Rrrolll Up The Rubbish

From the "What Were You Thinking?" department comes news that Tim Hortons is launching a loyalty program that is linked to a co-branded CIBC credit card. 

 

From what I have read, customers will collect Tim points whenever they buy their favorite items using the CIBC card. My experience at Tims tells me that, for example, if the average amount spent at lunch is about $8 and if you don't have $8 in your pocket, what the hell are you doing with a credit card? 

 

First, I have to wonder what Timmy expects to get from this. Greater customer loyalty? As far as I can tell, Tim's customers are loyal. Very loyal. I have even seen tour buses stop on busy city street so passengers can run in to grab coffee and snacks. I have never seen that at Starbucks. Ever. (SNARK ALERT: Maybe it's because hipsters don't take tour buses unless it's to an alt/indie/vinyl conventions?)  I believe Tim's customers are buying as much as they can now and the program won't change that.

Second, credit card-wielding customers don't seem to resemble the typical Tim customers—at least as far as I can tell. They are the construction workers, the retirees, the moms going to soccer practice, the dads going to hockey practice. Everyday Canadians. And either they pay with cash or Interac, which tells me they spend what they can afford, and Tim sells affordable products.

Third, to be cost effective, the program needs to attract customers who are heavy buyers in the category but do so infrequently at Tim Hortons. Research shows, however, loyalty programs are poor at doing that.  

Finally, Loyalty programs are expensive to run and reward to loyal customers for doing something they already do, so it is likely it will produce no noticeable change in behavior. They are also quite difficult to end: customers will complain about losing their points (and place more value on them than the actual worth; there can be some formidable legal hurdles to wrapping it up; and there would be sizable infrastructure costs to write off. 

The positive announcements from the company are that it will tackle long lines in its stores, shorten the menu by dumping seldom ordered items, and launch new seasonal items. It also has taken Cold Stone Creamery out behind the barn and put a bullet in its head. These changes make sense and may attract lighter purchase customers, which increases penetration; a tactic that is cheaper than running a program that tries to increase market share. But that's just my two bits worth.

Useless fact of the Day: Lots of Teens use Facebook

Today's emarketer email blast leads off with a report stating that while 95.9% of teens use Facebook there are signs that it is vulnerable to a downturn.  I guess at almost 96% there is no place to go but down what with an increase of more visual platforms, such as Snapchat, Vine and Instagram for the Selfie Generation. 

I have to ask, who gives a rat's ass?"  Why is this important?

I'm puzzled by the laser-like focus marketers place on this segment. They seem to have locked themselves into believing the Pepsi Generation style of marketing to youth works, and by getting teens today you'll have them for life.  It didn't work then, it doesn't work now, and it won't work tomorrow. 

This myth is as persistent as an antibiotic-resistant dose of clap.  First, teens have no money except what they get from parents, and it is usually spent on clothing or accessories. music, and food.  What do they value?  One survey showed that 75% of teens would choose new shoes over 50 new mp3 downloads and 63% would take new jeans over concert tickets.

Second, even if a marketer gets a teen to "like" their brand, it is probably because "Brittney said it was cool." It means nothing—except that Brittney is an influencer.  And getting a teen to say they would use a particular service is as valid as her saying she'll clean her room (I have three daughters).  Despite the promises and best effort, I still needed a Bobcat and a coal shovel to clear a path from the door to her closet.  

I'm not slagging the demo, but too much time and resources are spent chasing a mirage.  Everything the pundits, the gurus, and hucksters say about teens and their media habits is either an assumption or wishful thinking.  Or they're selling books. It is time to grow up and look at the demo that has the money to spend.  

"Principles endure, formulas don't."

The Bill Bernbach quote above appears in the introduction to Dave Trott's Predatory Thinking.  Fitting, too, since what follows are other advertising gems and Trott's uncommon common sense anecdotes worthy of the great Bernbach.

If you haven't heard of Dave Trott, shame on you.  He's launched some of the most respected agencies in the world—not one of those big, soul-crushing behemoths out of New York and Paris—and received the D&AD President's award for lifetime achievement in advertising.  He has created some outstanding campaigns over the years and learned a lot along the way.  Predatory Thinking imparts a fraction of that wisdom.

Trott's observations and advice come in convenient, bite-sized chunks.  Short enough for you to chew on two or three of them between subways stops but addictive enough for you to let a few trains pass so you can indulge in a handful more. 

Here are just a few:

Trott cites a lack of imagination and creative mischief in advertising today.  That too many of us are trying to make art instead of ads that sell. After all, that is the business we're in.—or rather we are supposed to try and influence a person's buying decision rather than compel them to buy.  I say influence instead of compel because it is almost impossible to force someone to do something they don't want to do without the use of force. Any parent who has tried to insert a defiant toddler into a snowsuit and winter boots knows this.

He laments the loss of the shit disturbers, the bloody-minded sorts who challenge the status quo, who push against convention, and speak truth to power.  The one's who make people uncomfortable. 

Making people feel uncomfortable is hard, a lot harder than simply shocking them.  Offending people is easy.  Any talentless hack desperate for attention can be shocking.  The trouble is that it exists merely for its own sake and usually attracts the wrong kind of attention. To get someone to feel uncomfortable is to make them see something new.  Something that gets their attention and makes them to think. 

Trott bemoans the fact that we have gone from quality to quantity.  Every job is assessed, sliced, and diced based on the estimated time needed to complete the task.  With that magic figure, people are inserted into the project based on their hourly rate: a junior AD can only work on it because she's cheaper, and the copywriter can only do two revisions or it will go over budget.

"Counting has taken over from what counts.

And we've forgotten the first rule of advertising.

It doesn't matter what went into it

What matters is what people get out of it." 

It seems to me, however, that what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Can you imagine one of the heads of those earth-scorching advertising holding companies, after getting his multi-million dollar performance bonus saying, "Sorry but I can't buy that Bentley because it has too many coats of hand-applied lacquer on it and the cabinetmakers spent too much time polishing the burled walnut trim."  Yeah, me neither.    

Trott also warns that too many clients and creatives are looking through the wrong end of the telescope when it comes to advertising:

"Clients, naturally look down the end that magnifies the brand or product.

Until it takes up their whole world.

But the consumer is looking through the other end.

Where the brand/product may be a tiny part, if it exists at all."

Trott has a way to get his team looking down the consumer end of the telescope before trying to solve the creative problem. When he briefs the team working on a pitch for the first time, he asks them to write down everything they know about the brand and the market. What they write down is likely everything the consumer knows or thinks about it.  A knowledge benchmark.  And once the research starts, the team moves away from that benchmark.  The challenge, after all the research is done and the brand and product knowledge digested, is for the team to find a way to distill all they learned into something the consumer, standing all alone by that benchmark, would find important. 

One of my favourite bites is his advice to creative directors, both the wannabes and the current.  To illustrate his point he cites one of Liverpool's greatest footballers—and one of the team's greatest managers, Kenny Dalglish.  Shortly after becoming the manager, he was asked how he was finding the transition from the field to the front office, Dalglish said, "Well, I'll know I've got the team right when I can't get on it." Bang on: as creative director it's not about your talent as an art director or copywriter, it's about assembling a team so talented that even you couldn't get on it. 

You can find Predatory Thinking at amazon.ca and at in-store at some Chapters/indigo locations.