Last year at about this time I wrote about how advertisers and brands are working together to kill the online click-through ad industry. My point was that, as with all new media, brands who have always been concerned with impressions (i.e. yelling at consumers) have misused the power of the online ad space. My thought was that this was training consumers to lose trust in online ads, ultimately sabotaging the major benefit for advertisers - tracking. The argument from those looking to keep online ads as an attractive choice was that these ads would serve as a branding medium and reach people 'where they are' - the same model traditional advertising has delivered for seventy years, wrapped up in a digital package so that marketing budgets could go to this 'new interactive' stuff and make everyone look good.
A few weeks ago, Marketing Vox confirmed this trend. "The number of online Americans who click on display ads has dropped by 50% since 2007 - and now stands at only 16% of all US internet users..." (thank Mitch). It seems that our inability to resist the traditional way we've thought about communicating with consumers has once again burned a bridge with them.
We've seen the same thing starting to occur with Twitter, Facebook ads, Youtube ads and most Social Networks revenue models. This shift has decreased the value of these tools for advertising. I'm not saying they can't be properly used to advertise, nor am I saying that they are poor marketing channels. You can see the jump in Youtube channels and Facebook Business Fan Pages as proof that relevant and permission based marketing can be greatly beneficial for brands. I'm all for relevant, engaging, memorable and permission based content. I just need help understanding why brands continue to advertise the same way they always have (but have just changed media) and still expect different results?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Decision Time
I'll apologize in advance for not delivering something original for this post. However, the point being made takes priority over creativity. Seth Godin's recent post about decision making should be filtered out as far as it can so that those who have the capability to make a decision but choose not to (for various self-justifying reasons) will reconsider.
One more quick point. When you make a decision don't blame anyone for it. Too often people are influenced by fear from peers/coworkers/management to make a decision. Its easier for most people to appease peers then do something remarkable. Besides, if it doesn't work out there is always someone else to blame.
In advertising and marketing this is the biggest reason for failure.
From Seth's Blog - "Make a decision"
It doesn't have to be a wise decision or a perfect one. Just make one.
In fact, make several. Make more decisions could be your three word mantra.
No decision is a decision as well, the decision not to decide. Not deciding is usually the wrong decision. If you are the go-to person, the one who can decide, you'll make more of a difference. It doesn't matter so much that you're right, it matters that you decided.
Of course it's risky and painful. That's why it's a rare and valuable skill.
One more quick point. When you make a decision don't blame anyone for it. Too often people are influenced by fear from peers/coworkers/management to make a decision. Its easier for most people to appease peers then do something remarkable. Besides, if it doesn't work out there is always someone else to blame.
In advertising and marketing this is the biggest reason for failure.
From Seth's Blog - "Make a decision"
It doesn't have to be a wise decision or a perfect one. Just make one.
In fact, make several. Make more decisions could be your three word mantra.
No decision is a decision as well, the decision not to decide. Not deciding is usually the wrong decision. If you are the go-to person, the one who can decide, you'll make more of a difference. It doesn't matter so much that you're right, it matters that you decided.
Of course it's risky and painful. That's why it's a rare and valuable skill.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
How to revise your keyword strategy
The agency I work with had an experience a few months ago that reminded me of the power of keywords. I know that when I say ‘keywords’ your eyes have automatically glazed over. You’re thinking about lists and bids – trying to find that word that steals people from your competition to arrive on your website. What a chore. Why don’t we just do a viral video or a huge billboard. Your reaction is on par with every reaction I’ve ever received when I bring up keywords to a marketer, client and even some agencies. Hold on for a second, this is going somewhere useful…
Over the past few years we have worked closely with the Workers Compensation Board in Nova Scotia. This relationship has seen great creative work and awesome results delivered year after year. Most public service advertising of this kind focuses on the big messages – huge accidents can be avoided, don’t take unnecessary risks, etc. For this campaign the insight was based on the little things: How a small action can prevent a major problem. We thought it was good, the client thought it was good and after the launch, the public thought it was good as it was quite successful.
Just after the launch of this campaign, Pat Cowin was putting together a safety presentation for her fellow workers at the NASA Langley Research Centre. In preparing for the presentation she wanted to demonstrate how the little things that no one thinks about usually cause the injuries. She dropped ‘safety is in the little things’ into Google and received this respo
nse: www.worksafeforlife.ca followed by the description “It’s the little things that no one thinks about that can cause injury…” . A person looking for something very specific found it from an organization a country away. There was no major keyword buy, but keywords and content were not ignored. Because the root of the campaign was based on a rationale that was easily shared and specific, it was picked up by a variety of other organizations looking to spread a similar message. Because the main idea was built around that simple set of keywords, the keywords that made it accessible were found in every piece of communication and they didn't have to be forced in.
The basis for any online strategy should be on an insight that reflects common sense. Your keywords don’t always need to be purchased, but they must always be thought of. They are essentially the only continuity between your message and a person’s action. A keyword strategy is the central point of integration between any traditional campaign, the message, and the audience response. We have the opportunity when developing a campaign, product or any communications to either
1) capitalize on existing language that is familiar to our audience;
2) or develop something new – something that stands out.
For worksafeforlife.ca we chose the former, as ‘safety in the little things’ was common language but rarely used to promote work safety. Think about how a similar strategy can easily be integrate for your products or services and how looking at the creative idea for its main point can leverage the online traffic searching for your solution.
Over the past few years we have worked closely with the Workers Compensation Board in Nova Scotia. This relationship has seen great creative work and awesome results delivered year after year. Most public service advertising of this kind focuses on the big messages – huge accidents can be avoided, don’t take unnecessary risks, etc. For this campaign the insight was based on the little things: How a small action can prevent a major problem. We thought it was good, the client thought it was good and after the launch, the public thought it was good as it was quite successful.
Just after the launch of this campaign, Pat Cowin was putting together a safety presentation for her fellow workers at the NASA Langley Research Centre. In preparing for the presentation she wanted to demonstrate how the little things that no one thinks about usually cause the injuries. She dropped ‘safety is in the little things’ into Google and received this respo
nse: www.worksafeforlife.ca followed by the description “It’s the little things that no one thinks about that can cause injury…” . A person looking for something very specific found it from an organization a country away. There was no major keyword buy, but keywords and content were not ignored. Because the root of the campaign was based on a rationale that was easily shared and specific, it was picked up by a variety of other organizations looking to spread a similar message. Because the main idea was built around that simple set of keywords, the keywords that made it accessible were found in every piece of communication and they didn't have to be forced in.The basis for any online strategy should be on an insight that reflects common sense. Your keywords don’t always need to be purchased, but they must always be thought of. They are essentially the only continuity between your message and a person’s action. A keyword strategy is the central point of integration between any traditional campaign, the message, and the audience response. We have the opportunity when developing a campaign, product or any communications to either
1) capitalize on existing language that is familiar to our audience;
2) or develop something new – something that stands out.
For worksafeforlife.ca we chose the former, as ‘safety in the little things’ was common language but rarely used to promote work safety. Think about how a similar strategy can easily be integrate for your products or services and how looking at the creative idea for its main point can leverage the online traffic searching for your solution.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Transparency does not mean trustworthy.
Being upfront and open to people has always been a challenge for companies. They live in a world surrounded by paranoia and legal teams that influence when things are disclosed or off the record. Nobody wants the competition to steel that secret and nobody wants to be sued for using some misunderstood headline. The presence of companies online has only added fire to the debate about the requirement to be transparent. They're on Facebook, anonymously dropping videos on YouTube, and talking back on Twitter. They should be upfront and transparent. If I write a blog post about a product and that product pays me, I should let readers know. If I'm a credit card company advertising a 4% interest rate, but I'm really just trying to sell an18% interest rate, I need to put a * beside my 4% followed by some legalese that states my goal. Transparency has various degrees of truth. It usually is motivated by a short term impact or action.
When something goes wrong - profits fall unexpectedly, CEO is investigated for fraud, or customers get ticked because they thought the ad actually meant 4% - companies point to transparency. Since they have been transparent you should have known all this stuff could go wrong. Even though you didn't, they would still like you to see that because they have been transparent, you can trust them.
Transperency is not enough.
It's a one way action with an expectation of return. A contract with your mobile phone company is open and transparent, but the fact that it states that they can change your monthly fee without notice and your only recourse is to pay them $200 to end your relationship is not a customer/company relationship based on trust. It's more like a protection agreement, where you pay me to look after your shop or I'll burn it down. Transparent? Yes. Trustworthy? No.
Trust is also one way, but with no expectation of return. Actions result from the decision to just be better. To look at the world through a different lense. Profits come from happy people, so rather than focus on profits, focus on happy people.
Trust is a gradual process that results from consistent behaviour and time. If a company says that they will refund your product, no questions asks and actually does it repeatedly - people will notice. Athough it doesn't make short term sence to lose the proftis on all these refunded products, some of which could be just customers taking advantage of the trust, in the long term most people will feel compelled to return to those companies that have earned their trust.
Trust is the long ball game. It's the differentiator you've been paying all those consultants to find. The reason the new company in the industry can make a big splash is that they can be reasonably trusted. They have no track record. Trust is theirs to lose. They say they'll deliver their product in 2 days and do it - they're already better than the market leader who was late on one shipment.
One final point. If a company only looks a whether customers trust them compared to the competition then they are probably no better than the competition. If people are skeptical of telemarketers, then being the most trusted of untrusted telemarketers is no prize. This is true for any industry. If your company is focused on being transparent, it probably in not actually concerned with being genuinly trustworthy. The shift to looking at each consumer as an individual and actually doing what you say you'll do - with every action and communication - will build a consumer base who is your for the long haul. They weren't baited by some promo price and won't compare you to your competition.
When something goes wrong - profits fall unexpectedly, CEO is investigated for fraud, or customers get ticked because they thought the ad actually meant 4% - companies point to transparency. Since they have been transparent you should have known all this stuff could go wrong. Even though you didn't, they would still like you to see that because they have been transparent, you can trust them.
Transperency is not enough.
It's a one way action with an expectation of return. A contract with your mobile phone company is open and transparent, but the fact that it states that they can change your monthly fee without notice and your only recourse is to pay them $200 to end your relationship is not a customer/company relationship based on trust. It's more like a protection agreement, where you pay me to look after your shop or I'll burn it down. Transparent? Yes. Trustworthy? No.
Trust is also one way, but with no expectation of return. Actions result from the decision to just be better. To look at the world through a different lense. Profits come from happy people, so rather than focus on profits, focus on happy people.
Trust is a gradual process that results from consistent behaviour and time. If a company says that they will refund your product, no questions asks and actually does it repeatedly - people will notice. Athough it doesn't make short term sence to lose the proftis on all these refunded products, some of which could be just customers taking advantage of the trust, in the long term most people will feel compelled to return to those companies that have earned their trust.
Trust is the long ball game. It's the differentiator you've been paying all those consultants to find. The reason the new company in the industry can make a big splash is that they can be reasonably trusted. They have no track record. Trust is theirs to lose. They say they'll deliver their product in 2 days and do it - they're already better than the market leader who was late on one shipment.
One final point. If a company only looks a whether customers trust them compared to the competition then they are probably no better than the competition. If people are skeptical of telemarketers, then being the most trusted of untrusted telemarketers is no prize. This is true for any industry. If your company is focused on being transparent, it probably in not actually concerned with being genuinly trustworthy. The shift to looking at each consumer as an individual and actually doing what you say you'll do - with every action and communication - will build a consumer base who is your for the long haul. They weren't baited by some promo price and won't compare you to your competition.
Monday, August 10, 2009
The best seafood in the world
A few weeks ago I took a drive through 11 states on my way to South Carolina to visit some friends. As I made my way down the East Coast the changing scenery provided plenty of entertainment for my 26 hour drive. Beyond the changing scenery, the outdoor advertising and retail signs were equally entertaining.I was on some back road in Maine, trying to shave a few hours of my trip (unsuccessfully) and passed a small shack restaurant. It was tucked in the side of the road just outside my line of site. It had one of those back lit movable signs that allow the owner to change out the letters. You know the ones that have the arrow at the top that points towards whatever it's advertising?
On the sign it reads "Best seafood in the world". Perfect. A bold statement that could not be more clear. If it wasn't 8:00 in the morning I may have stopped in to find out what the best seafood in the world tasted like. What I love about this type of situation is that we clearly have a small business making a serious effort to market its product. This restaurant has gone out and made the greatest claim a seafood restaurant could possibly make. As a result, I'm sure they get more patrons, but more importantly, I bet they work harder to deliver on that promise. It could be argued that there just setting people up for disappointment, but I didn't try the food so I can't comment.
Side Note - this picture is not from the restaurant I'm referring to. The best seafood in the world restaurant is obviously better.
Lesson 1 from the Best Seafood Restaurant in the World:
It takes a lot of courage to actually try to be a better business than what people expect from you.
Usually making some over-the-top claim isn't the way to do it, but at least it's something. Good advertising and marketing is as much about telling a story and entertaining as it is about what you're selling. Companies reach a point where they focus so much on what they know, that they forget what makes people actually care about them. If you're in business, have customers and are actually making money - the story that captured your current customers is probably a great place to start when looking for new ones.
Lesson 2 from the Best Seafood Restaurant in the World:
Don't be so afraid to be impressive or to say something truly and unbelievably bold. In the right context and market it can be done honestly and can drastically shift the way people (customers and employees) think about your business.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The value of one person
Everyone is thinking about Social Media. They can't help it. Social Media is all over the news, preached about at every conference, added to every pitch - it's everywhere. With so much discussion going on within these organization there is very little doing. Roadblocks are everywhere in traditional organizations that keep Social Media as a fringe strategy and not an integrated communications effort. The list is long: budgets, understanding the technology, resources, content, etc. However, there is one big roadblock which will always get in the way, regardless of how you address the other insecurities in the organizations: how we view the consumer.
Acknowledge the value of one person
For any new media, you will not be successful if you make it a numbers game. These strategies do not work with a 'tell the masses' mentality. Beyond the fact that the masses cannot be found in one particular social category or new media, the nature of the media allows us to communicate more individually (which is good, not evil). In fact it is most effective when the communication is more individually focused. This is lost within most organizations who are looking at adding Social Media to their strategy. Those in charge of budgets and marketing decisions have spent the last thirty years trying to find the media that hits the most people at once. Costs are CPM. Reach is so big it's broken down into single number representations. However, the message that went with these communications was broad - a one size fits all shotgun blast. If the people who are in charge of marketing decisions do not value that one person who could be the next customer/fan/evangelist it wouldn't matter if you had Godin, Brogan, Joel or McConnell selling the strategy -the Social Media recommendation will die.
I'm not sure how you can value the masses and not value one person's opinion but that is the case for most companies. For these organizations the opinion of the masses is marketing, the opinion of one person is either a public relations issue or a retention issue. Usually in these organizations you'll find job/position silos (retention, marketing, customer service, PR) that continue to reinforce the value of the mass market over the meaningful market. By fragmenting the consumer experience into job descriptions, there is the possibility for a more individual message - however, the result is usually a mediocre delivery on the consumer promise. Acknowledging the value of one person is a cultural change that requires the same people who have been chasing the masses to focus on the micro level of consumer engagement. A focus on experience delivery over reach.
Acknowledge the value of one person
For any new media, you will not be successful if you make it a numbers game. These strategies do not work with a 'tell the masses' mentality. Beyond the fact that the masses cannot be found in one particular social category or new media, the nature of the media allows us to communicate more individually (which is good, not evil). In fact it is most effective when the communication is more individually focused. This is lost within most organizations who are looking at adding Social Media to their strategy. Those in charge of budgets and marketing decisions have spent the last thirty years trying to find the media that hits the most people at once. Costs are CPM. Reach is so big it's broken down into single number representations. However, the message that went with these communications was broad - a one size fits all shotgun blast. If the people who are in charge of marketing decisions do not value that one person who could be the next customer/fan/evangelist it wouldn't matter if you had Godin, Brogan, Joel or McConnell selling the strategy -the Social Media recommendation will die.
I'm not sure how you can value the masses and not value one person's opinion but that is the case for most companies. For these organizations the opinion of the masses is marketing, the opinion of one person is either a public relations issue or a retention issue. Usually in these organizations you'll find job/position silos (retention, marketing, customer service, PR) that continue to reinforce the value of the mass market over the meaningful market. By fragmenting the consumer experience into job descriptions, there is the possibility for a more individual message - however, the result is usually a mediocre delivery on the consumer promise. Acknowledging the value of one person is a cultural change that requires the same people who have been chasing the masses to focus on the micro level of consumer engagement. A focus on experience delivery over reach.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Pay-What-You-Want
Pay-what-you-want is currently one of my favorite trends to watch. I've posted about it before, and recently came across Agencynil - the pay-what-you want advertising agency. As this is an industry I take a lot of interest in (it keeps me employed) I really looked at this one closely. From a PR perspective it has done a great job of generating buzz. As far as output is concerned, I think the jury may still be out on this one, but according to the site it is a satisfaction guaranteed delivery - so if anything they are confident.
This got me thinking about a few points:
If you've experienced the agency or been involved with the work I'd love to hear from you.
This got me thinking about a few points:
- When does a company not pay what they want from their ad agency? As with many transactions, when one feels that there is something unfair about the value/price relationship one ends the relationship. Most companies request work for a fee and agencies deliver under that premise. Rarely are agencies in a position to dictate price. Which brings me to my next point...
- This positioning also assumes that ad agencies charge what they want.An agency can only pay its bills when a client is happy. Clients that feel ripped off won't swallow whatever their agency feels it deserves. Likewise, a client rarely pays a premium for work that delivers on a remarkable success. Maybe there's a balance...but that's a different post.
- Client happiness should not to be confused with client success. These two could not be further apart and have no linear correlation. Happier clients do not equal more successful clients. Great agencies can succeed by shifting focus away from happy clients towards helping clients succeed - but this runs deeper than churning out work or jumping on the latest new media bandwagon. It involves serious relationships that don't crumble under conflict and scrutiny of each party. Remarkable success comes from challenging the status quo. This causes friction as it is the status quo (either in work, in a clients culture, or in a agency/client relationship) which creates comfort and mutual happiness - but rarely sustained success. If you are a company, look for an agency that makes you feel uncomfortable, that will tell you where they think you fall and where you can do the same. It will help everyone.
If you've experienced the agency or been involved with the work I'd love to hear from you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)