held firm in Great Britain, is at the forefront of this new discipline, melding neuroscience and clinical psychology with the heretofore fluffier discipline of advertising. The result? Sensory and psychic manipulation (my term) that’s thoroughly tested using electroencephalography technology (brain scans) before an ad goes prime-time.
The first sign that this obviously growing market research trend borders on troubling, if not alarming? None of the company’s clients (among them six multinational companies) were willing to talk about the research they’ve commissioned.
I do believe in delivering results—results that can be measured. And the neuro-marketing approach goes a long way toward taking the guesswork and capriciousness out of campaigns that companies spend countless dollars on with no guarantee of a return. In addition, it corrects what is a fundamental flaw with the focus group concept: what people say doesn’t always jibe with what they’re truly feeling or experiencing in the recesses of their minds.
But I viscerally object to such an approach, in part because it takes a lot of the fun out of marketing and, at the risk of sounding trite, it smacks of Orwell. In addition, I do think on some level it’s manipulation, perhaps even more insidious than so-called subliminal advertising. Call me a Luddite.
Perhaps I’m ascribing too much power to neuromarketing. After all, stimulating emotional responses and steering them toward a desired behavior is a tricky proposition; conceivably, such efforts could just as easily backfire.
Final soapbox thought: I shutter to think of the lawsuits coming down the pike that will blame criminal and other antisocial behavior on Proctor & Gamble or some other advertiser once neuromarketing really takes root. And you know what—given the lengths some companies might go to trigger just the right synaptic response, I just might be sympathetic to such claims.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
This stock is poised for a meteoric rise this week!!!
A long overdue form of consumer (and business) protection is finally law, as of the first of this month.
I've always considered the fax blast poor marketing form. A nuisance at best and a needless business and environmental cost at worst (when you figure in paper and toner, even if it's only a few sheets a day).
Every office I've ever worked in received those ridiculous penny stock tip sheets. I always wondered who reads those things (usually a pump and dump scheme that the average Joe is not in on) and and is motivated to invest in these so-called companies: "Well, if this came across the fax, it must be legit. I'll buy 500 shares."
There's a time and a place for fax marketing. I don't mind getting the weekly menu/daily specials from a local restaurant I frequent, for example. But most of what comes across is irrelevant and annoying, which is why the new law requiring written permission for the recipient is warranted.
And for the record, I don't have a fax line, largely because of the aforementioned nuisance. I do have a fax machine that I plug in when I know I'm going to send or receive something. And that way I make sure a sender truly does have my permission before sending.
I've always considered the fax blast poor marketing form. A nuisance at best and a needless business and environmental cost at worst (when you figure in paper and toner, even if it's only a few sheets a day).
Every office I've ever worked in received those ridiculous penny stock tip sheets. I always wondered who reads those things (usually a pump and dump scheme that the average Joe is not in on) and and is motivated to invest in these so-called companies: "Well, if this came across the fax, it must be legit. I'll buy 500 shares."
There's a time and a place for fax marketing. I don't mind getting the weekly menu/daily specials from a local restaurant I frequent, for example. But most of what comes across is irrelevant and annoying, which is why the new law requiring written permission for the recipient is warranted.
And for the record, I don't have a fax line, largely because of the aforementioned nuisance. I do have a fax machine that I plug in when I know I'm going to send or receive something. And that way I make sure a sender truly does have my permission before sending.
Branding Hall of Shame
I noticed the other day that the man who drives the local ice-cream truck through our neighborhood (playing that instantly recognizable and horribly grating music) has his moniker or handle painted on the side of his truck: "Scary Larry."
Now let's think about this. His target audience is children, and of course parents who fear for their children's safety, even within the confines of what's regarded as a safe neighborhood.
"Here's a couple of quarters, honey. Say 'hi' to Scary Larry for me."
I'm sure Larry's a perfectly nice guy, but he could use a new brand. Otherwise, he's little more than a music box on wheels.
Now let's think about this. His target audience is children, and of course parents who fear for their children's safety, even within the confines of what's regarded as a safe neighborhood.
"Here's a couple of quarters, honey. Say 'hi' to Scary Larry for me."
I'm sure Larry's a perfectly nice guy, but he could use a new brand. Otherwise, he's little more than a music box on wheels.
Monday, June 06, 2005
High-performance shaving
I'm a sucker for freebies. And occasionally I can score points when I procure a freebie for my wife, assuming it's something of value. Because she frequently grumbles about the hardships of leg shaving, I thought I'd sign her up for a free sample of the 2005 Schick Quattro for Women, an offer I found during a Web-surfing session that had clearly meandered from my original purpose.
Now, let me first say that my wife is delighted with her new razor. As far as our household is concerned, the marketers got the job done. They gave us the razor for free, but we'll be buying their consumables for a long time--at least until they come out with a newer and even more souped-up Quattro. That's a textbook case right out of Marketing 101.
But more to the point, I loved the campaign, which spoofs an automobile campaign. With the razor, they sent along an Owner's Manual, a small 1" x 2.5" booklet that looks as dry and prosaic as any user manual--until you start reading it.
First of all, it's funny: there's a numbered diagram showing all the different parts and features, including Pivoting Head, No-Slip Rubber Grip, and Metal Bolt Thing. There's a section on customizing your Quattro, including photos of the razor with a hot paint job and in a crocheted Quattro cozy. In addition, there are (what appear to be) useful shaving tips, subtle messaging about the level of sophistication in the razor's design, and a "service schedule." When you record the dates you replaced the blade, you're more likely to replace them regularly. (As a related aside, I also thought it was brilliant when Brita created technology that indicated when it was time to replace my water filter. I now buy twice as many filters.)
Further affinity is encouraged with the owner's club: http://www.q4wownersclub.com/
Of course, I'm not the target audience, and I was far more interested in the collateral than my wife. Nevertheless, I thought it was all very clever. Of course, if the razor didn't produce "like-buttah legs" (their term), it'd all be a moot point.
Now, let me first say that my wife is delighted with her new razor. As far as our household is concerned, the marketers got the job done. They gave us the razor for free, but we'll be buying their consumables for a long time--at least until they come out with a newer and even more souped-up Quattro. That's a textbook case right out of Marketing 101.
But more to the point, I loved the campaign, which spoofs an automobile campaign. With the razor, they sent along an Owner's Manual, a small 1" x 2.5" booklet that looks as dry and prosaic as any user manual--until you start reading it.
First of all, it's funny: there's a numbered diagram showing all the different parts and features, including Pivoting Head, No-Slip Rubber Grip, and Metal Bolt Thing. There's a section on customizing your Quattro, including photos of the razor with a hot paint job and in a crocheted Quattro cozy. In addition, there are (what appear to be) useful shaving tips, subtle messaging about the level of sophistication in the razor's design, and a "service schedule." When you record the dates you replaced the blade, you're more likely to replace them regularly. (As a related aside, I also thought it was brilliant when Brita created technology that indicated when it was time to replace my water filter. I now buy twice as many filters.)
Further affinity is encouraged with the owner's club: http://www.q4wownersclub.com/
Of course, I'm not the target audience, and I was far more interested in the collateral than my wife. Nevertheless, I thought it was all very clever. Of course, if the razor didn't produce "like-buttah legs" (their term), it'd all be a moot point.
He's talking about me and he's talking to you:
Seth Godin, whose wisdom I will undoubtedly reference regularly in this space, comments on why smaller is better:
"A small law firm or accounting firm or ad agency is succeeding because they’re good, not because they’re big. So smart small companies are happy to hire them."
"A small law firm or accounting firm or ad agency is succeeding because they’re good, not because they’re big. So smart small companies are happy to hire them."
Friday, April 22, 2005
Four out of Five Doctors Endorse Bacon?
NPR ran a great story this morning about Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freund, and widely considered the father of modern-day Public Relations.
His PR tactics often relied on third-party authorities to (in some cases unwittingly) shape public opinion. He's credited with redefining the "American breakfast"--from coffee and toast to bacon and eggs--thanks to a survey of 5000 physicians, who overwhelmingly recommended a "hearty" breakfast over a light breakfast. Of course, those polled were seemingly not given any definition of "hearty," and so Bernays devised one himself. Presumably, the results might have been quite different if the docs had been asked about "greasy, cholesterol-laden" breakfasts, which is an equally apt descriptor of the all-American fare Bernays sought to promote.
Effective? No doubt. Manipulative? Absolutely. Dangerous? Potentially. The NPR story notes that Hitler's chief propagandist Joseph Goebbels kept Bernays' books on his shelf. Bernays feared that his work would lead to "impropaganda," even as he recruited opera singers to claim in ads that smoking soothed their voices and aided digestion.
His PR tactics often relied on third-party authorities to (in some cases unwittingly) shape public opinion. He's credited with redefining the "American breakfast"--from coffee and toast to bacon and eggs--thanks to a survey of 5000 physicians, who overwhelmingly recommended a "hearty" breakfast over a light breakfast. Of course, those polled were seemingly not given any definition of "hearty," and so Bernays devised one himself. Presumably, the results might have been quite different if the docs had been asked about "greasy, cholesterol-laden" breakfasts, which is an equally apt descriptor of the all-American fare Bernays sought to promote.
Effective? No doubt. Manipulative? Absolutely. Dangerous? Potentially. The NPR story notes that Hitler's chief propagandist Joseph Goebbels kept Bernays' books on his shelf. Bernays feared that his work would lead to "impropaganda," even as he recruited opera singers to claim in ads that smoking soothed their voices and aided digestion.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Does your current agency stink?
From today's Marketing Sherpa dispatch:
2. Briefs: Which Ad Agencies are Bad? + New B-to-B Award
15-minute Questionnaire: Grade Ad AgenciesAdweek and JWT have teamed to research industry perceptions of ad agency performance. (In other words, does your agency stink or not?) You can take the questionnaire online at the link below. Results will be published in Adweek's May 2nd issue:http://ad.vnh10.net/r/?ZXU=151999&ZXD=25493857
In Firefox, I consistently got a timeout error. Later in the day, using IE, I arrived at a page that told me the survey had been closed. I have little doubt that the server was either overwhelmed by traffic and/or the response from disgruntled clients was so great that they promptly collected enough data and called it a day. Or, perhaps the folks at Sherpa simply disseminated info that was dated--if true, an unfortunate oversight committed by the gurus of email marketing.
2. Briefs: Which Ad Agencies are Bad? + New B-to-B Award
15-minute Questionnaire: Grade Ad AgenciesAdweek and JWT have teamed to research industry perceptions of ad agency performance. (In other words, does your agency stink or not?) You can take the questionnaire online at the link below. Results will be published in Adweek's May 2nd issue:http://ad.vnh10.net/r/?ZXU=151999&ZXD=25493857
In Firefox, I consistently got a timeout error. Later in the day, using IE, I arrived at a page that told me the survey had been closed. I have little doubt that the server was either overwhelmed by traffic and/or the response from disgruntled clients was so great that they promptly collected enough data and called it a day. Or, perhaps the folks at Sherpa simply disseminated info that was dated--if true, an unfortunate oversight committed by the gurus of email marketing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
