The Marketing Arm :: Blog

Google Reader and digging for gold

I’m a product of Snack Culture. 

As Trendwatching.com defines it:

"SNACK CULTURE...embodies the phenomenon of products, services and experiences becoming more temporary and transient; products that are being deconstructed in easier to digest, easier to afford bits, making it possible to collect even more experiences, as often as possible, in an even shorter timeframe."

My Pops called this trend something different 20 years ago: “A jack of all trades, master of none.”

I subscribe to Google Reader and it has quickly become the most useful tool I have in my toolbox.  However, it’s also the definition of snack culture.  It keeps me up-to-date on the areas of my choosing, which generally include, trends, cars, music, and advertising, marketing, outdoors stuff, etc. 

It’s quick, it’s easy, and it keeps me almost bleeding-edge up to date on all the things listed above.  Honestly, Google reader is one of my favorite things to do, but I’m quickly understanding it’s the worst thing for me.

In my profession, online seems to be the new California goldmine. It's marketing's version of the ’49 gold rush. Similarly, there will be hours of mindless mining, in sometimes-terrible conditions (over-heated or over-cooled cubicles, for example) that will provide a few nuggets worth washing off, examining quickly, and then tossing into a bucket with the rest.

The problem is that the mining is the problem.  It’s not research.  It doesn't understand.  It isn’t empathy.  It’s solely uncovering, and uncovering isn’t enough.  

We’re mining to a point where we realize we have gold, but we aren’t understanding the inherent value within the gold, we just toss it in the sack (or brain) without truly understanding the impact of what we've just uncovered. 

The emotion, the feeling, the essence of it all is completely forgotten in our snack culture.  A deep understanding of the experience is lost via reading online.

The reference to California above leads me to my point:  We’re slowly becoming a culture that’s happy to surf and pick up nuggets along the way, but continue on surfing without finding the source, which is the main course in this developing snack culture.  More often than not, we seem okay with skipping over the main course for a few more snacks.  We never really dig in.

I have a feeling that this over snacking will lead to a mental obesity that we not be able to overcome.  A mental obesity that leads us all to become "jacks of all trades," but masters of none.

Benefitting from personalization

Had an interesting discussion this morning with a client about whether personalization on the mobile front is "too scary" for consumers.

The fact is, in the real world, we benefit from personalization on a daily basis in nearly every interaction channel. 

When we buy Pampers, for example, we get Huggies coupons at check out; when we shop on Amazon, we find out what other books we might like; when we subscribe to a magazine, suddenly we get a raft of eerily related direct mail. 

This trend toward personalization represents a yearning for a forgotten time when you might have had a relationship with the hardware store owner or bank teller, who would get to know you, earn your trust and find ways to serve your needs better with new product suggestions. 

Now I, for one, am of an age that makes me prefer an ATM to a teller, and subsequent generations are going to be even more data-driven rather than people-driven given the technical environment they’ve experienced during their lifetimes. 

This shift in consciousness will create even more opportunities for brands to offer data-driven personalization on line, on phones, in stores, on TV and movie screens, and even in more sophisticated print media.

In the end, it all comes down to building trust and delivering value.  Once I’m interacting with and spending money on a brand or in a store, why would I object to getting more, paying less, or discovering great deals that really are perfect for me?  If it's done in a subtle, helpful, appealing way, most of us enjoy the recognition and budget relief. 

Personalization is already becoming an integral part of building and maintaining consumer trust, and will become table stakes for achieving brand preference. -- Tania Mulry | Ipsh

Q: SMS or WAP? A: That depends.

At an industry conference recently, someone asked me whether brands would be better off marketing with text messaging (SMS) or a mobile website (WAP).  Which is more effective?

As a mobile marketer, it's a little like asking if the subway is more effective than a house.  The answer is completely dependent on the objective and the criteria for decision making, but fundamentally they are complimentary, not competitive. 

In short, WAP is better suited to be a destination (e.g., a house); SMS is designed to get you there (e.g., the subway). 

At this stage in the industry, I’d say consumers are taking the “subway” a lot, but that’s because the “houses” are poorly designed spaces that people don’t want to dwell in.  Community-oriented mobile applications and sites are changing this. 

Still, it’s safe to say the way U.S. consumers interact with their phones today is different from the way they will do so in the next year or two. 

As marketers and brands become more adept at mobile marketing, they’ll use everything the medium has to offer – from SMS and MMS, to WAP, to downloadable applications, to proximity (i.e., Bluetooth, RFID, NFC), even cameras for image recognition and mobile barcodes and digital signage – in a fluid and integrated way that creates a direct marketer’s panacea. 

In other countries, marketers and brands already know mobile is a data-rich, measurable communication platform where consumers use handsets as the ultimate convergence device to engage with brands for utility, entertainment, and information.  In many places outside the U.S., consumers go easily from initial stimulus to repeated transactions in a single setting.

If you’re a marketer assessing whether SMS or WAP makes more sense for your brand, here are a few variables to consider:

1.  Acquisition:   While this is different overseas, in the U.S., SMS and WAP both count on other media (e.g., print, TV, outdoor, etc.) to drive consumers to them.

2.  Accessibility:   While challenges can occur between the consumer and the responding party, SMS is more stable than WAP delivery.  In addition, the challenge of receiving a WAP site exactly as it was designed is compounded by a dizzying number of browsers and handset variations.  Carriers also throttle access to mobile channels with voice being the priority, SMS second, and WAP third.

3.  Experience:   SMS is an opt-in – ideally a double opt-in – medium.  This creates an extra step for the consumer which can take away from the experience.  WAP provides information to users in a more aesthetically pleasing platform.   SMS is a single interaction model while the interaction with a WAP site in multidimensional.  Finally, because the consumer decides when to interact with a WAP site, and is prepared for a response, it doesn’t run the risk SMS does of surprising the consumer.

4.  Adoption and momentum:   SMS is has a larger user base at this point, but WAP is growing faster.

5.  Measurement:    WAP provides similar data to what internet marketers are used to (e.g., unique page views, time spent, referring address, etc.); SMS provides a subset of that dataset.  However, both channels require effort and expense to easily access this data.  The bottom line is that we’re at the early stages of both and they each have their own unique limitations.

5.  Functionality:   SMS gets the nod here, but that’s because most marketers and designers have yet to make the experience a positive one on WAP sites.  Carriers throttle WAP.   WAP can be flaky.

6.  Opportunity:     WAP will grow; SMS is what it is.  That’s why, in overseas markets, we’re seeing an increase in other communication channels like IM.

7.  Context:    Both can be highly-customized on a one-to-one level.  This one’s a draw.

So what’s the answer? 

Ultimately, that’s for the marketer to decide.  Only you know which of these variables is most important to attaining brand objectives.  But now you have the variables. 

Before a brand makes that decision (and if you’re among the 80 percent of marketers planning on shifting your budget into mobile this year) I’d suggest you focus first on the consumer.

If the consumer experience and benefit is at the center of your planning, and you can execute your plans flawlessly, we’ll all benefit from the continued growth of the medium and its growing user base.  -- Bryon Morrison, president, ipsh

Associating a software brand with randomness

I've watched the (original) Seinfeld-Gates Microsoft ad a dozen times or so.  It's somewhat mesmerizing to see Gates at the mall trying on shoes.  And it's kinda funny to relive Seinfeld with Gates playing a George-like character.  

But Microsoft has missed with this unlikely tandem because this industry of personal computing is not about celebrities like Bill and Jerry.  It’s about demonstrating how a complex product is simple to use, makes us smarter and improves our lives. 

Bill and Jerry offer nothing in these vignettes that tells me how Microsoft achieves that and who they are as a brand.    

On the other hand, Apple's commercials pound home a clear message which simplifies and humanizes the Mac.  They're effective because they bring to life the complexity of PCs in terms and images we all understand.  They personify the brand and champion the product, not the people. 

The message is undeniable:  Mac is cooler than Microsoft.

Successful celebrity endorsements are defined by a "good match" with a brand’s image and objectives (at a fair price of course).  As much as I love Jerry, Microsoft has made an ill-advised $10 million investment in “quirky” and “random” and zero investment in their brand positioning.   In the meantime, Apple continues to clearly deliver “trendy” and “desirable” through their portrayal of cool vs. nerdy without leveraging celebrity talent.   Apple owns “cool.” 

Microsoft is obviously trying to grab a share of Apple’s space.   But even in its earliest days Apple stormed the scene with a different, if not cool, approach.  It’s their heritage.   On the other hand, Bill Gates was the nerd who made it big.   Microsoft should not be so quick to distance themselves from this nerdy heritage.   We're all nerdy in some form.   And in Bill Gates case, nerdy was also associated with “smart.” 

Perhaps Microsoft should play their own game, not Apple’s.   It might be a smarter move.  -- Bill Glenn

Palin's frames draw attention...

But that's no surprise, is it?  Whatever celebrities do, wear, and say garners attention.  So why is the press so amazed that people are so interested in her frames?  

It's why Davie Brown Entertainment has a celebrity seeding team.  Like it or not (and for whatever reason), there is a large chunk of the U.S. population who wants to wear whatever celebrities are wearing -- t-shirts, skirts, ties, shoes, lipstick, and yes, glasses frames.

And, like it or not, our politicians are celebrities in their own right.

- Lance Armstrong wears a yellow wristband, people want the yellow wristband.

- Jessica Simpson eats tuna fish on her MTV reality show, people start eating tuna fish.

- Tiger Woods' Nike-branded golf ball rolls in the cup to help him win the Masters, golfers gotta have the ball.

- Reese Witherspoon glides down the red carpet at the Oscars, and whatever she's wearing is what girls all over the country want for their prom dress. 

That people like the frames Gov. Palin is wearing isn't any different.

Using corporate sponsorship to support capital improvements

In Dubai, they're hoping to find brands to sponsor various stops along their new subway.  This isn't the first time (or the last) a municipality will look at utilizing corporate sponsorship to underwrite capital improvement projects. 

Domestically, city and state organizations are looking at assets they control from city buildings to public transit systems and airports.  Dubai is an interesting proposition because of the on-going multinational corporate investment.  But securing entitlement of a subway stop, unless it's part of a much larger engagement strategy, will be challenged to return much of an ROI, if any at all.   

It would be interesting to hear this as you approach your stop after a long day:  "Your last and final stop today is #7,  Budweiser.  Watch your step, and remember don't drink and drive."

Maybe naming rights to the airport is next on the horizon? -- JB

Without interaction, Vegas iced-coffee placement fails

Taking a page from American Idol's playbook, I see where the FOX affiliate's morning news show in Las Vegas is putting two cups of (branded) McDonald's iced coffee drinks on the anchors' desks.  According to one critic:

"Expanding this into news raises very troubling questions. Viewers, when they see news programs, are expecting to see things that reflect the marriage of the things reported, and do not look in the credits of these programs to see if there's some small disclaimer that people are being paid for product placements."

I think product placement/integration, when done well, not only enhances a show, but provides a quality solution to advertisers in light of the declining value of a 30-second spot and overall fragmented media consumption.

As it stands, I feel the FCC's concerns are unfounded, however the crossover of placement into news broadcasts can create backlash. I do believe there are some lifestyle-oriented segments of newscasts where placement could be relevant, but it has to be done right.

In this case, the McDonald's example in this article is a poorly-executed placement deal. Without any interaction with the hosts or mention of the coffee it comes across as contrived and fails to serve the purpose of implied endorsement.

In regards to awareness, research re: American Idol/Coke show that audiences take initial notice of the cup, but it quickly becomes invisible to the viewer in it' static position. Placements like this only serve to exacerbate the issues the FCC has and I doubt they have much positive impact for the brand. -- MF

The economy's impact on marketing

The AdAge article from yesterday ("Advertisers Ready for Age of Austerity") could have easily read "Advertisers Ready for Age of Accountability."

The key line in the introduction of the article "... marketers are making moves to slash marketing spending, or at least apply tougher financial discipline to what they do spend" could prove profitable for companies that can deliver solid ROI.  [The good news is, as an agency, The Marketing Arm (tma) is well on its way to both delivering and documenting a positive effect on the bottom line.]

Second, it's important to point out that two of the blue-chip companies in the article are operating in severe crisis modes that aren't necessarily reflective of the state of marketing. GM's revenues and profits have nose-dived and A-B had been battling InBev. Both companies are reacting to highly unusual events.

As for Coke and P&G, both have been publicly calling for accountability and ROI standards for at least five years and look like they'll be shifting and reallocating marketing money.

Third, while there's no question that the economy and the general state of the nation is making everyone question expenses, marketing is essential to product sales. In the short term, sales should trump image-making as a marketing goal. Marketing's alignment with sales might be the anthem of a new reality. Money will be spent, it's just a matter of spending wisely — and proving it.

Fourth, from a competitive standpoint, if other marketers cut back on their marketing, it may make some sense to conduct an offensive spending strategy, or at least explore alternative marketing (promotion, experiential/emotional methods, engagement tactics) vs. traditional advertising.  Of course, this strategy depends on the brand, but it’s certainly an option worth considering.

Finally, RE:  “Ad Spending Forecasts,” there are at least three leading public forecasters for traditional ad spending — Robert Coen, Jack Myers, and Zenith Optimedia. However, they're generally focused on ad media expenditures, not promotions. There are differences among their predictions (and in the case of Myers vs. Coen, there is open disagreement).

Even though the headlines talk about spending forecasts being revised downward, the commonly-held bottom line is that some growth is predicted for next year.

Us against the space aliens

What would the scene be like if space aliens landed at your home, a la the movie "Signs"?  Here's our own Scott Biggers' description of how it might play out.  Really funny stuff, beautifully written.

Videogames: The new charades

After reading a story in today's WSJ, I get the feeling that videogames are becoming the new charades -- something adults (who aren't gamers) do at their dinner parties.  [I vaguely remember Dick Van Dyke playing charades with his dinner guests on one episode.]

According to an Xbox 360 executive:

"We are at an inflection point in our business where we've secured the core and now we're reaching out to mainstream audiences."

Where in the past, a group of friends might watch a movie or pull out  the Scrabble board, they soon might opt for Lips or You're in the Movies.