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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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’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