The Quisenblog

It’s a tactic so simple, I wonder why more clients don’t take advantage of it.

The tactic I’m speaking of is for a marketer to create/remix/mash-up a commercial message to run exclusively in a specific environment. The latest case in point is Clorox Bleach, who created this television commercial to run during the airing of the acclaimed AMC series “Mad Men.”

“Mad Men” isn’t exactly tearing up in the ratings. The show averages just over a million viewers per episode, which for an original broadcast series is a microscopic audience. So why would Clorox go to the trouble of creating a one-off spot that will only run a few times at most, reach comparatively few people, and might not even index well against its core target audience?

The answer, I believe, is impact. By tongue-in-cheekily tying its creative message to recurring themes of the series, the brand shares an inside joke with the show’s fans, while still honoring the brand promise of the product (gets whites, whiter). The production values of the spot are quite modest, so it didn’t cost a heck of a lot to produce the spot.

Another important thing to note about this spot: people are talking about it. Just Google “Clorox Mad Men Commercial” and you’ll be greeted with more than a page worth of search results, with bloggers, commenters, Facebookers and even news web sites weighing in on the spot. Something tells me that doesn’t happen when Clorox runs one of its one-size-fits-all spots in the pabulum of afternoon programming.

Small investment. Big viewer involvement. Even bigger buzz.

The bigger question is, of course, will the ad help sell more product? Or was it simply a case of clever ad guys talking to each other? Time will tell. But because the spot played up the advertiser’s key sales point, I gotta think it will reinforce that point with viewers.

Advertisers have been creating special ads to run in event programs or one-time specials (such as the Super Bowl) seemingly forever. But what makes this a winner in my book is the special combination of relevant, edgy creative and spot-on placement.

It’s the kind of success you can expect if you really get to know your market and endeavor to make a meaningful connection with them.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Creative, Media, New Media, On Clients, Social Media buzz, clorox, Mad Men, TV advertising, viewer engagement

It’s certainly not news that all ads are not created equal. Some grab us by the throats (or the funny bone) the very first time we see them. We remember them. We tell others about them. We might even look them up on YouTube. Other spots? There are many we have been exposed to dozens of times but never paid them any mind. Such is the nature of creativity in advertising.

It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that ads that do a better job of engaging or entertaining us also do a better job of selling. Yet there are some in this business who still tend to discount creativity in advertising to be somewhat of a commodity. They see “entertainment” and “selling” as somehow being mutually exclusive. These folks for whatever reason have yet to buy into the notion that the quality of creative corresponds directly to the success of a marketing program. As support, they may point to the success of spots such as the infomercial-esque “as seen on TV” ads as proof that it’s what the ad says, not how it’s said that matters. And they have a point: interrupt people with $30 million in paid media, and the needle will move.

But more and more, we are moving to a model of opt-in content. Less are we able to interrupt the consumer with whatever message we feel like and expect them to pay attention to it.

The dynamics of Social Media illustrate this perfectly. There are no multi-million “buys” on YouTube, Facebook, blogs or the like. The barrier to entry is non-existent. Access to Social Media platforms has been democratized. Anyone can post anything. And the success of that content isn’t how much the creator puts behind it. It’s on how many users feel inclined to pass it forward and to talk it up.

In the opt-in world, you’re only as good as your content. A great illustration of this point would be to compare the results of a recent Social Media success (The Old Spice “Man Your Man Could Smell Like”) to one that’s not-so-successful (Cisco’s “Ted From Accounting” series).

In the Old Spice campaign, Social Media users were invited to correspond with The Old Spice Guy. Old Spice’s agency (Wieden & Kennedy) then shot nearly 200 “personalized web videos” addressed to fans (and Social Media heavyweights) over a couple of days and posted them online. The resulting buzz generated an estimated 1.4 BILLION views, hits and mentions over the period of a few weeks. (Oh, and sales were up over 100% over that period.) You can view some of the spots here.

On the other hand, Cisco’s “Ted From Accounting” series was launched as a web series in hopes of going viral.

Response to the web videos was less than overwhelming (fewer than 10,000 views, despite a huge PR push). One commenter on their YouTube page summed up reaction to the campaign this way: “I am embarrassed for your marketing department. This is the sad result of a poorly orchestrated attempt at some sort of viral leaching by a room full of middle aged guys, who’s (sic) kids saw something on YouTube that they thought would be a good idea to copy.”

Ouch.

Granted this is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. The Old Spice campaign started as a mass media campaign and extended to include the digital component. But while “Ted in Accounting” didn’t have that mass media lift, my bet is that you could have put millions behind it and viewers’ reactions wouldn’t have been any different than the YouTube poster above.

The digital world is proving what we who have developed offline content for years have always known: people aren’t going to waste their time with boring content.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Creative, Media, New Media, On Customers, Social Media cisco, old spice, Social Media, success stories, ted from accounting, viral video

It’s been nearly 80 days since the beginning of the BP spill in the Gulf. Volumes have already been written about how BP’s spinning of the facts and less than transparent communications have blown back on the company big time.

That’s not what this post is about.

Instead, I thought I’d take a look at some of the unfortunate collateral victims of the biggest environmental disaster in our nation’s history, and ask, Is there anything marketing can do to help?

I read this week where Florida beach communities are poised to run a multi-million dollar campaign aimed at vacationers telling them their beaches are okay.

The problem, of course, is that their beaches are not okay. Photos like this one, taken on a Pensacola beach, are making the rounds in news reports and via Social Media.

Running a campaign that says, in essence, “Tarballs, schmarballs, our beaches are just peachy” might make residents and businesses of beach communities feel good, but such a campaign would, unfortunately, be no more transparent than what we’ve seen from BP.

Okay, so throwing millions at an ad campaign showing pristine white beaches while folks in hazmat suits are shoveling stinking tarballs from the sands isn’t such a great idea. Still, is there any role for marketing?

Perhaps. I would advise these communities to relax, take a deep breath, and remember a few key facts. Number one, people are still going to take holidays. The folks who normally flock to your beaches in the summer will be going somewhere. You can count on this.

A second fact worth considering is that their entire communities have been set up to accommodate tourists. The beaches may be the top-of-mind draw, but most of these beach communities have a lot going for them, from Pensacola’s National Naval Aviation Museum to Biloxi’s riverboat casinos and famous antique row.

As a model for success, I would point them to what has happened over the last few years in Las Vegas. That community saw its tourism revenues drop mightily, as the economy convinced folks to stay home. Vegas’s major players responded by collectively cutting prices and adding value in order to keep occupancy at acceptable levels. That strategy appears to have worked. While venues have yet to see their margins return to the days of old, occupancy is holding at around 80%. And the stories being told back home about Las Vegas are good ones, which will serve the community well, both in the immediate future and as things recover.

Gulf communities could borrow much the of same tactics. Cut prices. Offer packages. Tie in with other communities to create vacation experiences. Above all, appeal to the folks who’ve established some sort of connection with these communities that they could really use their business. In the wake of 9/11 when no one was flying, Southwest Airlines received hundreds of letters from customers saying they were committed to flying on Southwest because they were concerned for the company.

Let’s not be sanguine about the prospects of these communities. They’ll be hurting, possibly for years to come. But hopefully, these communities will learn from BP’s missteps and understand a transparent approach will deliver better long-term results than trying to ignore the 800-lbs gorilla in the room.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Media, New Media, On Clients, Ramblings BP, Florida beaches, oil spill, Pensacola, transparency

We’ve all seen TV spots that really get our attention, make us laugh and inspire us to want to share them with others. But then, two seconds after they’ve ended, we can’t remember who they were for. Was the spot run on behalf of Ford or Mitsubishi? Taco Bell or McDonald’s? Miller or Bud?

Marketing purists have used examples such as this to poo-poo the benefits of creative advertising. “What good is over-the-top creativity if no one remembers who the advertiser is,” they say.

Now, however, we’re finding that even when subjects can’t recall the communication on a literal level, they retain much more information subliminally.

Recent research conducted by Melanie Dempsey (Ryerson University) and Andrew A. Mitchell (University of Toronto) proved that advertising messaging actually engages subjects on several different levels. There is the literal, linear level (“what does the communication say?”), which is what most recall testing measures. Beyond that, however, Dempsey and Mitchell mapped out how most of what is communicated via advertising messages is subconscious. The “language” of these subconscious communications is much more primal, primarily emotions, feelings and stimulating visuals.

That would explain why the consumer may remember a spot but not the advertiser the day after seeing it, yet follows through on purchasing the product at a later date for reasons unknown. Dempsey and Mitchell dubbed this effect the “I-like-it-but-I-don’t-know-why” effect.

In short, it’s more about how the consumer feels about the brand than what he knows about it.
To further test the potency of these unconscious brand preferences, Dempsey and Mitchell carried out a second experiment in which the subjects were presented with factual product information that cast their product preferences in a negative light. Despite this, the subjects continued to chose the products they “knew” to be inferior, but for which they had received positive branding associations. In other words, it is the feelings one has about a brand that contributes to brand loyalty.

You can read more about Dempsey and Mitchell’s study here.

The lesson to take away from Dempsey and Mitchell’s work is to recognize that Top Of Mind Recall is just the tip of the communications ice berg. If that is all we’re interesting in measuring, we’ll be short-changing ourselves. What’s most important is what’s subconsciously communicated under the radar.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

admin Creative, Media, On Customers, Ramblings subconscious, subliminal advertising, top of mind

Social Media has been a trending topic for quite some time now. Tomes have been written (here and elsewhere) about the quick assimilation of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, et al into the lives and media habits of Americans of basically every stripe. And plenty of examples exist of how mainstream companies and products have scored big paydays by immersing themselves into Social Media. Yet, despite all of this, only about a quarter of American businesses have jumped into the deep end of Social Media.

So what’s the hold up? Well, as the accompanying graph (courtesy of eMarketer.com) points out, the big hiccup in the eyes of many organizations (more than 1/3) relates to ROI. How will they know if the expenditures on Social Media will pay off? Is Social Media truly a brave new world where the tools are free and your followers do all the “selling?” Or, is it a giant black hole that’s going to demand more and more resources with precious little to show for it?

Business leaders can be excused for their skepticism of Social Media as a platform for selling more widgets. They see how their teenagers use Facebook. They read about people tweeting what they had for lunch. They see YouTube as a venue for cute cat videos. And, unfortunately, folks in my position haven’t been a ton of help when we talk about Social Media as a forum for “engagement,” not for “selling” (without explaining in down-to-earth language how that engagement is a critical element in the selling process).

One way to approach the ROI barrier is to take a look at how we determine it with traditional media like TV, radio, magazine, outdoor, etc. that we know works. None of the ROI is up front. It’s all after the fact. We spent so-and-so on media for the quarter, and our sales were such-and-such. You can chart year-over-year incremental sales and attribute the extra sales (or increased margin) to your ad expenditure.

In other words, you’re doing it on faith. Not ill-placed faith to be sure. But the naked truth is that you are betting numbers with lots of zeros behind them on projections. On forecasts. The same way you decide how to dress based on a weather forecast. It is only after-the-fact that you see if your projections were correct.

But for many business leaders, this kind of faith has no place in the discussion of Social Media. What we need are hard numbers.

The irony is, of course, is that Social Media gives you access to plenty of hard numbers. Hard accurate numbers. Even free analytic tools allow you to measure your impact in Social Media with a real-time accuracy that would be the envy of any offline media, which still pretty much rely on historical data from set-top boxes and diaries.

Analytics can show you how many people are talking about you, what they are saying (positive, negative or neutral), how many are joining your communities, how many site visits you have, how many downloads you’ve issued, where your visitors come from, how many times they’ve come to you, how many thought leaders have linked to you, and so on.

But alas, even these numbers have little to do with sales or ROI. In fact, I would submit that the most important aspects of a Social Media program will never be measured. Because Social Media is conducted on a one-to-one basis (in front of thousands of spectators), Social Media’s strength is its ability to strengthen the relationship between marketer and customer. To resolve customer service issues before the customer decides to take a powder (or vent elsewhere). To reward frequent and loyal customers with special access and considerations (and giving them the tools and permission to talk you up in their communities). To get input from customers on possible product offerings and initiatives. To conduct quick-and-dirty surveys. To work casual customers up the loyalty ladder. To provide several new portals through which to engage the organization.

Just because you can’t measure stuff like this doesn’t mean it won’t have a huge impact on your business’s bottom line.

All it takes is a little faith.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Media, New Media, On Clients, On Customers, Social Media eMarketing, faith, ROI, Social Media

If there were a national holiday to honor those of us in the ad biz, it would have be Super Bowl Sunday.

It’s the one day of the year where 100+ million people sit in front of their TVs IN EAGER ANTICIPATION of seeing our handiwork. They dare not miss a commercial, lest they be out of the loop during the water cooler discussions that inevitably take place starting on Super Bowl Monday.

Too bad this isn’t how folks view advertising the other 364 days of the year. Most of the time, it’s seen as an intrusion. Something to be avoided, either through channel surfing, the DVR fast-forward button, a trip to the kitchen, hitting the mute button or just by flat-out ignoring it.

So what makes Super Bowl advertising so different? How did we get to this point where viewers actually go to the bathroom during the game action so they won’t miss a commercial?

In a word, the content.

Since the Apple “1984″ spot more than two decades ago, the Big Game has been a showcase for engaging and entertaining spots. Marketers figured out early on that to maximize impact with a diverse audience that size, you don’t run the same old tired focused-grouped-to-death spots you’d run on “Desperate Housewives” or “Dancing With The Stars.” No, you needed something outrageous. Something that was “more” than what was considered acceptable on network TV. Something that translated well to the office water cooler patter. Here’s one of my favorites of recent years, for Ameriquest.

In short, Super Bowl marketers were thinking in terms of viral video, even years before that term really existed.

Of course, over the years, there has been quite a fair amount of “Creative Malpractice” done in the name of Super Bowl advertising. Just as many attempts at viral videos fall flat and fail to resonate, so do some Super Bowl spots. GoDaddy comes to mind. So does some of the more recent Budweiser work, for example the spot featuring the marketing guy getting tossed out the 5th floor window because he dared suggest the company cut back on its Bud Light budget. And, in the soulless quest for being named “the top-rated spot”, advertisers have resorted to some questionable examples of borrowed interest, such as shooting gerbils from a cannon.

Inevitably, there are some spots that will show up Sunday that will engage us and be talked about for quite a while to come. And there’ll be some (too many, I’m afraid to say) that will warrant no more than a collective, “Meh.”

The good news is, all these marketers are reaching. And on the national day of advertising, that is a good thing.

Come back Monday and let us know what your favorite spot(s) were.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Media Ameriquest, audience engagement, Budweiser, Dancing With The Stars, Desperate Housewives, GoDaddy, Super Bowl advertising, Super Bowl commercials, Super Bowl Monday, Super Bowl Sunday, viral video, water cooler

This is an actual Facebook entry posted by a friend of mine a few weeks ago. He was referencing the AT&T TV spots featuring Luke Wilson.

AT&T launched the campaign in response to Verizon’s “We’ve Got a Map For That” campaign, which uses red and blue maps to highlight AT&T’s 3G “dead spots” across the country. AT&T felt the need to counter punch, and thus came up with this tactical campaign.

The problem is, as the aforementioned Facebook entry alludes to, in its attempt to spin the facts, AT&T has dabbled in some untruths. Not that they lied, exactly—the lawyers must have racked up the billable hours splitting legal hairs. Seems the company’s idea of “coverage” isn’t what Verizon was talking about.

Here’s where it gets sticky for AT&T. If you lead your market to believe something, you better pay it off. Dancing around the facts may make you feel better, but it will just turn your audience off. And turn them against you.

As proof, a quick Google blog search on “AT&T 3G” finds verbatims from bloggers and AT&T customers alike saying “AT&T Lies Again”, “AT&T Moves the Goal Post”, and “Dude, where’s my 3G coverage?”

What’s more? While a marketer can contribute to the conversation, he very likely won’t get the last word. Case in point, here’s what Luke Wilson says…

And here’s what a non-paid Verizon customer says…

This can’t be the kind of word of mouth AT&T was hoping for. But that’s what happens when your audience catches you trying to mislead.

So what could AT&T have done to counter Verizon without bordering on the misleading? My advice would be to speak only about their strengths. Focus on markets where their 3G coverage is strong, and remind customers why they chose AT&T in the first place. Maybe even play off the ridiculousness of the more-places-is-better foundation of Verizon’s maps:

“True, Verizon has 3G coverage in Pierre, South Dakota.
But how often do you find yourself in Pierre, South Dakota?”

For many marketers, there are times you need to get out there and counter punch when a competitor starts eating your lunch. At such times, it is imperative that you do so transparently from your Brand Vision. And to do everything in your power to ensure the bond of trust between you and your customers is never compromised.

Trust is the currency of success.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Media, On Customers 3G, AT&T, brand vision, campaign, cell phone coverage, Facebook, factual information, Luke Wilson, success, trust, Verizon, We’ve Got a Map For That

Let’s say you are a start-up company with a new product in a competitive category and a very limited marketing budget. Where would you start? Which of the following would you guess would give you the most “bang for the buck”? Which is the most likely to make you famous?

A) Develop a visually appealing logo.
B) Develop some distinctive packaging.
C) Develop a friendly web site.
D) Develop a smart, descriptive tag line.

So what would it be? The logo? The tag line?

If it were my money, I would invest it in “B.” I’d first put emphasis on developing distinctive packaging. Why? Two reasons. First, product packaging is the key touchpoint the customer will have (at least initially) with the brand. With the packaging, you have the opportunity to define the brand for the customer. It is the chance to compete on a level playing field, head-to-head with your competitors.

And secondly, at its best, package design can elicit an emotional reaction from the consumer. It can make him feel happy. Or smart. Or frugal. Or luxurious. A package can infer the values of the brand and engage all the physical senses. The consumer can see it, touch it, smell it, all of which goes into forming a lasting impression of the brand. Instantly, it helps him form a decision about it: yes, this is a useful product I should consider, or no, this is not a product I would be comfortable with or it looks like what I’m already using.

In fact, stop for a moment and think of a product you love. Chances are the mental picture in your mind is of the packaging.

Sorry to say, but I’ve yet to hear of anyone getting teary-eyed over a logo or getting inspired by a tag line.

What is it that makes a package stand out in the sea of 45,000+ items shoppers are confronted with in some retail environments? Four words: respect for the eye. A pleasing color palate. Eye-attracting negative space. Clean, uncluttered type and graphics treatment. And finally, some sort of visual “hook” that makes it stand out amongst its competitors.

I don’t mean this to diminish the need for a crisp logo and a thoughtful tag line. It’s just that as far as impact goes, organizations owe it to themselves to spend a proportionate amount of time and resources on the part of their business that wins sales.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Media, On Customers aesthetic, brand association, brand emotion, business sales, competition, distinctive packaging, logo, marketing budget, start-up company, tag line

Last month, I offered some free marketing advice to G.M. and Chairman Bob Lutz regarding the company’s Buick brand. Sorry to say they didn’t bother to take us up on it. Instead, they’re trying this:

DETROIT — Buick will launch a new advertising tag line Monday: “The new class of world class.”

Bob Lutz, General Motor Co.’s vice chairman for marketing, revealed the new line to Automotive News at a media event here today. The tag line will be used in new advertising for the Buick LaCrosse sedan.

The current tag line, “Take a look at me now,” was first used in June.

After he took over GM’s advertising and marketing in July, Lutz set out to rework Buick advertising. He said he wanted commercials that properly project the design and features of the brand’s new products.

Buick’s lead ad agency, Leo Burnett, did the new spots for the LaCrosse. A batch of Buick commercials that Lutz rejected had been outsourced to the firm of Gary Topolewski, a former Burnett creative director.

Lutz calls the new Buick advertising “aggressive stuff.”

Meanwhile, GM has launched a billboard campaign in Los Angeles for the LaCrosse that pokes fun at Lexus.

The series of billboards, with a photo of the LaCrosse, say: “Another thing for Lexus to relentlessly pursue,” “EX your Lexus” and “Goodbye, road rage. Hello, road envy.”

(Courtesy of Automotive News)

I don’t know about you, but this is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Media Automotive News, Bob Lutz, Buick Lacrosse, Gary Topolewski, General Motors, Leo Burnett, marketing advice, tag line

Evian’s rollerskating babies. The Kid From Brooklyn. The “Will It Blend” video series.

Viral videos. We’ve all seen them. Is there a formula to creating a viral video millions will want to see? With around 70,000 new videos a day being uploaded just to YouTube, the odds against your viral video catching on are slim to say the least. But is there a method for creating a viral video that has an edge in capturing viewers’ attention? What is the “secret sauce” behind some of the most successful viral video campaigns out there?

In this video, Martin Lindstrom tries to find the answers. In his interview with noted viral video creator Mads Holman, Lindstom hits on the three main characteristics of a successful viral video strategy:

• It must embody a “talking point” that people can easily share with one another.
• It must be outrageous or sensational—something that is somehow “too much” for TV. It is this outrageousness that makes us want to share it with others.
• It must be able to be “serialized”—the concept should be able to lead to a series of follow-up videos that build on the same audience. One-offs may gain some attention, but tend to fizzle quickly unless something’s there to keep the interest going.

Lindstrom’s report points out that while the idea of viral videos has long generated interest from marketers (whoa, million of viewers FOR FREE!), very few have been able to do it right. While more than 30% of major advertisers worldwide have attempted to launch a viral video program, fewer than 5% continue to have a viral media strategy.

The good news about launching a viral video program? It doesn’t take a big budget, a big staff or a big infrastructure. The key is to think outrageous. Relevently outrageous (so your product or service doesn’t come out of left field). Make it easy to share and respond to. And above all, fun.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Media, New Media Evian, Mads Holman, Martin Lindstrom, Rollerskating Babies, viral media strategy, viral video campaigns, YouTube