The Quisenblog

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

Remember Jolt Cola? It was the original energy drink.

Created in 1985, the brand was touted as the soft drink “with all the sugar and twice the caffeine” and proud of it. In essence, it was the first “energy drink” (before anyone knew what that was) to come onto the American scene more than 20 years before anyone heard of
Red Bull.

Today, as Red Bull sells more than three billion cans worldwide (yes, billion), Jolt is little more than a novelty. How was it that the brand that essentially created a category and had a two-decade head start fell so quickly into the realm of irrelevance? While there are many factors that one could point to to explain the runaway success of Red Bull, for me it fundamentally comes down to the fact that management of Jolt Cola did not understand which business they were in.

Positioned as the “highly-caffeinated cola,” Jolt saw itself as competing in the soft drink category. It was a cola
for people who wanted a little more of a rush. That meant going head-to-head against behemoths like Coke
and Pepsi.

Its bet was that the brand could siphon off enough iconoclastic Coke and Pepsi drinkers to create its own space within the soft drink category. Its uniqueness never proved to be enough to carve out a niche in the über-competitive, shelf-space stingy, price-sensitive soft drink category. Though it grew a limited yet loyal following in some markets, primarily such social “misfits” as of nascent hackers, computer programmers, gamers and bike messengers, Jolt could never make meaningful inroads into the mainstream. They were always just another cola alternative.

Red Bull, on the other hand, created a category.

Everything about the product screamed, “we’re different,” from the cranberry red appearance to the funky taste to the signature small-sized metallic cans. Seeing someone carrying around a Red Bull can was like the first time you saw someone with those tell-tale white iPod earphones. “What is that?” you can’t help but ask.

Another key marketing difference is that Red Bull didn’t restrict itself to appealing to a limited audience. In the words of Norbert Krailhamer, Red Bull’s Director of Group Marketing and Sales, “(We) did not define a specific demographic segment as (our) target market; we have only people who are mentally fatigued, physically fatigued, or both.”

It takes a lot of guts and a lot of resources to venture out and create your own category. Red Bull recognized there was a quantifiable market for “a drink that gives you a boost.” As such it did not need to compete with The Big Boys of the beverage category.

Bottom line, Jolt was late to come to the realization that there was a mainstream market for energy drinks, and by the time it had dawned on them, people were programmed to see them as a soft drink. Red Bull, on the other hand, was never seen as a “soft drink.”

So this word of caution: Just because you’re first, doesn’t mean you’ll be #1.

Posted by Mickey

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

Mickey Media Coke, energy drink, Jolt Cola, Norbert Krailhamer, Pepsi, Red Bull, soft drink

If you’ve ever been entertained by a Bud Light spot—whether it featured the “Yes I am” guy, the “Whazzup!” characters, the “I love you, Man” confessions, the Real Men of Genius, or even “The Swear Jar” online campaign—you had to be disappointed with the recent “Drinkability” campaign for Bud Light. This campaign might have looked great as a creative brief, but as a campaign, well, it was uninspiring to say the least.

And I’m not just being a creative snob. By all accounts, the campaign has failed to move the needle. In fact, the Bud Light brand is about to suffer its first annual loss in sales since the brand launched nearly three decades ago.

Yes, the economy is bad. And yes, Bud Light has a new host of competition. But the way to react to that is not to do a series of blahsé, beat-the-chest kind of creative that talks more to the MarCom team than to customers.

Were the spots entertaining? No. Were they loaded with brief-filling, focus group-tested, chest-puffing talking points? Yes.

Essentially, Bud Light management betrayed its customers. “Betrayed” may sound a bit strong, but think about it for a minute. The Bud Light brand has built an almost cultish following because of its irreverent (indeed some would say “sophomoric”) campaigns. Given the brand’s history, it’s safe to say there was an implicit “agreement” between the brand and its devotees that the hijinks would continue. And when Anheuser-Busch decided to go down the “quality” road by making up a word Stephen Colbert-style and foisting it on Bud Light followers? Lite beer drinkers responded with a collective “Meh.”

The lesson for marketers? Understand the relationship between you and your customers. What’s it based on? Why do they like you? What makes you stand out in a sea of sameness? Then rather than walk away from it, give them more of it. Invite them to co-create with you.

You don’t have to be a “Real Man of Genius” to figure it out.

Posted by Mickey

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

Mickey Media, On Customers Bud Light, cultish followings, customer relationships, Drinkability campaign, Real Man of Genius

Here’s some free marketing advice for Chairman Lutz and the Powers that Be at General Motors:

You know those folks you have heading up your Buick division? Fire them. Now.

With GM freshly out from under its onerous bankruptcy filing and an anxious public waiting to see if this “new” GM will be competitive in the world market, its first major move is a bit of a head-scratcher. Seems the Buick division is betting its future on the fact that it can appeal to a younger audience. (Granted, Buick’s definition of “younger” isn’t the same as yours or mine. They’re looking for folks younger than 55.)

This summer, the marque is launching a boldly redesigned 2010 LaCrosse passenger sedan that so far has gotten pretty good reviews. But is it enough to draw Generation Jones to the brand?

And what, exactly, are the brand geniuses behind Buick going to do to appeal to cutting edge boomers? Changing the media they use to reach them. That’s it, I’m not kidding.

Guys, marketing these days requires more than finessing your media mix. Moving your ad spending from “Matlock” to “Two-and-a-half Men” isn’t exactly going to redefine the brand.

You can change your product. You can change your media. You can change your messaging. But the bottom line is: your brand isn’t what you say it is; it’s what it is in the minds of your audience. Baggage included. I don’t care how cool your car looks. If I see it as my parents’ brand, I’m not going to buy it.

The thing is, you guys have tried this same tactic before—remember Oldsmobile? “Not your father’s Oldsmobile?” How’d that work out for ya?

It was George Santayana who first said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Any more free advice for GM & Buick? Find a market that is totally underserved right now. A group that just isn’t that happy with the other choices that are out there. Find out what their lives are like, what’s missing, and what you can add to it to help them achieve something. Forget demographics, go for shared interests. Maybe it’s around a shared passion or a shared cause. Look for something that can help you build a community of users. Maybe it’s nurses. Or lumberjacks. Or single moms. Or kayakers. Or Def Leppard fans. Or “Big Love” loyalists. Or penguin huggers.

Or try something really bold, like free maintenance and repairs for ten years, or a free computer every three years you own the car.

The main advice is don’t be afraid to polarize. Buick represents only a little over one percent of the domestic auto market, and just three percent of GM’s output. It is already a niche brand. Swing for the fences, you can’t bunt a homerun.

And, if you insist on just targeting younger buyers, I’ll throw in a free tagline: “Hey, buy a Buick, Yo.”

Posted by Mickey

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

Mickey Media Buick Lacrosse, General Motors, marketing advice, Oldsmobile Cutlass

For decades, we in marketing have had little choice but to subscribe to the paradigm of “media attrition.” It goes something like this: “If we hit 1,000,000 people with the same message, we’re bound to influence the behavior of 1%.”

That means we spend money to deliver the same message to 1,000,000 folks with the expectation that we may actually get 10,000 of them to take action.

The Internet turns this notion of scale on its head. What the Internet doesn’t deliver in numbers it delivers in impact and influence. The Internet is about whom, not about how many. You no longer have to intrude on 1,000,000 people to influence the behavior of 10,000. You only need to take really good care of 1,000.

Those 1,000 people you take care of just happen to be 1,000 of your best customers, the ones who relish hearing from you, who look forward to engagement with you, and who will (with a little coaxing on your part) be the medium of singing your praises within their spheres of influence and beyond. Before long, you’ll find their numbers swelling to a number of 10,000 or more.

So whereas 1,000,000 used to equal 10,000, now 1,000 does.

One of the arguments against social media and online campaigns is that they operate on too small a scale. It is unrealistic to expect the number of eyeballs from an online campaign that you would get from a traditional mass media campaign. But if you think of it in terms of “engagement,” it can be suddenly competitive in scale with mass media.

An excellent example is the “Rollerskating Babies” video produced by Evian. It garnered more than 3 million YouTube hits in the first week after launch. That’s 3 million opt-in views with no paid media (and that’s before the morning news shows got on board).

There are other variables, of course. But the point here is that social media and online campaigns shouldn’t be dismissed strictly on the basis of reach.

Do the math.

Posted by Mickey

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

Mickey Media, On Customers Evian, mass media, media attrition, online campaigns, Rollerskating Babies, Social Media

Today’s the 30th birthday of the Sony Walkman, the portable music player that changed the way we listened to music and sold over 340 million units.

The original Walkman, while portable, was downright gargantuan by today’s standards, about the size of a paperback novel and weighing in at nearly one pound (14 oz.). It had only three or four hours of battery life and could only handle one 90-minute cassette tape.

So how would a 13-year-old today, whose frame of reference for portable music players is an iPod, iPhone, Zuni or other mp3 player, react to an original Walkman? I ran across this TechCrunch article that followed just such a lad. He agreed to wear a Walkman for a day, and give his impressions. Quite interesting. You can find the article here.

TechCrunch: Kid Swaps iPod for Sony Walkman, Gets Confused

Some choice excerpts:

“It took me three days to figure out that there was another side to the tape.”

“I managed to create an impromptu shuffle feature simply by holding down ‘rewind’ and releasing it randomly.”

“I’m relieved that the majority of technological advancement happened before I was born, as I can’t imagine having to use such basic equipment every day.”

Yeah, but it did a heck of a job playing those old England Dan & John Ford Coley tunes!

Posted by Mickey

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

Mickey Media, Ramblings England Dan & John Ford Coley, iPhone, iPod, mp3 player, Sony, TechCrunch, Walkman, Zuni