Thursday, December 12, 2013

The Meh-llennials


 Not quite the mindless Social Media lemmings we were led to believe

Those darn kids.  Just when you think you've got them figured out, they go and do this.  A survey from Redshift Research in the UK has uncovered some interesting facts about the Millennials that counter what the experts say (not again!).  Here's what its infographic reveals:

Myth: Millennials spend their lives on Social Media
Fact:  Only 41% spend 3+ hours a week on Facebook and 29% spend 3+ hours per week on YouTube.
• 15% spend more than 3+ hours/week on Twitter. 43% don't use twitter

Myth: Millennials are all about smartphones and tablets, not yesterday's laptop/desktops
Fact:  65% spend more time accessing the Internet from a laptop or desktop than from their smartphone or tablet

Myth: Millennials spend most of their time chatting on Social Media and texting
Fact:  On average, they spend 108 hours/year browsing the Web for work and study—about as much time as they spend texting.
• They spend 77 hours/year reading news online, more than the 71+ hours/year spent on Twitter and 36 hours/year looking at celebrity gossip

Myth:  Millennials are obsessed with gaming and have no time for books
Fact:  61% of females are more likely to spend time reading books (26% list gaming as a hobby).
• 37% of males viewing reading as a popular pastime while 51% list gaming as a hobby



Friday, December 6, 2013

The "i" in Team!


In an effort to reduce costs and boost profits, Super agency BDBBOO & D has replaced its creative departments with a series of tablets called iCreate, These new tablets come in three models: iCopywriter, iAD, and iCD.

Sir Norbert Compostheap IV, the agency's chairman says that with the iCreate "We can produce a constant stream of innovative, engaging content and ads for our clients while saving a bundle."  Compostheap says it was only a matter of time before technology caught up to the creative process and "that time is now."  For instance, he expects to save $2.3 million on coffee and snacks at each agency per year and substantially more than that with the elimination of the Friday Beer cart.  "It's amazing how many things we found we could cut once we decided to move to the iCreate studio.  Hell, we don't even need to pay for heating or lights.  Win!" 

Here's how it works.  The account executive sends a six to ten key-word creative brief to a designated iCreate team.  Once downloaded, iCopywriter builds a copy deck from a database of 250,000,000 client- and legal department approved words.  At the same time, iAD, using a pre-approved colour palette and font, as well as the proprietary Logo-Be-Larger™ and Whitespace Eraser™ apps, produces pre-approved, press/html-ready Mac art.  Once complete, these documents are automatically uploaded to iCD, which combines the copy and artwork into a presentation format complete with 237 words of laudatory sell copy for the account executive to use during the client presentation.  The whole process takes about 3.5 minutes. Compostheap says clients will love it, too, because changes can be made in seconds and there is no, absolutely no pushback from iCreate.  "It simply makes the changes without the fucking attitude." 

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Harvey's new campaign—oh so close*


A Marketing Magazine email blast arrived this AM and above the fold was a story on the newest Harvey's Restaurants campaign from BBDO Toronto that launched November 26. The goal is to reinforce its brand offering (build your own burger) and enlarge its customer base.  The idea is that people can log on to its microsite to build their own special burger and with the help of a "lawyer" they can get their burger copy protected.  Since the launch, people have registered 4,000 unique burger combinations—during the first four hours one burger a minute, on average, was registered (how many employees does BBDO have?)

Look, I like the idea (tho' it's obvious it has been watered down from what was presented to the client) but it's not quite there.  First, there are a few execution issues.  This isn't me being a stickler for the tiny details, because it's forgetting about those little touches that can ruin a concept.  For instance, on the site's video we are introduced to Morely Gunn, the guy who can register your burger and protect it from bounders.  Anyway, the image show him in his office, but notice the door.  Unless he is in the lobby, the lettering should be reversed.  It loses authenticity.





How do you think people would have reacted if that happened in, say The Maltese Falcon?  Either it was a dumb mistake or it thinks people are idiots.





The other execution problem is this: 

A Grammar Nazi's delight!

Second, I have questions about to whom the campaign is directed. Harvey’s (which makes great burgers, BTW) has an older customer base but wants to go after the Millennials. It wants to skew to a younger audience because the older ones, who just happen to represent over 50% of consumer spending, control 70% of all the wealth and dominate almost 95% of CPG categories just aren’t good enough. It would rather have the customer with the fewest disposable dollars and higher debt-to-income obligations than any other demographic. 

Finally, to grab that younger crowd, Harvey’s relies on Social Media. I guess that’s because, you know, the older crowd doesn’t use the Interweb. Don’t get me wrong here, I like the idea, but the targeting is misguided. It is based on an assumption that is can't possibly be verified.  

The way I figure it, if Harvey's is killing it with an older demographic, why not increase market penetration of that older segment instead of trying to increase market share with destitute Millennials?  And it wouldn't have to discount the product (and the brand) to do it. 

*DISCLAIMER My creation is "The Meat and Other Stuff Burger."

Thursday, October 24, 2013

The Devaluation of Experience in the Age of Credentialism


The other day I came across an ad for a Senior Copywriter that required 3+ years experience.  Three years.  Oh, and a degree in a related field, which I guess supposedly bridges the deep gaping chasm of inexperience. 

When I started in this business, anyone with between one and three years experience was a junior. Three to six was intermediate and seven-plus was senior.  But I guess in this age of soccer trophies, calling a junior a senior helps bolster his or her self esteem.  Or is something else in play?

Maybe it is because agencies prefer to offer title over salary—the "We'll pay you a fraction of what the job entails but you'll have an impressive business card" approach. 

Or maybe it is because HR departments believe that because someone earned a degree in whatever, they're inherently more qualified than another who has done the job for years.  I'm not knocking degrees (OK, I am a bit) but having one doesn't automatically mean you're smart or qualified.  It just means you've read a bunch of stuff on a subject, wrote a bunch of things on a subject and, hopefully, you actually passed that subject rather than had your grades inflated.  It's another piece of paper, like the basic Word doc resume, that only shows is what you have done in the past not what your potential is in the future. And the bigger, the more specialized the degree (to paraphrase Thomas Sowell), the more likely you're unaware of your own vast sea of ignorance surrounding the small island of your knowledge. 

I tend to lean towards the former because the output of agencies these days shows there is no big idea anymore.  It is now making the quarterly sales target.  It is about ignoring the inherent flaws, and growing fraud, in online advertising and metrics for as long as the money keeps flowing.  It's about the industry being run by lawyers, accountants, managers, planners, data analysts—anyone and everyone except those who actually create the work. 

I guess as long as clients can't recognize, or are willing to accept, the mediocre, not much will change. One can only hope there are a few agency renegades out there plotting to undermine the business model to create a new movement in advertising that's jargon-free, original, and accountable.  

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

The Rise of Branditos

The new breed of online advertising players

If you're responsible for your company's brand presence online, better pay attention.  It is entirely likely that at least 25% of your ad spend is going to fake traffic, bogus publishers and invisible Web visitors.  But don't take my word for it.  Check out what Mike Shields at AdWeek has to say.  He's the only one with the balls to expose these criminals.
 
“Somebody needs to give a shit.”
Nate Woodman, COO Digilant

This just keeps getting worse.  And no one is doing anything about it.

It's like the Mafioso Code of Silence.

Snitches get Stiches. 

Monday, September 30, 2013

The Future in 3-D


Earlier this summer I had something happen to me for the first time: I broke a tooth.  It wasn't painful (the nerve wasn't exposed), it simply fell off. The only distressing part was when I thought about what it was going to cost because crowns run $1,500 and up.  I checked my bank account then booked an appointment with my dentist for the next day. 



My dentist is a nice chap with a soft touch and comfy chairs.  He explained to me that it could take up to a week to create a crown and that it would cost $1,800.  He then offered me an alternative.  He pointed to a large metal box in the corner of his examination room and said with that he can create a custom-made porcelain crown for me within an hour.  And, more important, it would cost $400.  Anything you say, Doc!



He set to work, first by grinding off all the jagged pieces and creating a suitable surface for the crown to rest upon.  He them stuck a ballpoint pen-sized scanner into my mouth and did a complete 3-D scan of the tooth that the computer analyzed and created a model of the crown.  With the push of a button, that metal box started buzzing and a high-pressure water jet cut the crown out of a block of porcelain. Within 40 minutes it was done. He applied some glue, stuck it in my mouth and hardened the glue with a UV light.  He then told me that if that crown ever fell off, he could make a duplicate and have it put on that day.



That was my first encounter with 3-D printing and it certainly won't be the last.  Many have said the Internet was as revolutionary as the Gutenberg Press.  Well, 3-D printing will be bigger.  Much bigger.  Just as the Industrial Revolution changed all of manufacturing, 3-D printers will re-define almost every aspect of society and it's happening now, as I recently discovered.



Here's what an investment hotshots said about it in an interview:
You can imagine needing to buy a scissors or a screwdriver but instead of going shopping you press a button on your desktop 3D Printer and it appears the next morning in the exact color, shape or sharpness you want. Imagine printing many things as well as what bringing manufacturing into our homes will mean to the world. Plus the plunge in manufacturing jobs that's going to follow.

This is not a dream for the future you know, right now you can buy a 3D printer on Amazon and a guitar has been made from it. Somebody actually printed a gun that fired a bullet, Boeing is already making planes and they've even tested a rocket fuel injection nozzle. 

I see another industrial revolution bigger than the Internet. It's going to transform manufacturing from factories to the residence. If you if you have a vehicle [and need a] discontinued part you can just have it printed on your own layer by layer, atom by atom overnight. It can be done with plastic but also with metals. It's going to redefine medicine, dentistry by printing orthodontists tooth braces, hearing aids are already being fitted precisely to the shape of the inner ear. Body parts like a prosthetic limbs. Somebody gets a jaw shot off in wartime they can just build a new jaw and then they can even spray cells onto it to become skin. 

This is the biggest thing I've seen, much bigger than China and I'm very excited about it because as I said you get a machine from Amazon for $1,300 and that is going to come down over time. Now it's plastic but later going to be bronze, carbon fiber, ceramic cellulose, even food.


You can read the whole thing here.



All these developments make one eager to see what surprises tomorrow brings.

Friday, September 20, 2013

Well, this is interesting...

Are some marketers coming to their senses and realizing that digital marketing is a tactic and not a strategy?  Is "the idea" regaining it's place as the end goal for advertising?  One can hope.
http://www.warc.com/LatestNews/News/EmailNews.news?ID=31969&Origin=WARCNewsEmail&utm_source=WarcNews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WarcNews20130920


Tuesday, September 17, 2013

The Bot-Bomb Bubble?


Attention CEOs:  It seems bots are bilking billions from you, and no one in the online ad business is willing to tell you about it.  Except for Mike Shields at Adweek.  Last week, Mike wrote about a report from Solve Media that says advertisers may be on track to blow over $9 billion in online advertising because of fraudulent activity.  Solve Media says that in Q2 46% of web activity and 35% of mobile activity appeared suspicious, i.e. not human.  That's up from 43% and 29% respectively from Q1. 

And, if you're a global advertiser, it gets worse.  Solve Media says the while 46% is a damn big number for the US, it's nothing compared to the rest of the world, especially China (92%), Venezuela (80%) and Ukraine (77%). 

Some in the online ad business question Solve Media's motives (discredit the messenger instead of the message) because it developed CAPTCHAs, and that it is only trying to sway website publishers to use its product.  But Solve Media doesn't track bots.  Its CAPTCHAs, used by more than 6500 publishers globally and which tracks 230 million actual, honest-to-God human interactions, can tell who is human and who (or what) is a bot.  If Solve Media was the only one bringing this to light maybe I wouldn't be too concerned.  But it's not.  Other companies have noticed the growing fraud in online advertising. 

I'm shocked that more CEOs are willing to blindly spend truckloads of cash on online advertising without knowing its effectiveness.  I'm shocked that I haven't heard a chorus of CMOs shouting about this. Maybe it will happen once this story goes mainstream.  Or maybe they'll have had their asses fired before then.  I'm also shocked by the silence from online ad agencies.  It could be that they either are too busy swilling the Kool-Aid or they are aware of the issue but won't say anything while the cash keeps rolling in. I think, though, that just like before the Dot-Bomb explosion, they'll maintain the status quo and take the cash.

Old hands like Bob Hoffman, The Ad Contrarian, has been tracking this story and for years has railed about the unquestioned faith agencies and CMOs have in online advertising and the declining state of the ad business.  A lot more leaders have  to stand up and scream about this because it threatens the integrity of the whole industry. 

Still, the drumbeat continues.  We continue to hear from the digital gurus that all things traditional are Dead, all the rules have changed, and new paradigm has arrived.  The truths of the past are tenets from an ancient, outdated religion to be dismissed by today's advertising atheists.  Yeah, sure, but there's one thing about atheists and it's best summed up in an aphorism misattributed to G. K. Chesterton: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing.  He believes in anything."  Today's ad leaders and CMOs appear to believe in anything.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Making Big Data Work


"Hmmm.  I see Mrs Mittleshmitz  just bought six more cans of Hint-O'-Bacon spray cheese. Wilhelm, email her a Buy-Eight-Get-One-Free coupon"
I did something last week I haven't done in a long time.  I actually read a whole issue of Marketing Magazine and its twice-daily emails.  On most occasions Marketing only offers stale news or filler "content" or both—its Fall TV preview is an egregious example.  But this time was different.  It featured articles on Big Data that, by an odd coincidence, coat-tailed its Data Driven Marketing event of August 20. 

The main issue with big data is how to make sense of billions of consumer data points in a timely manner and not get it all screwed up.  There's a lot riding on this because many marketers believe that if they torture the data enough with the right analytic it will confess a truth about how and why consumers act the way they do.  But, finding unicorns can be a bitch. 

Data models are only as good as the parameters and the assumptions used to construct them.  And the more data used to create the models, the greater the chance for error or misinterpretation.  Then, there is statistical noise, as well as false positives, that skew results, among other problems.  And just because certain things are detected doesn't mean they are connected.  Correlation is not causation.

Case in point: the lead article of the magazine, Lost in Data Translation, mentions Kevin Keane, who now runs a "neuromarketing" outfit called BrainSights but at one time was a data cruncher for a booze company.  One day, Kevin noticed a huge spike in sales that neither he nor the client could explain. Maybe it was a new ad campaign or perhaps a large shift in consumer preferences.  Unsure of the cause, he decided to sit on the results and dig deeper.  Turns out that was the right thing to do.  Kevin discovered that sales spiked because of something the data could never reveal: because of a threatened LCBO workers strike consumers were stocking up.  Kevin applied a valuable element to his data. 

That element is identified by Matthew Quint, director of global brand leadership at Columbia Business School.  I'm overlooking the fact that he teaches at Columbia for the moment because he uses a quote from Einstein (Princeton) to stress what big data lacks: “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”  Quint says, “Sometimes data is only valuable with a human interpretation on top of it – what the data reveals and what insights come from a human analysis of it – but also sometimes we miss things, as humans, with our gut instincts, understanding and anecdotes.” Overlaying the data with some human insight has benefits, but it will provide much more if marketers apply it in a different location.

Right now marketers sift through terabytes of consumer information every day to create models of their ideal loyal customers—the golden grains of profitability.  What they winnow out, however, could be much more valuable.  The chaff—light customers—are separated out because they have no apparent historical worth or loyalty.  But that is dead wrong.  Loyal customers are nice and all, but they are usually too expensive to retain; besides chances are they'll buy your product anyway. 

The biggest opportunity for data marketers comes from finding light customers, those who rarely buy the brand or do so two or three times a year—the segment that provides about 60-70% of a brand's sales.  Applying that layer of human interpretation on top of the data to understand and reach the light buyer is the way to increase penetration (increasing the customer base) instead of increasing market share (getting regular customers to buy more).  This is where big data can pay off. 

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Just Random Stuff to put off doing your job on Monday morning



If cats controlled the Internet (more than they do already):

Wired discovers the obvious:

Days of reckoning for agencies?

… and, in a related way, this:

Train Announcer of the day:

So... you're a photographer?

FYI of the WEEK:

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Dressing up the numbers?



I opened my eMarketer email from this morning and below the fold was an article, "Digital Set to Surpass TV in Time Spent with US Media." The first table, complete with mice type (must read that), shows that digital usage is broken down into online (with that vital asterisk), mobile (nonvoice) that includes tablet and feature cell phones—the one's that are considered not smart—and other, which isn't explained. It also shows how its results differ from other research firms because it lumps a lot of other stuff in with its numbers and gets a bit fuzzy with handling multi-tasking time.


 What caught my eye, though, was there was no explanation of what constitutes digital usage. TV usage is pretty self explanatory—turn it on, watch a show, turn it off—but digital usage can be anything from texting to posting pictures of your cat wearing sunglasses. It's like comparing a hammer to a Swiss Army knife; the hammer only does one thing while the Swiss Army knife can do many… except, of course, what a hammer can do.

That people are using mobile and tablets instead of desktops and laptops is not surprising as sales trends show people shifting from one device to the other. In fact, they're obsessed with them. Sit in any meeting, have a conversation with your teenager, ride any public conveyance or walk down any street and you'll see people totally absorbed and, sometimes, dangerously unaware of their surroundings. Like here, here and here.

To be fair, eMarketer should provide a breakdown of mobile usage by task: checking and reading email, texting, posting cat pictures, information gathering (schedules, prices, locations, blog and news viewing, etc), purchases and TV viewing. Apples to apples, not hammers to knives.

Monday, July 29, 2013

Pubic-Com, where advertising's future is clear


It's difficult to predict what the fallout will be with the Publicis-Omnicom merger, Pubic-Com as George Parker calls it.  It creates the Uber-Holding Company that will shake off many of the executive level types to reduce duplication.  It will unchain the galley slaves (the ones who do the actual work), despite its claim to the contrary,  at the Leo Burnett, Publicis, Saatchi & Saatchi, Starcom, ZenithOptimedia, Rosetta, Rokkan, VivaKi and Razorfish from Publicis, and BBDO, TBWA and DDB, Rapp, Omnicom Media Group, Organic, Proximity, and Tribal from Omnicom.  But who really believes a bunch of lawyers and accountants? Believe me, these assholes will squeeze every dime they can out of the new company except when it comes to their own salaries and "performance" bonuses. 

Maurice Levy meets with the creative department

The one thing I haven't seen mentioned is what happens to the thing it is supposed to produce.  There is no word about the advertising, though both companies seems to have given up on that.  It's unclear how the new company will deal with client conflicts, such as Pepsi and Coke, GM and competing automakers (including Mercedes, Volkswagon and Nissan among others), McDonalds and Burger King. I'm sure the new company will swear to build a Chinese Wall around these businesses but I don't think the smart clients will buy into that.  But more nimble agencies, like W+K could benefit if clients who can see through the bullshit decide move elsewhere. 

The reason behind all this seems to be control of media buying, both conventional and digital.  The new company will certainly be the gorilla in the room as it battles Google, IBM, and Facebook for control of data.  What the brains behind the merger seem to have forgotten is that no amount of data insight will create better, more effective ads.  Technology is just a tool, a commodity, not a strategy. Without breakthrough creative ideas, the Big Holding Companies have diluted the quality of the end product to the point where it is more like bottled water: cheap to make and totally flavourless, only now it comes in Big Gulp size. 

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Of Madeleines and Music


Memories are not like lost car keys. To find cars keys, we have to force ourselves, usually by retracing our steps to track them down. Memories, especially distant ones, are found usually by accident, a chance encounter.  A passing scent, a brief taste, or a few notes of music can unleash a torrent of long-forgotten faces and events.

Artists, poets, and writers have been fascinated with memories for eons.  Neuroscientists, aren't, at least not in the same way as artists. They can tell us exactly where we store memories in our brain—they just can't tell us how we stumble upon a box of memories stashed under the stairs or crammed onto the top closet shelf of our mind with only the slightest prompt. (I've never much cared for neuroscientists.  They take all the fun out of stuff. Like those smarty-pants types who feel compelled to tell you the ending to The Sixth Sense before you've seen it.)

Marcel Proust had a lot to say about memories and their triggers in his work, Remembrance of Things Past. What set him off on his six-volume examination of the subject happened one day when he was having a cup of tea with his mother with which she included a little something, something he had seen in shop windows countless times but never given it a thought. But, once it "touched my palate, a shudder ran through my whole body, and I stopped, intent upon the extraordinary changes that were taking place."  He had tasted a madeleine, a little scallop-shaped cake. 

"And once I had recognized the taste of the crumb of madeleine soaked in her decoction of lime-flowers which my aunt used to give me (although I did not yet know and must long postpone the discovery of why this memory made me so happy) immediately the old grey house upon the street, where her room was, rose up like the scenery of a theatre to attach itself to the little pavilion, opening on to the garden, which had been built out behind it for my parents (the isolated panel which until that moment had been all that I could see); and with the house the town, from morning to night and in all weathers, the Square where I was sent before luncheon, the streets along which I used to run errands, the country roads we took when it was fine."

With me, music triggers equally as strong memories. Almost are delightful and are of people long gone—Billie Holiday sings and I'm back sitting with my father on the porch on a warm summer's night; listen to Strunz and Farah and I'm with my wife lying on the bald rock in front of the cottage at Nipissing looking at the stars during one of those rare times when our two-year old was asleep.   A few, though, are just bizarre. 

Yesterday I listened to Trick of the Tail by Genesis, an album I hadn't heard front to back for decades.  And as it played, I recalled someone from nearly 40 years ago.  His name was Peter and he was the worst scoundrel I have ever met.

We met at Calgary airport in 1976, which at that time a cluster of ATCO trailers surrounding a dinky terminal.  I was tagging along with my crush Mary Liz (pre-wife) to Banff, having dropped out of the geology and Earth Sciences programme at Waterloo to live in the mountains for a few years. While Mary Liz and me were waiting for the Brewster Bus to Banff, we spotted Peter, a handsome young man (we were 20, he was about 26) in the parking, lot frantically emptying his bags, pockets, and wallet onto the hood of his Bavarian; mentally retracing his steps, he soon realized he had left his keys in Montreal and his spare was in Banff.  Not thrilled of the prospect of riding the bus, Peter asked if we would split the cost of a one-way rental car.  In return, he let us stay with him until we got established.  Fortunately, he lived above the Avis car rental place and occupied the whole top floor of the house.  A virtual mansion for Banff. 

Over the next few weeks we got to know Peter.  He was nice, funny, and always generous with his liquor. Quite often, though, he'd ask us in the morning to not come home until around 8 or 9 in the evening as he was "entertaining" a woman.  He must have been good at it because there was always a stream of them coming and going. 

One day, when passing by his bedroom I noticed the handle of a substantial knife poking out from under his pillow.  Worried for our safety I asked him why he felt the need to keep a large knife on his bed.  He said it was for protection.  When asked, "protection from what?" he said, "from husbands."  You see Peter had a penchant for boinking Banff's married women.  Only married women.  He also said, with no shame whatsoever, that he made sure to lie next to the wall so he'd be behind the woman he was bedding in case an enraged husband burst in with a gun—he believed her body would stop any bullets directed his way.  When I told Mary Liz this, she looked at me with that look and said, "We leaving. Now." 

We didn't see much of Peter after that.  He never did get shot or have to stab anyone, and about six months later he, and his knife, went to Whistler.  He had simply run out of unboinked married women and went off in search of a new crop.  Fortunately, he gave us his apartment, which, for our visitors, was the easiest to find in town—we told them simply ask a woman wearing a wedding ring. 

Friday, July 19, 2013

Is the future of advertising all in your head... or a bit lower?


According to Marketing Magazine—my go-to source for trivia and 26 pages of Fall TV previews—the boomers are the segment to go after not the young people.  The piece quotes Michael Smith from Nielson Neurofocus who says that big brainy brain neuroscience guys studying whole bunch of pictures and graphs with squiggly lines from electroencephalograms are learning the way consumers respond to things. And, (better sit down) they've discovered that "older brains respond to things differently than younger brains." Smith says that as people get older the brain changes, sometimes caused by disease or degeneration and "There are differences in the ease with which the brain can recall words and memories.  There are changes in the way the brain responds to emotionally loaded information."

Good Heavens, Captain Obvious, what are we supposed to do and how are you planning to cash in on this? Well…

“It is becoming more and more important to understand how best to target that demographic,” he says. That could mean surveys, market research and focus groups to try and figure them out. But if you really want to know what they think, don’t ask them. Read their mind. That’s just basic neuromarketing.

There are some obvious steps – think, repetition in ads – for advertisers to make their ads more resonant, says Smith. But marketers need to think about the implications for an older marketplace at a more basic level – like product names. Many new products or online-based services want to come up with names that are unique to stand out online. “But that often results in names that have odd spellings or that may be hard
Much advertising follows the time-tested format of presenting a problem and then offering a solution with the product. The flaw in that format, says Smith, is that the problem is often presented in a very emotional way and, simply put, older brains don’t react the same way to those messages. “They are less easily frightened or less easily prone to be worried about negative information,” he says. “As a result they pay less attention to that sort of thing and you are less likely to hook them…Where as they respond relatively well to positive information.”

In a nutshell: to succeed, say your message often as Boomers tend to forget (because they might have brain damage); don't get to clever with brand names as Boomers get confused with all this hipster talk (brain damage, again) and; don't try emotional messaging or negative stuff because Boomers have no real feelings (possibly caused by brain damage) and aren't affected by guilt, so keep it bright and sunny

Neuroscience is the latest in a long line of pseudosciences that consumes marketers every few years.  My favourite was subliminal advertising.  You remember, the one that said advertisers were putting subliminal pictures of tits and dicks in ice cubes to make consumers unconsciously buy Pavlov's Vodka so they can get laid more often. Unfortunately, this epic example of academic phrenology has the persistence of antibiotic-resistant clap because it flares up occasionally to infect those unprotected from rational thought.

For the sake of argument, say in 20 years time Michael Smith and his neuroscience experts find the combination of brain chemicals and wiring that explains how consumers react to advertising.  This may help us target people better or make us more relevant, but it will never explain why it does.  It will never explain why art and music affect us, or why certain words or images can fill our heart with sadness or make us laugh out loud.  It will never explain why true love can happen when two people lock eyes for the first time. 

The how isn't important. No, it is the why that makes us human. And knowing the why can only come from understanding the human heart.  Good luck with that.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Are big brands wasting money on SEM?


If you have ever Googled Ford, Amazon, or Rogers (try it) you'll see two listings at the top of the page—the top one is a paid ad the other is organic (free).  Now, try it with eBay. Spot the difference? There is just one listing at the top, the organic one.

Why the difference and what does EBay know that other big brands don't? 

In 2012, eBay wanted to know if there was any benefit to paid search ads that contain the word "eBay," i.e. branded keyword ads.  So, it stopped buying these ads on Bing and Yahoo, while keeping them on Google.  The result?  No difference in sales from Bing and Yahoo compared to Google.  Customers simply clicked on the organic link in the absence of the ad.

The company then wanted to see how effective non-branded keyword search ads would be.  In this case, it chose "used les paul guitar."  Conventional wisdom told it that without a targeted ad a guitar reseller, like Chuck's Used Guitar Barn, would appear ahead of eBay.  So, it shut off all Google search ads in one-third of the US while keeping them in the remainder to see what would happen.  The result?  In the cut off region, people who had used eBay before and were looking for a used guitar found their way there either through the free listing or eBay's site.  And, in places where the paid ads were still in running, this same category of customers clicked on the paid ad—eBay had to pay Google for existing customers who were already on their way to eBay to buy a used guitar.  The only bump it got was a slight increase in users with little or no history with eBay; they were potential customers looking for information. 

This is not to say all paid search ads are worthless.  They have a practical use for smaller companies with no brand recognition or without a high Google page ranking.  They are a way to inform new customers about their services.  They may also be more profitable for smaller companies breaking into a new, local market.  The challenge for the big brands is the need to determine, despite what the experts say, what, if any, benefit do paid search ads (branded and non-branded) provide?  Are they worth the expense? It was clear to eBay that people found their way to its site either way without a drop in sales and that its was wasting money attracting existing, converted, customers with its ads.  So it stopped buying and saved millions.

You can read about it here. 

Monday, July 15, 2013

Incoming!


  
           

WARC published a release from the Fournaise Marketing Group in the UK that CEOs are suspicious of creativity.  That got my attention.  So off I went to the Fournaise Group to get the skinny on this creativity thing, and it turns out it these guys aren't fooling around:

1) 76% of CEOs feel Ad & Media Agencies are not business-pragmatic enough, are too inward-looking, talk too much about “creativity as the saviour” without really being able to unquestionably prove or quantify it, and are often too opportunistic.

Indeed these CEOs view agencies as often being too quick to claim credit for business results that they were not able to unquestionably prove came directly from what they created (such as attributing year-on-year sales growth to their creative/media activities when in fact growth came from product, sales force, channel, pricing and/or operation factors);

2) 74% of CEOs think Ad & Media Agencies are too disconnected from the short- and medium-term business realities: they keep on talking about “giving time to creativity to see the impact” and fail to truly understand the type of Shareholder/Board pressures the Management is facing;

3) CEOs admitted they initially assumed (at the start of their Management careers) that Ad & Media Agencies were the ultimate specialists when it comes to understanding customers and target audience’s behaviours, and to knowing how to best engage with them: however, 72% of these CEOs admitted they soon realised Ad & Media Agencies were not as data- and science-driven as they had expected, relied too much on gut-feelings, hearsay, wrong methodologies and questionable information – greatly reducing the trust these CEOs have in these agencies;

4) 70% of CEOs feel Ad & Media Agencies too often hide behind technicalities such as not having enough budget or not being paid fast enough as a way to justify their inability to deliver the (real and P&L-quantifiable) business results expected of them.

Now, to show that they aren't all cold-hearted bastards, CEOs said they were willing to kiss and make up if agencies agree to the "Payment-by-Result (PRM) Model—naturally forcing them to cut the fluff and to become the business and demand generator partners CEOs expect them in the first place."

My first reaction to this peace offering is that this is a shot across the bow of the HMS Social Media.  All the points the CEOs make seem aimed at the fuzziness of Social Media accountability. Yeah, sure, there are a few companies that have a large presence on Facebook but these examples need some perspective.  Let's look at Coke's Facebook page. As of this writing, it has 69,331,714 likes and 875,499 people taking about it, whatever that means. Coke, however, sells 1,700,000,000 servings EACH DAY, which is several of orders of magnitude larger than the 69,331,714 likes it accumulated since the page went live in 2009.

Up Periscope

Now, let's get down to customer level.  Using a "simple" method, the average Coke drinker buys (in the UK at least—US figures are nearly similar but measured differently) 12 servings a year.  But as Byron Sharpe (buy his book, damn it!) points out, this figure is skewed towards the miniscule group that buys it three or more times A DAY, and that the average buyer is nowhere near that amount. In fact, the "typical" Coke customer (~50% of total customers) actually buys between one and two servings PER YEAR. That's it. With so many customers buying so little product per year, it makes one wonder would it not make more sense to get those who typically buy one to three per year to, perhaps, buy one or two more?  Still, Coke's FB presence is pretty benign and gives fan boys an outlet but it still pours much more into traditional channels than Social.  Perhaps Coke learned that lesson from Pepsi, which went full-on stupid with Social and lost about 5% market share, or $350 million, in 2010.  Their slide continues to this day.

To be fair to some of the Social Media folks, I have to wonder what exactly CEOs expect their advertising to achieve and are those expectations realistic.  If they are hoping to get an immediate bump in sales when advertising an established brand into a mature channel chock-a-block with competition, without any earth-shattering change in the product's features or its price, they will be disappointed.  Part of the reason is because they base their ads and campaigns around tired and meaningless USPs.  Saying their product is different and does X might have worked when the product was first in category but that won't cut it anymore because their competitors have caught up—and are likely using a version of that USP—and any differentiation is purely subjective.

CEOs need to recognize that, if they have nothing "new" to sell, they need to focus on the product's distinctiveness, if any, and build brand salience.  They need to find and exploit what makes sets their product apart, what makes it stand out on the shelf and be easily recognized in those fleeting seconds of the consumer's decision-making process.  And that takes time with not much return in the short run.  It must also be consistant and on bran.  This is where Social Media can be added to the mix.

Or maybe the CEOs need to stop thinking agencies can solve all their business problems and let them focus on creative.  They should also leave the task of business-building to those who are supposed to do it—themselves. 

Last Word

Anyway, the only area online that is getting results is email.  Wired reported last week "Email is crushing Twitter, Facebook for selling stuff online."  Their graph makes it quite clear:


I find it funny that the red-headed step child of advertising, Direct Marketing, leads the way in generating and maintaining online sales.  And I won't say I told you so because that would be gloating…