Measuring Up

In this case, a D+ is a failing grade

The photo to the right illustrates Drake University’s recently developed marketing campaign. According to this blogger, the marketing folks at Drake created the D+ positioning for this campaign because they wanted to ensure it “caught target audiences attention” and “stood out from the rest”. There’s no doubt that they’ve met those key objectives (in spades).

Sorry, but this is a moronic positioning for any type of higher education institute. When I first spotted it, I actually thought it was a joke. But, the D+ positioning supports what the University refers to as its unique and compelling advantage over other competitive schools (i.e. D=Drake and + is all about being superior and providing real opportunities to students). OK, the meaning behind this campaign is just fine. But, didn’t anyone with half a brain think for two seconds about how end users would first react when seeing that visual next to the university name and logo? Especially considering the obvious point that higher education brands and academic grades are intrinsically tied to one another.

I guess it could have been worse. If Drake University actually had the name Frake University (instead), then the campaign would be highlighting an F+.  That would nicely equate the Drake experience to pure failure. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself…

There are some obvious rules of thumb that smart marketing professionals think about as they develop new campaign positioning statements or slogans. The first is that words, phrases, pictures and visuals all typically have multiple meanings when used in various contexts. Used within any marketing or communications context in a higher education setting, D+ means something close to failure. It’s really hard to miss that one. But, understanding that quite often a phrase with multiple meanings might not be so blatantly obvious, it’s important to research, analyze and then scrutinize that phrase to ensure it won’t (at worse) offend a specific audience, or simply not resonate with others.

Because universities are fairly bureaucratic organizations, I would think that any new campaign would need approval (before going live) from a host of committees or trustee groups. Going through all of these channels again typically increases the chance that someone with any sense would challenge how D+ might be perceived by high school parents who are wondering whether they should spend a few hundred thousand dollars over four years on this school or another private university.

I’ll use a gun metaphor to put this campaign in perspective. In my mind, its positioning can’t even be considered a misfire. Instead, it feels more like someone loaded up a semi-automatic and put his/her face in front of the muzzle while pulling the trigger just to make sure it would work. There’s no doubt that the marketing professional(s) who helped Drake create this campaign should be taking a bullet right about now…

New business gone bad: too many people are in the presentation.

New business consultant Robb High recently sent out another tip of the day for marketing agencies. Here’s what he has to say about the topic of having way too many agency folks in the room for a prospect presentation:

“The CEO “has” to be there. The director of strategy, too. The head account person, of course. The creative director and the team that did the work being presented (for ad agencies.) The media director, as well. The digital specialist (to show that the agency is part of the modern world). And finally, the team of people that will work on the account (because the client asked for that).

Pretty soon that adds up to a lot of people . . . and a formula for failure.

An effective new business presentation needs to be executed like a Broadway play. And putting together a good play with so many people in just a few days is nearly impossible.

Plus, with so many “players” on the stage (and everyone has to have a speaking part or it’s really weird), it makes the presentation far longer than it needs to be . . . and pushes it over the allotted time.

The best Broadway plays have only 2-4 main characters and so should all new business presentations.

And who should be on the pitch team . . . the rule is: only the best actors go on stage. Titles aren’t relevant. Neither is the “team that will work on the business” (yes, a “switch” may have to be done later. And that won't be easy. But, it’s a problem only the winner has.)”

In my opinion, Rob is spot on… with the exception of the final sentence (which I’ll get to in a minute). Our experience as an agency, has led us to believe that ultimately it’s truly all about who are the “A list” players from your agency who can present with a flair, be articulate and come across as incredibly smart and knowledgeable about the prospect’s issues. Those players also have to be the best at creating chemistry with prospects. These are “the actors” (as Rob wrote) who need to lead the most important new business presentations taking place across your agency.

I also agree that too many cooks in this kitchen (meaning within a new business presentation) can create an awkward environment where as many as half of them have almost no role and just come across as seeming clueless or shy by the prospects. It also dilutes the presentation if the parts are split between six or seven people versus having the best presenters take on large roles, where they can really shine.

To Rob’s point about not needing the team to be in the room….our agency has wrestled with this issue. Unless the prospect asks, we don’t include the entire team who would work on the business in the presentation. That just isn’t necessary and often hurts the pitch. But, most prospects want to (at a minimum) understand who their day to day account lead will be. By leaving that person out of the meeting, you’re often asking for trouble because the question will come up. I don’t think we’ve found the perfect solution. But, what we’ve tried to do is always have that person in the meeting….even if he/she isn’t a great presenter. If that’s the case, we’ll make sure that a limited, but important, role is given to that account lead in the presentation so that it doesn’t hurt our efforts, but ensures that the prospects do see we have a bright, energetic executive that they will be dealing with.

My guess is that most agencies have yet to find the silver bullet way of presenting. Would love to hear anyone’s experiences or views on this topic.

Barcelona in the summer is very nice…

Anyone who thinks that earned media placements can be equated (and measured) to the equivalent advertising cost (AVE) of that placement as if it were an advertisement, doesn’t have a clue. Just to make sure you all understand my point, here’s an example: A half page article on Company X in Business Week would be measured (and valued) by what it would actually cost Company X to by a half page ad in that same publication.

Katie Paine is one of the measurement gurus in our industry. I completely agree with her recent post which not only argues against using this type of metric, but also attempts to outlaw the practice through something new called The Barcelona Declaration of Measurement Principles. These seven core beliefs were recently mapped out by a lot of very smart research and measurement folks at a conference in Barcelona.

Some of these points seem obvious, but just the same, it’s great that all are being reinforced because many in our industry still do a lousy job of showing any real value or proof that their communications programs actually work. I’ve been harping about the advertising equivalency issue for years. It makes no sense because an ad is not an earned media placement and there simply is no way to scientifically equate one to the other.

Some of the other tenets that were pushed forward in Barcelona include such common sense practices as setting real measurable goals before each program begins. One of my personal favorites is that real outcomes need to be measured, not just outputs. And, of course, we all should know by now that media cannot be measured alone without integrating a metric for social media as well.

Finally, Katie is spot on by stating that measurement shouldn’t just be about protecting turf and budgets (oh by the way, that’s the only thing that happens when advertising equivalency measurement is implemented). No, it should be all about measuring client programs so that we can see if a campaign is actually working. A good measurement program will create real transparency so client/agency can then channel money into those program areas that work best and prescriptive changes can be made to specific components that may have gone awry.

I commend your work, Katie.

True guerilla marketing in the most unorthodox of venues...

That's what I saw this morning.

This morning's big consumer product news was all about Apple launching its newest iPhone version across the world. Local and national TV stations and a host of other media were camped out at Apple stores in the tri-state area (and across the world). And, I can understand why. The visuals showcasing thousands and thousands of wannabe customers, waiting patiently in mile-long lines overnight with the hope they might be one of first to own the product, is a great one.

There's nothing new about the marketing and PR phenomena that Apple creates with every new launch of the next iPod version. What's interesting, however, are the smaller marketers who are deftly exploiting the situation by marketing to these mob scenes to generate their own buzz and sell products. And, it's costing them next to nothing to do it.

A case in point – on WNBC-TV, a roving anchorman spent 20 seconds discussing a company for no other reason than because its workers were canvassing the line of tired consumers with an offer to buy used cell phones. One camera shot actually showed a few transactions taking place.

On the local Fox Channel, a much more marketing savvy company actually displayed banners promoting its brand, as well as its Internet software product. I actually saw three members of a street team (who were wearing branded shirts and passing out some type of special promotional teaser to the masses) focus in on the television cameras when they moved towards them. Clearly, they were coached to find ways to ‘get on camera.’

As I went from channel to channel, I witnessed two other examples of the same type of marketing. In all cases, these marketers received tremendous free publicity, as well as fantastic marketing and sales opportunities because of the captive audience standing in line. In most cases, these people were tired, bored (had literally been waiting around with very little to do for 8-12 hours) and were hoping to experience anything new. Eureka... what perfect timing. And, what a way to get a free ride on another, larger marketer's back.

Guerilla marketing has been around a long time. And, this type of approach (often referred to as experiential) has become a critical component of most consumer marketing campaigns. But from my experience, marketers typically focus on more traditional public/private venues like train stations, airports, concerts, outdoor festivals and other scheduled or planned events so that consumers can feel, touch and experience their products. What I hadn't seen until today (though) is when small companies act in such a parasitic fashion by feeding off of the mass success of another company's product launch.

Conceptually, marketing has changed. It's now all about two way engagement with one's consumer. Companies also have to learn to communicate to the consumer where and when he/she wants it. I have to give credit to the creative minds who used Apple this morning. Because, that's exactly what they did.

It's all just more of the same

Today I was doing some client research. What I found is really appalling.

In reviewing about a dozen web sites, collateral and sales material, I couldn't find one competitor (to this client) that didn't describe its business in either of one the following three ways:

1) a full-service solutions provider
2) cost-effective, end-to-end solutions
3) a provider of value added services

It made me think blah, blah, blah... because it doesn't just sound the same. It is the same.

I decided to have some fun and did a quick Google search on these phrases. Get this: 47,000 companies use full-service solutions provider to describe themselves. Cost-effective, end-to-end solutions had 95,000 results. But, the big winner is clearly a provider of value added services with over 600,000 matches.

I know... that is just crazy. What does it say when hundreds of thousands of companies are describing their core business differentiators as the same? My belief is that it means our society really has issues with trying to be original. Instead, like sheep mindlessly following the flock, most companies (or those who run them) feel safe, secure or some measure of comfort using messages that have been widely accepted versus taking risks by creating new and untried phrases to separate themselves and their products.

There is a catch (however). These phrases aren't really accepted. Instead, they're simply ignored, kind of like the way the same dull wallpaper or paint in a house just isn't noticed anymore. We've been walking past it and not really noticing the pattern or colors for so long, that it's just easily forgettable.

The reality is that if you care about your company and/or product, then you should care just as much about how you describe it. In almost every case, a company makes its first impression with all audiences through words. Sure, a creative and sophisticated design will catch someone's attention, but words and the stories that utilize them, really make the most bottom line impact.

Think about this the next time you're three seconds away from approving the same, commoditized messages for your web site or press release boiler plate. Today's overused buzz words just take up space on a page. But, companies with a personality and a point of view want to communicate something different. They have a story to tell and they find a way to communicate it effectively by using words which are written to be read.

A trusted barometer is becoming irrelevant

Ever since I can remember, The New York Times has provided a quarterly report on whether advertising pages within key magazine sectors have increased or decreased during a given three month period. (see link below). This data always represented a trusted and important gauge on how specific market segments (such as automotive, financial services, consumer goods and technology) are faring. It also provides those in the marketing world with a snapshot view of growth indicators in the publishing and advertising world (i.e. if ad pages are down across the board, then advertisers are typically spending less money on marketing).

There aren’t any surprises in this recent report. Generally, the number of magazine ad pages has continued to decrease over the last two years. And, while a few lone categories are bucking the trend, the recession has really beaten this industry down. Putting the economy aside though, I question whether magazine ad pages will ever really see significant growth again. And, that makes me question the relevance of using this data anymore as an indicator of how marketplace sectors are faring.

Most people now understand that the Internet has leveled the playing field for small businesses and consumers, alike. I'd say that it has also leveled the magazine world in a completely different manner.

You and I receive our news, trends and popular culture information digitally for free now. So, naturally magazine subscriptions are down across the board and it's hard to believe that those numbers will ever significantly rise again (even when our economy begins to grow). Advertisers focus their $$$ on the mediums that will have the most impact on reaching their target audiences. While magazines are still viable (for now), there are a plethora of more innovative and engaging ways to reach prospects and customers including search engines, mobile phones, blogs, online ezines and even offline, experiential advertising modes (where people go, eat, work, etc.). Even now, a paradigm shift is taking place because mobile technology is fostering the ability to localize content. No doubt, advertisers will start to move in groves to test this opportunity shortly.

It's all pretty logical, actually. It seems to me that those reporting on this soon to be antiquated and irrelevant data should start to think about a new barometer that is inclusive of so many other advertising mediums. Sure, magazine sectors can make up one small sliver of this possible index. But, as $$$ continues to flow out of the magazine publisher’s coffers and into the hands of these newer channels, the data we care about needs to evolve as well. My guess is that this might finally happen in a year or two when reporters covering the magazine world eventually see that magazine growth does not directly correlate with economic growth any more.

The art of successful communications is to first understand what your audiences really care about

The economy is still in shambles. Tens of thousands of people still don’t have jobs. We are  fighting wars on two fronts (and soldiers are still dying.) And, my country club just sent me a very serious letter announcing that the Board will now allow denim to be worn one night a week, only, as a “test.

Now tell me, which sentence does not belong in that paragraph?

This tongue and cheek opening paragraph shows how out of touch my (not to be named) country club is with its members. And, that’s a real problem. We’ve watched membership steadily decline over the last 18 months as families realized that this luxury is simply that. For some, it’s been a simple decision because the main bread winner in the family lost his/her job and the cost is unaffordable now. For others, they just realized that some smart belt tightening was in order to safely survive these choppy economic times. But, overall, this club (like many) is really pressing to increase lost $$$ and that means the need for more members.

I can only speak for myself. But, I don’t think anyone really give two sh**s about how the club is slightly changing its dress code to allow us one day (or evening as is the case here) of jeans heaven. No, this subject comes across as pretty superficial, considering the times we are in. Instead, what would be 100 times more appealing and would hit the mark so much harder, is if the communications focused on how the club was/is finding new ways to make costs easier to swallow. Or, perhaps if it presented new ideas/thoughts/suggestions/strategies on what the plan is to find new members. A third (also smart) point or message would be to focus on REAL benefits that the club is now offering… uh… that we actually care about.

My guess is that our older members feel that this issue (denim) is a big one. Some of them had some real issues when the club severed the mandatory jacket and ties rule.  OK, I respect that. But, this club has been focused for years on recruiting new, younger families who should now make up the bulk of its membership. Do younger families really care about denim versus so many other issues that now weigh on their minds every day? I seriously doubt it.

As my headline reads, communications all begins by understanding your audience really well. That means, you need to first find out what is on their mind, what issues they want to hear about from you and what will make them feel better about you. After you understand this, think about how you can then communicate a specific stimulus to get a desired response. It’s really all about psychology. And, it isn’t that difficult to do if the first step is always followed.

We refer to this as Communications 101 in the public relations world. Now, where is that denim jacket I used to own, because I’m off to the club for dinner…

Mad About Barbie

Today's guest post is by Michael Dresner, CEO, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

Over three television seasons Mad Men has grabbed the attention of millions with a dark, funny, and  disturbing portrait of the ad industry in the 1960s, and the families, clients and political issues with which the industry was intertwined. Most of Mad Men’s characters can be described as anything but wholesome– cocktails are poured long before lunch, marital fidelity is an afterthought, and gender sensitivity is, well, insensitive.  Yes, honesty and humility liberated Don Draper at the end of Season Three. That aside, the characters are magnetic, but rarely emulating. 

So how does the most beloved children’s character ever created beyond Disney– Barbie, Mattel’s rite of passage for pre-tween girls, and isle of safety for parents– justify a co-branded partnership with the unlovable foursome from Sterling Cooper– Don, Betts, Roger and Joan? Ken and Barbie– the King and Queen of Wholesome– are now linked to arrogant, dishonest, unfaithful, drink-swilling characters from an era beyond which we have evolved. Does this make sense?

Yes. And for more reasons than Jon Hamm’s uncanny (perhaps inspired) resemblance to the Ken doll.

Barbie has maintained market leadership in dolls (and in many other product categories, from food to first aid to bedroom décor) for 50 years by engaging girls who love the brand, and Moms who grew up with it.  Frequently the message is singular. As frequently (to the brand’s credit) the message is bifurcated. The persona(s) of Barbie have changed with the times, but parents want to remember the time during which the brand was theirs. That’s why a line of Barbie dolls is manufactured for adults. With a collector’s positioning, they target a passionate, mature, price-insensitive consumer, in a channel wholly distinct from the mass merchants where little girls’ Barbies are sold. By maintaining a connection with both consumers, catering to each need differently, Mattel ensures the brand stays relevant. Disney lost sight of this with so many of their characters from the mid 20th century.  These are now collector’s brands that sadly capture little interest among children.

So- how can the Barbie brand most effectively recreate the era in which it was first introduced?  The answer is leveraging the lens through which our society now sees the spring of 1960. The Mad Men lens. As deplorable as some of the behavior on that show is, I am convinced that its popularity is attributed to genuine affection people have for that era. Hats and ties were worn to work. People read newspapers rather than texting on smart phones. Meals were made instead of delivered. Kids drank milk, not juice boxes, and went outside after school rather than logging onto Facebook. Mad Men has captured wholesome intricacies as well as debauchery. The program identifies how we have evolved, but also captures what we’ve lost. By leveraging Mad Men, I believe the classic brand Barbie will remind us of the things we got right in 1960- as opposed to a children’s brand association with the things we got wrong.

One last thing. I have seen related articles this week in the New York Times, the L.A. Times, a feature of this alliance on ABC News, and of course repeatedly in the licensing trades.  I can only imagine this is one of thousands of blogs written on the subject. Even major brands can barely afford working media in this economy, and 50 year-old brands must do something revolutionary (or face a massive recall) to secure earned media. A Mad Men alliance makes Barbie newsworthy– and deservedly so. For a marketer, how cool is that?

Making Oscar ethical again...

I found this article amusing. As you'll read, one of the co-producers of the highly acclaimed small budget film "Hurt Locker" has been banned from attending this year's Oscar Awards Ceremony.

It seems Nicholas Chartier broke Academy rules by emailing some Academy judges in February, urging them to vote for his film as movie of the year. In the same email, he lambasted the high budget, fan favorite (Avatar) that is the clear front runner.

Academy campaign rules ban direct personal communications with members, and explicitly ban any attempt to cast a negative light on a competing film. Mr. Chartier has apologized. But, his penalty is set in stone.

It's hard for me to say whether this man's "ethical” lapse in judgment calls for a penalty like this. But, I find this whole episode ironic. From what I hear, personal emails such as this are really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how studios (and their representatives) now market, lobby and directly sell, push and prod to convince Academy judges to vote for their films.

Yes, this has become a big business within Hollywood. And, one that isn't taken lightly by PR, promotions, advertising, agents and other niche service providers who make big bucks spending lots of time and energy waging hard hitting campaigns to achieve results. The pursuit of the Oscar is understandable. Winning one these days means instant fame for newbie's in the business and creates an ongoing spotlight of recognition for any actor, director (or even sound producer) who is continually looking to build his/her career. It also means the ability to command a lot more money on any future films, promotions and sponsorships.

Peppercom has never gotten involved in the Hollywood scene (thank God). A firm really needs to have deep Tinseltown roots to be effective in that city (which is all about who you know versus the substance of one's communications strategy). That just never interested us. But, I have marketing and entertainment friends who are highly networked into this scene. Most agree, that the battle to obtain the Oscar has become an absolute obsession which has forced friendly competitors to become hostile combatants who often take on a "win at all cost" attitude. I've heard that it's not uncommon for campaigns to include "unofficial and casual" lunches or drinks with Academy members, as well as gifts (offered under other auspices) and nasty public relations battles behind the scenes with Hollywood media and other influencers who can help sway both perceptions and decisions. And, of course, in typical Hollywood fashion, malicious and often scandalous rumors about directors and their actors/casts are routinely spread to undermine credibility and their appeal.

I wonder if this one-off penalty will really have any impact on a system that is plagued with ethics problems and has gone completely awry? No doubt, the Oscar founders didn't have this in mind when the platform was created. It seems to me that a complete assessment and then revamping of the rules and principles guiding how the participants "campaign" for the Oscars really needs to be looked at versus this insignificant band aid approach.

I marvel at Apple

The other week, I was in an Apple store in a New Jersey mall. My 10 year old son’s iPod Touch wouldn’t charge because the charging component inside the device had been bent just enough to ensure that the little rectangular charging component would not fit squarely inside. My wife and I both knew that my son was the culprit here. He loves that iPod. And, I’m sure in his typical haste to give it optimum battery time each day, he clumsily pushed it to a breaking point. Still, we had purchased a three year warranty and I intended to bring out the salesman in me with an Apple representative to convince him to either cover the damage by fixing the iPod or replacing it.

I was just about to leave for the Apple retail store, when my wife explained to me that I can’t just walk in and receive service on the spot. No, instead (like thousands of others) I had to set an appointment, online via my Apple account. When she told me this, my first thought was, “What a royal pain in the butt.” I complained to my wife that I didn’t want to deal with any retailer that has gotten this big and bureaucratic; I started having visions of what it’s like to deal with cable and phone company service and that just didn’t make me happy.

My complaints really didn’t make a difference once my son gave me that sad look, which often leads to a few tears. So, I conceded, went online and made an appointment to see a service representative at 11am, on a Saturday morning, two days later.

Anyone who has been in an Apple store understands  the branding experience that customers receive there. (I won’t provide the obvious explanation about that.) What was interesting about my experience was just how service oriented the entire process was.  I checked in with a lead customer service representative. He asked me to sit anywhere I wanted  and within a few minutes,  a personalized technician (named Bill) would be at my service. And, that’s exactly what happened. After explaining the problem and walking the technician through my warranty, I asked him if this tiny little problem could be fixed. He smiled and told me no. The iPod was ruined because no charger or device to download tunes on it, could be attached. Then, he told me that my warranty only covers “problems that Apple is responsible for. Not those that a 10 year old boy created himself.’

I was just a second or two away from trying my used car salesman pitch (and then groveling if necessary) to get some relief on this product, when Bill surprised me. He explained that Apple wants to do right by its customers and he has no problem replacing it with a new iPod Touch. I would just need to pay the $20 warranty fee. I was completely psyched and appreciative. The next few words out of my mouth were “Thank you. Really appreciate it. You’re a great guy, Bill.”

Apple came through in a major way for me. Clearly, the company is devoted to ensuring that customers experience that brand promise (ease of use, innovation and being customer friendly) that is so heavily marketed every day.  The irony here (though) is that Apple creates these products knowing that most will break down and die within a 12-18 month period. Most iPods are not fixable. That’s a very smart go-to-market strategy for Apple. The company hopes (or in this case knows) that its customers will just keep coming back to purchase the next latest (and trendier) model. It works because most customers never really ever question why these products aren’t built to last longer.  And, to my earlier point, consumers (like me) are even willing to make appointments two days in advance to have their products serviced.

Very few brands have this type of powerful impact and control over consumers everywhere. Over the last decade, Apple has become the de facto standard in how to build a mainstream brand. It has worked so well that many consumers don’t even wait until their current model is broken. They just want the next greatest version as soon as it is released. The next big question for Apple is how long can the company stay on top. Most leaders typically fall from grace after any number of years because it’s so difficult to maintain that same level of innovation, quality and service (think of Dell, HP, Sony, etc.). But, I continue to marvel at Apple because it seems to keep getting better and better, each and every year.