Made You Look Marketing

It's cheap. It's easy. It's virtually worthless. And it's happening far too often these days thanks in a large part to the proliferation of media and all the 24/7 platforms that unquenchable thirst for constant content.

I call it "Made You Look Marketing." Or in other terms, executions in search of a strategy.

The latest trend is auto manufacturers to get attention is to have someone make their cars out of Legos and seemingly everyone is doing it from Chevrolet to Bugatti to McLaren. For Chevy maybe it makes some sense because it's a tie-in to the Lego movie (we'll discuss the merits of that at a later date), but why are manufacturers of multimillion dollar cars that are already sold out doing it? And, how can a tactic that's right for a mainstream brand be appropriate for a niche manufacturer targeting the 1% of the 1% of the 1%?

It's not just Lego cars either. So much is happening in marketing right now that is both derivative and ephemeral, with no grounding in marketing strategy and no lasting impact on brand image.

This short-term thinking is leading marketers to follow the latest shiny new thing regardless of its effectiveness. In some cases, it's undermining the integrity of our entire business.

Marketing and branding is strategic and requires long-term vision from which short term tactics can be executed. The pressure to get clicks, views, likes, and follows as a proxy for awareness, preference, and sales has been going on for far too long. It's time for marketing leaders to thing about the future of their brands, not the next big thing in marketing.

Apple's social strategy is its products

Recently, Christopher Heine, digital editor of Adweek was quoted on Smartbrief as saying "It's really hard to figure out what Apple's social strategy is -- if it has one at all."

This comment stems from the fact that unlike most companies, Apple doesn't have a legion of ninjas, commandos, wizards and rockstars tweeting, posting and instagramming inane content for them all hours of the day and night. Instead they decided to drop a few hundred grand on a promoted tweet for the iPad Air.

Rather than manufacturing news, here's Apple's social strategy: They manufacture remarkable products their owners love to talk about.

Just because a brand doesn't talk about itself on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram doesn't mean it doesn't get talked about on those platforms. And in the end, what is more valuable, Samsung telling everyone how cool they are, or Apple users telling everyone how cool their iPads, Macbooks and iPhones are?

Yeah, I thought so.

A marketing miracle

By now, we've all seen this video of the amazing stunt marketing event from the Canadian Airline, WestJet.



Actually 19 million people have viewed it directly on Youtube, more on social media channels and millions upon millions have read about it thanks to all the press its garnered in just the week since it was posted.

How did they achieve such success?

Let's start with the concept. It's big. No, not just big, huge. I can barely get the shopping done for my family in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Buying Christmas gifts for 250 people in just a few hours is a massive undertaking.

It was executed perfectly.

Starting with Santa on video gathering wishes, to the army of employees who were sent to do the shopping to the decorations around the baggage carousel, they nailed every detail. It was magical from start to finish.

This effort was clearly genuine, heartfelt and relevant, promoting the company's real differentiator, service.

The result is that for less than the cost of producing a national TV commercial, WestJet was able to create international fame. This is an incredible marketing achievement that is sure to be honored at Cannes and every other advertising festival next year.

The question is, how can they take the momentum from this event and use it to build their business in the coming year? Their brand now stands for 'miracles' and they have to deliver on that promise on a regular basis, maybe not with grand stunts like this, but little gestures that demonstrate how much they care about their passengers. Otherwise, this big event is just marketing and all the energy it created will be drained as quickly as the batteries in a child's toy on Christmas morning.

I'm assuming that a company smart enough to create and execute this event knows that. So I'm looking forward to seeing what they do next.

Dear Charter:

We've been together for more than seven years now and for the most part I have been very happy. My cable, internet and phone all work as expected a majority of the time and even when I've had problems your customer service people have been surprisingly friendly and helpful.

Yet every week or so I get a little note from you in my email that's clearly intended for someone else.

How dare you.

Aside from the really lousy copywriting – "what you're majorly into" is just wrong on so many levels – this email only reminds me how little you actually care about our "relationship."

For seven years I've spent countless hours and thousands of dollars to keep us together. I can't quit you. I must have your precious high-speed internet. Sure I could stop there but then I wouldn't be able to waste all that time watching bad reality shows, irrelevant sporting events and rigged cooking competitions in stunning high definition that come to me courtesy of your coaxial cable.

But, according to this email you're just not that into me anymore. Your love light has turned to new customers who must be better than me since you're willing to let them have you for nearly half of what I'm paying.

Have you ever thought just once about how that makes me feel? Sure, everybody loves the new kid in town, but what about those of us who have stood by your side through the service outages, billing errors and four hour installation windows?

What do I have to do to get your attention? How can we rekindle our relationship? Here are a couple of thoughts.

First, just show a little compassion and stop making your ogling of other customers so obvious. Could you please make sure I don't see the messages you send intended for others who catch your eye?

Second, you know what I watch. You know what I like. How hard would it be to give me a little something-something every once in a while? I wouldn't mind a free on-demand movie or access to the occasional Red Wings game. Use that big data of yours and surprise me.

I'm not asking for much. Just the attention I deserve.

Tweet this

In its new Twitter Causation Study, Nielsen Research has found that twitter activity had a statistically significant impact on the ratings of programs 29% of the time. And, according to the study there's a reciprocal relationship:

“Using time series analysis, we saw a statistically significant causal influence indicating that a spike in TV ratings can increase the volume of Tweets, and, conversely, a spike in Tweets can increase tune-in,” said Paul Donato, Chief Research Officer, Nielsen.

So when more people watch a show they tweet more about it and when more people tweet about a show more people watch it.

Thus, when someone tweets, "Dude, are you watching #Sharknado?!!" a few more people tune in and when more people tune in, more people tweet about the awesome awfulness that is Sharknado.

This is good news for TV networks and for marketers because it's hard evidence that Twitter works as a word of mouth platform to a degree.

The challenge is nobody talks or tweets about ordinary things. You have to be remarkable to get the conversation started. In Sharknado's case, the show was remarkably bad, in a fascinating "I can't turn away even if I wanted to" kind of way.

So to set the twitterverse afire you need a killer product, a surprising and relevant marketing event, or a great story worth sharing.

Because while people are tweeting about a tornado that transports sharks, the unreal acts of real housewives, and backstabbing top chef/designer/model competitions, nobody's tweeting about a documentary of vanilla ice cream.

It's all branding

It amazes me that a leading publication in the advertising industry still doesn't get it.

It's all too clear based on this headline on Adweek.com

I'm going to say this very slowly to make sure they understand:

Branding is not a logo;
it's everything a company does.
Especially the product.

The fact that McDonald's can create ads showing just the product with very few other visual cues only demonstrates how strong their brand is. They've managed to differentiate it right down to the two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles on a sesame seed bun...

If you want to see how strong your brand really is, this is a great exercise. Go ahead, create an ad without a logo. If you can't recognize it as yours, neither will your consumer. That's a signal you should get to work on making your product, your packaging and everything else unique so that it expresses your brand. That'll make your "branding" work a hell of a lot harder.

Here are images from the "unbranded" campaign in question.

The future of advertising is more advertising

Well, there it is.

Yesterday Facebook announced it would start selling 15-second video ads for as much as $2.5 million per day.

What's surprising about this is not that video ads will now be part of Facebook's everyday experience, but that the only way you'll be able to target your ads is by age and gender.

So basically, they're admitting to the lie they and every other social media platform has been telling advertisers since the invention of the internet and will advertise to their users just like television does, en masse. No geographic targeting. No affinity targeting. No slicing and dicing their reams of data so I can speak to the exact person I want to at the exact moment that matters most.

The one-to-one future is dead, at least for now.

Facebook is a mass-medium and proves that when it comes to marketing. They've proven customization doesn't scale. The platform's only real value is in the aggregate of its users.

Maybe this will change. Maybe when we're all used to seeing spots roll after every 20 posts on our timeline they'll start selling space to local advertisers and microtargeters. If they're selling a few hundred companies a day at a million dollars or more, 365 days a year, however, why would they?

The folks at the networks are breathing a little easier tonight.

Why should I care?

You might have a product. You might have a name, a logo, some ads, promotions, a PR campaign and social media strategy.

None of that guarantees you have a brand.

Brands exist solely in the minds of people who care about the products or services they represent. 

If people aren't thinking about your brand – if people don't care about your brand – you don't have a brand.

So when you set out to build your brand, don't just give people a reason to believe. 

Give them a reason to care.

Gimmicks do not sell cars

When I saw this article in Ad Age, I had just one reaction. Ugh, aren't we over this yet?

Crowdsourcing ads makes about as much sense as do-it-yourself heart surgery.

The agency loses because these campaigns devalue the very product they're selling: strategic creativity.

99.99% of all participants lose because, of the thousands who will spend hours and hours generating ideas and producing materials without compensation to enter in the competition, only one will be chosen.

The client loses because instead of having the agency spend time uncovering insights and developing ideas to build the Chevy brand and sell cars, they're knee deep in consumer-generated garbage trying to find a few gems.

I have only one question about the campaign:

How does having aspiring film makers create a commercial on the Oscars lead to higher sales?

If the answer includes the words engagement, community, conversation, advertainment or any of the thousands of other social media buzzwords, you might want to start working on a new idea.

Great campaigns are about more than just ads

You've probably seen the Farmers Insurance ads on TV. It's one of the better campaigns in the category, combining a great brand mnemonic with relevant humor and what I call a "that guy" strategy – commercials featuring that guy you recognize, but couldn't recall his name if your life depended on it – to create a disruptive, memorable and effective presence amid the clutter that is television advertising.



What I love about the campaign, however, is not just how good the TV spots are, but how watchable the long form videos they've created are.

If you have two and a half minutes, watch this.



While most videos of this ilk are dry and technical, Farmers' agency has created an informational video that fits the style of the campaign without using professional on-camera talent. It almost makes me want to watch more of them.

A crowning achievement for an insurance informercial.

The best of the web

One of the beautiful things about the web, is that amid all the dreck there are gems.

Not every blog is about how to enhance your social media presence or five ways to increase traffic to your site. 

Not every app is juvenile game designed to distract you from the important things that are happening in the world around you. 

And not every video is a 15-year old girl showing you the uh-may-zing top she got for cheap on her latest trip to the mall, or some pseudo-celebrity's masturbatory exercise in self-exploitation.

Sometimes you find things like this and you can just take pleasure the talents, passion and craftsmanship of the subject and the filmmaker.

Shaped on all Six Sides from New Canada on Vimeo.

Enjoy.

Hacking up a brand

It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt... or loses billions of dollars.

People used to talk about the web in utopian terms as a source of pure information, unfiltered by the biases of editorial boards in the news media. Then something like this happens.

Now it's a source of pure disinformation, spreading rumors, innuendos and lies faster than pictures of Anthony Weiner's weiner.

If you're not ready for this new world, too bad. It's here. Deal with it.

1. If you have accounts monitor them constantly. As the AP hacking proved, waiting just a few minutes to react can be devastating.
2. If you aren't on social media, monitor your brands to make sure no one is using your name in vain.
3. Have a plan in place for when your accounts are compromised or a fake account is created in your name.
4. Don't leave your social media efforts to interns. It must be in the hands of people you trust.
5. While one person should be directing your social media efforts several should have access in case your primary contact is unavailable or – and yes, it happens – the source of the malfeasance.

Digital communications are powerful tools. They can be used to create great value for a company. But they can destroy your reputation even faster if they're not managed professionally. And even then, bad things happen.

Good luck. 

It's not the medium. It's the message.

There's a lot of fighting going on these days between social media activists, traditional media apologists and data geeks who can dig so deep into numbers they guarantee you'll strike it rich if you listen to them.

Here's the secret dirty little secret that none of them will tell you. The best media plan in the world is worthless if the creative is invisible.

Conversely, any medium that's seen or heard by the right person can be effective if it's carrying a great idea.

TV still works when you run spots like this.

Social media works when you create posts like this.

PR works when you create campaigns like this.

If you want to make sure your media dollars aren't being wasted, don't worry so much about where you're running and spend more time thinking about what you're running.

Not a banner day for advertising

As a public service to anyone planning their next online ad campaign I offer up the following facts about internet banner advertising.


1. Over 5.3 trillion display ads were served to U.S. users last year. (ComScore)
2. That’s one trillion more than 2009. (ComScore)
3. The typical Internet user is served 1,707 banner ads per month. (Comscore)
4. Click-through rates are .1 percent. (DoubleClick)
5. The 468 x 60 banner has a .04 percent click rate. (DoubleClick)
6. An estimated 31 percent of ad impressions can’t be viewed by users. (Comscore)
7. Eight percent of Internet users account for 85 percent of clicks. (ComScore)
8. Up to 50 percent of clicks on mobile banner ads are accidental. (GoldSpot Media)
9. 15 percent of people trust banner ads completely or somewhat, compared to 29 percent for TV ads. (eMarketer)
10. 34 percent don’t trust banner ads at all or much, compared to 26 percent for magazine ads. (eMarketer)

Do you remember when banner ads were supposed to finally bring accountability to the ad business by offering an platform where actual consumer behavior could be measured? The phrase, be careful what you wish for, comes to mind here. It appears that if you're looking for a more cluttered, ineffective and easy to ignore ad tactic, it would be hard to underperform banner ads.

This is why the New York Times and others are trying different revenue models for their online content. It has to be easier to convince consumers to pay for quality content than businesses to pay for ads that work this poorly.

It isn't the real thing

If you're counting on online buzz to drive sales, you might as well bet on the Cubs to win the World Series this year.

Yesterday at an Advertising Research Federation conference in New York, Coca Cola – a company that measures just about everything it does – had this to say about the connection between online "buzz" and business results...

We didn't see any significant relationship between our buzz and our short-term sales.

Count me as one of the least surprised people in the world.

Coca Cola has 99.9999999% awareness. I know where to find it. I know how much it costs. I know how refreshing it is. But somehow the expectation by the advocates of buzz is that I might see a post about Coke on a friend's Facebook page and Twitter feed and suddenly decide to go buy one?

I think not.

After this news and yesterday's post, I hope this signals a return to sanity in marketing where we'll focus more on using the tools for selling rather than just making noise.

Geico gets it

I spend a fair amount of time – maybe too much – pointing out the inane, misguided attraction some marketers have to shiny new things and the ridiculous language they use to justify their infatuation.

Not today.

Because today I want to share an interview with you from a marketer who has thrived in the brave new worlds of interactive and social media without adding to the froth and blather.

Ted Ward is the CMO of Geico Insurance and a very smart marketer.

How do I know he's smart? Well, first of all, he agrees with me.

Actually, this interview in Advertising Age is one of the best examples I've read from someone who understands that the tools of new media are just that, new tools, and do not change the fundamental principles of marketing. This quotation really stood out to me.

There is a reason it is called social media and not business media. There is much less control over the inputs and outputs, and the metrics of success are not as closely tied to direct business results.

It's not that Geico doesn't use social media. It's not that they aren't heavily invested in online marketing. It's just that Mr. Ward and his team know that online and social media all part of a mix and without data proving the efficacy of their activities, all the buzz in the world doesn't matter; an attitude sorely missing in many marketing departments these days.

Kohl's gets caught

Somebody at Kohl's has some 'splaining to do.

On the right is the logo and poster for the indie band, Yacht.

On the left is a t-shirt Kohl's is selling.

This ain't no coincidence folks.

I have news for the designer who "created" this shirt, changing three words from the work of another doesn't make it original. It's time to start looking for a new job, if not a new career.

To the higher ups at Kohl's, if you want to do the right thing before the lawyers get involved, pay the band the profits from this shirt and a little something extra to show you're sincere. I'd recommend you do it in person in front of thousands of their fans at the Treefort Music Festival in Boise Idaho on the 23rd of this month at 7:00. 

It might be a good idea.

Just a bit off the mark

Here's a tough one.

You make a product that's hot. So hot that you can't keep up with demand given current capacity. You have a choice, alter the product in an almost imperceptible way so you can stretch your supply or leave sales on the table. Maker's Mark choose the former and the outcry was as loud as it was predictable.

After sales increases of 14% in 2011 and 15% in 2012, last week it was announced the Beam Inc. super premium bourbon brand would lower the alcohol content of its product from 90 to 84 proof in order to have enough to meet the burgeoning demand. While they claim there was no discernable difference in taste, regular Maker's drinkers saw it as an attempt to "water down" the product. They shared their displeasure with the decision through Twitter, Facebook and email and within days Bill Samuels Jr., the Chairman Emeritus of Maker's Mark reversed the decision.

So why didn't Maker's do what other companies do when demand exceeds supply and just raise the price? Beam uses the popularity of Maker's as leverage to get distributors and retailers to carry its other brands like Basil Hayden's, Booker's, Bakers, Knob Creek, Laphroaig, Connemara, Ardmore, Effen, Sauza and more.

In essence they're saying, "You can't have our most desirable product, unless you carry a full line of our other products."

It's a good strategy until you kill the lead dog and the rest of the pack has no one to follow.

So what could Beam have done? It takes six years to make a batch of Makers at its current strength so they can't distill more and have it on the shelf tomorrow. In this era of social media and transparency making the change unannounced would have been a flat-out disaster.

In this case the best course would be to take the long view and build the business through a combination of activities. First, increase production capacity so in six years Maker's can meet the global demand. Second, select other bourbon or spirit brands from the portfolio and invest in them, creating additional leverage points with distributors. Given the fickle nature of trends in this business, that strategy also has the added benefit of providing options if and when consumer tastes change. While there's no guarantee of creating a blockbuster like Maker's out of the other brands, at least they wouldn't be devaluing any of them.

Ultimately the lesson here is: more sales aren't always good sales.

Tesla fails the test

There's an old saying that goes, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."

As Elon Musk is finding out, it's now "Never pick a fight with anyone on the internet"

If you're not aware, New York Times reporter, John Broder recently drove a Tesla S from Washington, D.C. to Milford, Connecticut. Unfortunately the drive did not go as planned. What followed was a less than glowing story about the journey, a data-filled diatribe by Mr. Musk accusing the reporter of sabotaging the test, and the reporter's response to Musk's allegations.

Defending yourself is one thing. Providing data that supports your claims is okay. But questioning the integrity of the author of the complaint, whether it's a reporter for the New York Times or a songwriter from Canada will only result in the story growing and bad publicity expanding.

I don't know why the Tesla did not perform as the company's published data would lead you to expect, but I doubt very seriously that John Broder set out with the intent of trashing the car. After all, this is the New York Times, the "left-wing media elite" that its critics claim has a pro-government, anti-big business slant. You'd think they'd be all for an underdog entrepreneur like Elon Musk who's fighting big oil.

What I do know is that Mr. Musk's response is costing him. If he really believes the test was conducted unfairly, then offer to repeat it. Do it with three cars not just one. Prove them wrong.

Or if there's a problem, fix it.

Accusing your accuser of lying won't make the story go away.

From the belly of the beast

And now for something completely different.

For some reason people seem to like this blog and it has received occasional bursts of popularity beyond my circle of friends and family. Because (or in spite of this) I've been asked, along with about 50 other bloggers, artists, business people and social media activists to participate in an online campaign for IBM called "The IBM Social Influencer Think Tank." Fancy, huh?

Now before you scream "SELLOUT!" let me explain.

I am not a spokesperson for IBM. I am not endorsing their services. (Not that I wouldn't, that's just not what I've been asked to do.) I have only been asked to blog about the roles that social media and technology play in my life and then incorporate the hashtag #MySmarterCommerce into my posts.

My compensation for this effort? The potential of a wider platform for my blog and other online communiques.

IBM will feature their favorite contributions from me and my fellow Think Tankers on their website exposing my thoughts and ideas to more potential consulting customers. I also have the opportunity to participate in a panel discussion at SXSW depending on the amount of "engagement" created by my posts.

I figure it's also a great opportunity to experience social media marketing from a whole different perspective. Either way, it's not going to change how I approach this blog or what I write.

So if you see an occasionally post on Facebook, Tweet or blog from me with the hashtag #MySmarterCommerce embedded in it over the next 30 days you'll know why. If something that I've posted strikes you as worthwhile, please share it with your friends and followers. I've always wanted to go to SXSW and doing it on IBM's nickel would be pretty sweet.