Archive for June, 2009

26
Jun

Speak less. Say more.

By Kirk 1 Comment
Categories: advertising, copywriting, loyalty, promotion, simplicity and strategy

Cocktail Napkin IdeasIn previous posts (“Less’ isn’t just more–it’s omnipotent” and “Why strong design is always on Target“), I have discussed the effectiveness of focus and brevity in marketing messages.

Expressing an idea simply and succinctly makes it seem more viable and the brand more confident. It helps with the sell.

Supposedly, Winston Churchill, when prime minister, required that all proposals be presented on a half-page sheet of paper. If a proposer was unable to do this, then it implied to Churchill that the proposer wasn’t clear in his own mind.

Many successful enterprises have launched from a scrap of paper. (For a few examples, see “Seven Brilliant Ideas Scribbled on Cocktail Napkins and Toilet Papers.“)

Marketing exists to influence behavior, such as buying, trying, voting, donating, volunteering, applying, visiting, etc. To be successful, a compelling reason must be presented. The simpler and more clear the reason, the more effective the argument.

Our tools are limited by both time and space: a headline, a tweet, a 30-second radio or TV script, a pay-per-click ad, a billboard, an elevator speech. If we are unable to convince in one sentence, then superfluous words, images and flashy production value won’t help.

For greater success with your messages:

  • Focus on the single most important point.
  • Choose every word with care.
  • Use only necessary words.

If a writer knows enough about what he is writing about, he may omit things that he knows. The dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one ninth of it being above water. – Ernest Hemingway

18
Jun

Twitter, Iran and the First Amendment

By Kirk 1 Comment
Categories: cause marketing and social media

Intent LookIs history retweeting itself?

Before social media there were mechanical printing presses. In the 1700s, American colonists relied on presses to disseminate information. When malcontents and revolutionary firebrands such as Ben Franklin published criticism of the British government for all to read, the Brits tried to stop the presses. Tactics included:

  • Censorship — England licensed printing presses only to those who did not criticize church or state.
  • Taxation — The 1712 Stamp Act created a financial burden for printers by taxing newspapers, pamphlets, ads, even paper. Levying taxes was also a good way to keep tabs on those who owned presses.
  • Prosecution — Criticizing those in authority was considered libelous and litigable. Publishers were taken to court by the government.

Prior to and during the Revolutionary War, printing presses became important tools for sowing the seeds of discontent through such publications as Thomas Paine‘s Common Sense.

Interesting how closely this parallels what is going on today in Iran and China, where internet access is restricted and criticism of the government suppressed!

Now our freedoms are protected. The First Amendment to our Constitution reads in part: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Will Iranian revolutionaries achieve the same? To track via social media what is happening in Iran, here are some tips from the blog, Mashable.

16
Jun

Contrived findings from windowless rooms

By Kirk Closed
Categories: authenticity and research

istock_000009351815xsmallImagine the call:

“Hello, this is Margo from Insightful Research. Assuming you are in our target demographic of 35-54-year-old employed female users of financial investment services, would you be available to join a group of complete strangers in a mirrored room and be videotaped spilling your unbiased opinions about our brand in exchange for a $75 incentive?”

C’mon. How valuable could the results be?

In “Lies, Damn Lies, and Focus Groups,” Daniel Gross, business columnist for Newsweek and Slate, says, “Evidence suggests focus group participants often lie.”

One reason, he suggests, is because they are simply eager to please. “They’re getting paid and fed or might have a crush on the moderator. So, they might tell her — and the marketing types behind the one-way mirror — what they think they want to hear, rather than what they really think.”

Some other reasons focus group results are questionable:

  • How honest can the testimony be when gathered in such an unnatural environment? Participants are often “in” on the game. They know there are marketing voyeurs behind the mirror. They know every word they say is being recorded, discussed, evaluated. They guess at the group’s sponsor and purpose, and modify their opinions accordingly.
  • In life, trust must be established before honesty flows. The focus group format doesn’t allow time for trust-building.
  • Participants are all too willing to share opinions, even when they have no relevant knowledge or experience. Gross quotes Harvard Business School professor Gerald Zaltman from his book How Customers Think: “The correlation between stated intent and actual behavior is usually low and negative.” In other words, what participants say they do and what they actually do (such as buy the sponsor’s product) may be very different.
  • Focus group sponsors and their consultants are often too eager to validate their own beliefs. They may hone in on one participant’s comment and ignore the rest.

Suggestions for better results:

  • Pay lots of attention to recruiting.
  • Only use facilitators who are especially skilled at drawing insights from participants and managing group dynamics.
  • Don’t stop with one or two groups. Conduct several to validate findings.
  • Don’t count votes. They are not statistically accurate.

A better suggestion:

  • Watch consumers in their natural habitats instead.

Do you find focus groups of any value? If so, how do you get the most from them?

10
Jun

Why corporate brands will outperform the Twitter elite

By Kirk 3 Comments
Categories: authenticity and social media

istock_000004664572xsmallMitch Joel‘s recent post, “The Dirty Little Secret Of The Twitter Elite,” and the accompanying comments got me thinking about how shabbily most followers are treated by social media celebrities. And how corporate brands will have to perform to a much higher standard or eventually fail.

In brief, Joel’s post observed that social media gurus and Hollywood celebs with huge followings pay very little attention to the majority of their followers. Even the ones they follow back. Virtually no real conversation is occurring between the elite and the masses. We are being filtered out by Tweetdeck and the like. And for an obvious reason–who has time to interact with hundreds of thousands? A commenter to the post asked, “Would you go to a cocktail party and actually try to talk to 1000+ in one evening?”

I follow Lance Armstrong because I enjoy the Tour de France. Following him adds some dimension to the race. (I also follow Leipheimer, Vande Velde, McEuwen and others.) I don’t send Armstrong messages because I wouldn’t expect him to respond. How could he? Why would he? I’m  sure he receives thousands of inquiries a day from fans and simply doesn’t have time to exchange cycling stories with all of them. And I’m fine with that.

But I would feel differently if I contacted a corporate brand and didn’t hear back. I’ll forgive Lance Armstrong but I won’t forgive Ford, Pepsi or Sony.

If I send a message to Starbucks, Microsoft or Southwest Airlines, I expect an answer. If they don’t pay attention to my concerns, I might switch brands. Why? Because I expect them to care about my patronage.

This requires staffing. Social media is 24/7 and must be engaged continuously. Corporations can do that; individuals can’t. Unless they have people, which would no longer be real.

Ironic, isn’t it? Those gigantic, faceless, monolithic corporations we love to hate can, must, and will be better than individuals at actually engaging larger communities.

Do you forgive the Twitterati who ignore you? Would you forgive a corporate brand?

How do the brands you know staff for round-the-clock community management?

08
Jun

Integration vs. specialization: who wants the hot seat?

By Kirk Closed
Categories: budgeting, client-agency relationships, management and strategy

istock_000007979164xsmallHow do you decide between working with a full-service, integrated marketing firm or an array of specialists? (See recent post on the meaning of the terms full-service, integrated, channel-neutral and hybrid.)

Consider the difference between a department store, such as Macy’s or Walmart, and a specialty store such as Best Buy or Lowe’s. You go to the department store for convenience, everything under one roof. You go to the specialty store for greater expertise and selection within the category.

CMOs must make a similar decision. Hire a generalist firm or an army of specialists in research, strategy, creative, media-buying, web development, PR, direct marketing, SEM/SEO, video production, design, social media, and more?

Which approach is better?

The answer lies in whether you wish to be the conductor or not.

Imagine the discord if every musician in an orchestra played his or her own selection simultaneously without coordination. It’s the definition of cacophony.

Or picture a house built without a general contractor to supervise the subs. Not only would the schedule and budget suffer, but the home would likely be unlivable.

To achieve results in marketing, someone has to coordinate the effort. Will it be you supervising a collection of specialists or will it be a full-service marketing firm coordinating within? To help decide, ask yourself who will keep your marketing:

On brand. A full-service firm with integrated services is typically responsible for defining and maintaining brand standards throughout multiple initiatives. It will be better at keeping your messages consistent.

Specialists will be accountable only for their own areas of responsibility and will not be effective at tending the larger brand. Does the PR messaging match the ad campaign? Does the web site reflect the standards? That will be your job.

On strategy. A generalist firm will serve as your strategic partner, unless you employ a separate strategy consultant. An team of specialists will rely upon you to set the course and give them direction.

On budget. A generalist firm will be responsible for allocating and staying within the overall budget as provided by you. Assuming they are channel-neutral, they will provide strategic recommendations within your budget (See recent post on sharing the budget upfront for smarter strategy.) Specialists will be responsible only for their individual allocation. It will be up to you manage the overall budget.

In sync. Specialists will meet their assigned deadlines only. Did the creative shop get the ads to the media-buying service on time? Has the web developer followed through on the SEM specialist’s recommendations? When working with multiple firms, you will be responsible for keeping all of the trains running on schedule. A generalist firm, on the other hand, will manage the timing and coordination of all of the campaign elements.

Off of the firing line. The CMO is ultimately accountable for results. Specialists will be responsible for their areas of concern only. Generalist firms expect to be involved in goal-setting upfront and are willing to take shared responsibility for overall results if included in strategy development.

Both approaches work. Would you rather hold one firm accountable or shoulder the responsibility of coordinating the efforts of many yourself? Which approach works best for you?

01
Jun

Is channel-neutral the new integrated?

By Kirk 1 Comment
Categories: advertising, client-agency relationships, interactive marketing, management, public relations, search engine marketing and social media

istock_000008334928xsmallMarketing firms used to refer to themselves as “full-service.”

Then they were “integrated.”

Now they are “hybrid” and “channel-neutral.” And once again “integrated.”

What’s the difference?

Full-service means all of the services one might expect a marketing firm to offer are in-house. The firm does not specialize in any one function, such as media-buying or PR.

Integrated marketing, according to the American Marketing Association, is “a planning process designed to assure that all brand contacts received by a customer or prospect for a product, service, or organization are relevant to that person and consistent over time.” Today, the concept includes both online and offline marketing channels, which is why it has re-emerged.

A firm which describes itself as channel-neutral, H2M, says “we hold no bias nor any vested interest in any media, communication channel or holding company of any particular media channel. We house expertise in all media disciplines, but remain impartial as to each channel’s use. This guarantees truly unbiased recommendations regarding our clients’ business.”

Hybrid applies to the combination of expertise for both offline and online channels under one roof, i.e. a hybrid of a traditional marketing firm and an interactive firm. Offline channels include print, direct mail, public relations, outdoor, radio, and television. Online channels include search engine marketing and optimization, email, online advertising, social media marketing, and mobile marketing.

Notes for CMOs:

  • There is no standard for how many services make up full-service, nor does being full-service imply that the services are coordinated with each other.
  • Integration speaks to efficiency, not channel-neutrality.
  • These days you should expect all of a firm’s services to be integrated for better results. Integration should be the consultant’s responsibility, not yours.
  • You should also expect channel-neutrality from a strategic partner. It’s in your best interest to consider all options in an unbiased manner. Obviously, if you work with specialty firms, they are going to recommend their specialty.
  • More and more firms are claiming to be hybrids as they add services, but they are usually stronger in one area than another.
  • There are advantages to working with specialists and advantages to working with integrated marketing firms. The choice, as always, is yours.

P.S. Since posting, I’ve heard the phrase “channel-agnostic,” which presumably means the same as “channel-neutral.”

Subscribe to the RSS feed

Archives


Networking

Popular Posts

“9 Criteria for Brand Essence” Deck

The 9 Criteria for Brand Essence



twitter grader

Add to Technorati Favorites
Featured in Alltop

Invesp landing page optimization
Chris Brogan says I'm a Rockstar!

Top 100 Blogs Award
Brand Management featured writer