The Superbowl Snooze: The Good and The Bad

My friend wondered where my commentary was for this year’s Superbowl ads so here goes... *I’m three weeks behind but whatever* In short, from what I saw, someone definitely hit the snooze button on my Superbowl ad party. Folks in the biz, I was not impressed. For most of this years’ ads, the general reaction was, ‘eh, I saw this last year I think’.

There were, however, a few that stood out – both good and bad. Let’s review some of the more memorable ones and those we hope never to see again...

THE GOOD.

1. Google - Parisian Love

Two thumbs up for this ad. Simple, powerful, effective; we get it. The ad starts us off with someone doing a Google search on ‘study abroad in Paris’ then takes us through a cute love story between some American guy and a Parisian girl - all through the use of Google’s powerful search engine.

This commercial feels vaguely reminiscent of the Chase card commercial depicting a relevant Chase card for every major point in your life from singledom and having fun to falling in love, getting married, having a family, retirement. It just makes you feel good. We get it. Using Google for relationship advice? Beautiful.It’s just one of the things that make this ad completely relevant from an audience perspective. How many people haven’t done this... The cute back story just pulls it all together. *Clap-clap-clap for Google and their first Superbowl ad*

2. FLOTV - Injury Report

Poor, poor Jason: forced to shop instead of watch the Superbowl.I know many guys that probably felt the pain of this scenario all too well.I thought this was cute and funny..in a dry, entertaining way. "Injury report: Jason’s girlfriend has removed his spine rendering him incapable of watching the Superbowl...Change outta that skirt Jason.” Classic. It’s not terribly hilarious but guys get it (and so do some of the ladies – you know who you are). The straight-forward dry humor coupled with the “I get it” factor is what makes it work.*chuckle, chuckle*

3. Doritos - Tie between Casket and Kids These Days (at the vending machine)

Some classicly 'decent' Doritos commercials - nothing that really blew my socks off, but these two made me chuckle fairly consistently so they make the list. One thing I will say for Doritos and Co - they understand the entertainment factor: keep it short, keep it simple, make us laugh (and, make us hungry for Doritos). For me it was a tie between The Casket and the Vending Machine – both clever and fun, both made me hungry. Particularly in the Casket version...all those Doritos..yumm. *Score*

Too bad the guy wasn’t so mouth-watering though..*ickk*

On that note...really, Doritos should play up the hot man factor just a little...after all, women viewers are more likely to watch the Superbowl commercials, they're more likely to do the shopping (and therefore, buy the Doritos for the next house party) and they currently make up almost half of the Superbowl viewing audience. That makes the hot-man factor equally as relevant as the hot-woman factor played in so many other Doritos commercials. Doritos et al: work on that eye candy would ya???

THE BAD.

1. Audi - Green Police

People want to be entertained, not sit there feeling like an ass. This commercial had me debating the top three things I felt like doing most while watching that commercial: bathe in a tub of foam and plastic, pollute the Pacific- drop an oil tanker, fly to Alaska-club a baby seal. Probably not a good thing. *I can almost feel the e-tomatoes flying* This commercial takes the ‘Going Green’ concept and slaps you in the face with it in a way that is neither funny nor appreciated.

Audi so strongly identified with the Green Police in this ad that I had no desire to go out and get one. In fact, I was feeling rather anti-Audi after the ad. Who wants to associate with a brand that says you’ll be arrested for having your hot tub too hot (helloooo 'hot' tub...) or drinking from a foam or plastic cup (hellooooo Superbowl...?). It’s annoyingly over-the-top comedy and headache-inducing Green Police jingle just make you want to do bad things....like take the Audi A3 TDI for a test drive – right into oncoming traffic or better, the Green Police.

Moving on...

2. Dove for Men - Journey to Comfort

Where to begin? For me, this ad fails on so many levels. You can just see the outer lining of a good concept, but somewhere during the execution phase the good concept just went bad. The tagline is about men going through the difficulties of life....as a young man, a husband, father, point-man – and having to handle the pressures and expectations (like the responsibility of kids, the lawn, dishes...the wife). Presumably, according to the ad, men handle it because that’s what real men do so be comfortable with the man you are and the life you have.

Heh? Sorry. Simply put, the message doesn’t match ‘the message.’ The message in this ad is really about “acceptance and resignation.”

Instead of feeling the intended: “I’m a man and I’m comfortable with my life, my manhood and my responsibilities” what I got was more along the lines of: “I was doing fine right up until I met my wife. I now despise my life, I’m a pussy and a drone but whatever...cheers *insert sappy smile and cue the cheesy end-music*”

At the end of the commercial I’m asking myself two questions:

1) how many married men sadly identified with this commercial, and

2) how many single men are crossing marriage off the to-do list or debating a 10-year delay...

From a marketing perspective, this ad is so targeted it almost says unless you are a married man who despises his life and deals with it with acceptance and resignation – this soap isn’t for you. Not very effective marketing when more than 35% of male SB viewers are between the ages of 18-34. This ad alienates the vast majority of that potential.

But, having said that....I'd be interesting to know which of you liked the ad and why....

3. US Census - Snapshot of America

Of course this had to be on the list....

How much did the government pay for the 3^rd quarter spot and all those vignettes?

And...why? Thank you government for putting my tax dollars to work so effectively. And for the record, the ad sucked.

Mass is out; Niche is in

Lots of conversations surrounding web2.0 lately; lots of conference invitations for web2.0 marketing events (none of which I can or will attend - poo-poo). I read a comment recently that the greatest benefit of web2.0 is that the world is your oyster. Groan. Meaning? Dumb cliché aside – thanks to web2.0 the world is the new audience. Eh? Wrong.

If you start targeting everyone, in reality you’re targeting no one. Web2.0 creates outreach (i.e., targeting] and engagement [i.e., the conversation] but understanding who your audience is crucial for defining your marketing message. Particularly for small businesses, marketers need to be cognizant about knowing who they want to reach but more importantly they need to be realistic about who they can reach. One downside of web2.0 for many is that it can create the perception of static “channels” be it social network sites, blogosphers what have you; but as many already know, these channels are constantly changing - new channels open up, some disappear, and the outreach environment for many in terms of advertising is becoming more and more stringent as web users gain more control. As marketer’s, our hollistic marketing strategy has to be based on audience - not on "channel.” That said,

Stop thinking “broad-base” and start thinking “niche.”

Think Blackberry: a niche product that garnered mass-market attention but it grew from the path of niche-mindedness. For many businesses, small and large - there are probably a hundred and one other seemingly similar products on the market that are either skimming the profit margin or blundering horribly. The unique proposition of a partciular product or service is how you get to niche. And within niche-mindedness lies a more compelling, relevant marketing message for your audience. With time and effort and the right people on your team - at the end of the day you will get better results and it will [should] cost you a lot less.

All Hail the Mighty Paper

Warning: long, long post today... ;-)

I remember a few years ago when I moved to Hoboken, NJ and took a job with JPMorganChase, situated right across from the NYSE. **ahhh** What a great deal that was. Every morning, I’d get on board the ferry in Hoboken, sit back and read the newspaper for the mile-long ride across the Hudson River, and get off at the Wall Street pier. I’d make my way up Wall Street, past all those financial conglomerates: Schwab, UBS, Trump Tower, Merrill Lynch, and others.... and just get immersed in the sounds and smells of downtown New York: the coffee, the doughnuts, the street vendors, the people lined up at the corner newspaper stands, the taxis, the passersby, and the trench-coat busy-bodies hurrying to their windowless offices with rolled up newspaper in arm (or briefcase).

What can I say, it was all very intoxicating and I completely bought into it.

I also remember shortly after my new move, I started taking up a subscription for the WSJ. At the time, it was more for status than readership; I thought the WSJ was for the intellectual right and the fashionably “cool” in society, and I was determined to be part of the “in”” crowd. Eventually though, I became an avid reader - for the quality of the writing, the editorial content, the "intellectual grade" and the range of print issues.

What can I say, the WSJ was and still is, a great newspaper...

Reading the WSJ was a daily routine, and a relaxing one at that. When I finally flipped that last page, I felt like I had accomplished something, learned something, retained something. I felt pretty good about myself.

Eventually though, those daily routines were supplanted by online news reading from sources like AP, Reuters, the WSJ Online and others. And now that I’m working for a newspaper – I feel the decline of readership more personally and I find myself wondering what the future has in store for newspapers and the WSJ. And let’s face it, newspapers don’t have too much to be happy about these days: advertising revenue is down, circulation is slumping, and newsroom cuts have become "daily news."

While the old news forums are indeed being usurped by the advent of the internet and new digital technology, unlike many (if not most), I don’t believe that the newspaper will wither away into nonexistence – unless we let it.

Even it becomes a niche market, rich in content...there is a way to save the newspaper.

Times have changed. The newspaper business has to be forward thinking if it wants to retain readership and grow it’s revenue base – be it through new and renewed subscriptions, information portals geared towards niche subscribers, or advertising dollars. ** A point of clarification - the newspaper is not the product. The "product" is the readership (the audience); the market is the advertiser. **

That said, the future of the Newspaper is about three things: Rich content, content "growth" and data management. The online version will be about rich media content across a wide array of verticals (a perfect marriage between online and print media). Okay, so that's technically, 1-2-3..4 things.

Content, Content, Content
Not for nothing but the editorial content of most newspapers today is sorely, soreley lacking. 95% of newspapers I just throw down in disgust. I can't handle the ultra liberal point of view or worse, the "uneducated yet well-written" point of view. And with continuous budget cuts and declining readership, the content is only going to get worse. Here's what I say, the business objective shouldn't be about making significant (or even slight) content cutbacks. That's the crux of the paper people! The goal should be to enrich the content and make it more valuable to all your readers and non-readers.

The future of newspapers is the 20-something generation. Today, they're fresh out of college – tomorrow, they’re readers. The trick is building loyalty and awareness now.

Add a rebuttal section: the same complaint that myself and so many others have - is the biased perspective of the media - particular newspapers. Add a fun, intellectual rebuttal section for key issues; readers submit the questions. You present the 'conservative' and 'liberal' points of view, or in the non-political sphere, the 'for' and 'against' point of view. You have two or three bullet points in a summary section highlighting the issue, each rebuttal is 1 column long, half-page. That leaves plenty of room for two debate topics. This section could be bi-weekly...every Wednesday and every Sunday to give it more value.

More "Jon Stewart" journalism: Not throughout the paper of course but every good paper should have a good, hearty "wise-cracking" page for the satirical and the cynical - make it fun, make it hip, make it interesting. We all share so much of the same thoughts, fears and hopes - make it relevant. Oh, and please...none of this 2000 words on a page for just one article. Have several brief columns for the page.

Add readership inserts that stir the palate of the 20-something crowd: technology, business for the ages, social events for 20-something readers in the local area, career and job hunting tidbits, etc. Or hey, have one weekly insert segmented by age group for everyone to enjoy! The question editors really need to ask (and answer) is 'where is the audience going?' - what information do they value and how can we incorporate these concepts into our paper thoughtfully and with added value...

Better stories, more stories:
...more content, more facts, more satire, more fun, more funnies, more inserts, more, more, more! As one LA Times editor said, “"wise investment – not retraction – is the long-term answer to the industry's troubles.” OR, "A dollar's worth of smart investment is worth far more than a barrel of budget cuts."

Of course, going this route may be more costly, and the newspaper may eventually be tailored towards a niche market with fewer papers being printed for a higher price, but if the quality is in tact and the content is at a level higher than it's ever been, newspapers will be around for a long time. And besides, I'm all for higher content quality. The biggest problem with news in general is that all the articles covering a particular topic, all say the same thing – so little varied perspective.

**ack. cough. tears.**

New Digital Content
As for the online version of newspapers... I have a few thoughts on that as well: In addition to the usual news/events, weather, etc….paid subscribers should be able to choose the level of editorial content, and level of censorship in their news, comics, and entertainment. Preferences can be modified for different household members – i.e., children and teenagers can have the G or PG-rated editorial content. It should be a "mix-it-up" subscription service.

Now, keep your pants on fellas...I'm not talking about intellectual "porn" here. No, I'm talking about mature, intelligent or maturely funny editorial content.

Audio-reading:
An option for the elderly or just those who want the news but don’t want to sit in front of the computer for hours on end. This could be in partnership with Adobe (Adobe has a downloadable audio-reader as part of their, I believe, 8.0 suite. If articles can be downloaded as PDFs you can listen to them using the audio reader.)

Newsbloggers:
Locals write the news and self-syndicate to all of the newspapers from their homes.

And finally,…

the information portal:
a comprehensive database of all articles, and key words within those articles with links to sources, names, events, references, etc. All stories with even the most obscure references would be tied together and stored in the database; a benefit for readers and editors who wish to have detailed information, background information on any particular subject previously covered, at their fingertips.

Think, a Wiki of the news per se. Today’s article search is a mindboggling expedition, and next to useless in so far as time goes but the technology is there; it is possible. Information is still the most valued commodity and it can come with a price – so long as the technology is relevant and no one else does it better (or first).

Internal Management
Ahem, so I'm relatively new to the newspaper industry but I've learned quickly that this industry - ahead of the data-mining curve it is not. Apparently the popular way to go from a circulation marketing perspective is to outsource marketing campaigns to local call center type organizations. Everything goes...from concept, execution, all the way to tracking.

..And here's what I have to say to that. EH. WRONG ANSWER! If you have the budget to outsource it to a group of people who hold no real personal value for your business, then you have the budget to "insource it" with one or two good people on your team. You can outsource the execution, but circulation teams need to be managing the campaigns that go out the door from concept, to execution strategy, to campaign tracking. If you value your business and the future of your business, you need to own that business.

Database Management
Another area with room for improvement. In order to effectively target and segment your audience to track campaign spend and revenue, to track usage across all campaigns, to track response rates for new campaigns, etc... you need to have an oustanding marketing database. No newspaper, with significant market share and declining readership, should be without one. Note to the industry, Invest in technology - it WILL help you.

Why? It's important to be able to drill down your data to really understand who you're reaching, why, and how much your "reach" is costing the company. It's important to know which marketing campaigns are effective? Which offers generate the largest response rates and within which segments? And the end-all-be-all of questions - what's the long term value of every customer, meaning how much is each customer worth in cost and revenue? Ultiamtely, you want to know what kind of penetration you're getting and what that return is in terms of costs vs advertising revenue.

You should be able to effectively drill-down data across demographic, location, risk, penetration, response-rate, number of households, homes on the DNC list, high customer service areas, hard delivery-areas, etc. You should be able to track customers by complaints, calls through the VRU, refunds, cancellations, write-offs, customer contact points, and so much more. And at the end of the day you should be able to tie all that information together to give you "the big picture".

Information is power, and information is the crux of the newspaper business. That rings even more true from an internal management perspective, when running the business.

So what do you think...are newspapers out and the internet in? Is the internet the future of news?

Are You an Entrepreneur?

Just a short blurb today...

I had a fun conversation with a friend of mine today and she told me she was thinking about starting her own business. She has an idea for a product and she believes it’s a market winner in a niche category. Okay, I added the niche. Anyway, I was thrilled for her and insisted she start putting together the details, draft a business plan, patent her product, do some research and start shopping around for potential 3rd party vendors. I got so excited thinking about all the pieces of the marketing plan that if she weren't in San Francisco or I weren't in Colorado - I probably would have hopped in my car, drove to her place, and sat her down to get the ball rolling.

After our conversation I started thinking about some of my other friends who have that entrepreneurial spirit and it got me thinking – about what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur in today’s bustling marketplace. As for myself – I don’t think I have that fundamental ‘just do it’ quality when it comes to starting my own business...

• I like having stability and certainty in what I’m doing
  
• I like taking risks but with a relative amount of caution
• I like knowing when that paycheck will come in and for how much it’s going to be
  
• I love thinking creatively but I can’t create something from nothing
  
• I love my independence and being in control but I fear I would languish under the pressures of being the end-all/be-all between success and failure

And all that’s okay with me. Some people are built for creating a business and others for sustaining a business.

Which one are you?

The 2008 "Internet" Elections

How important will internet marketing be for candidates during the primaries and general elections? Can a candidate win at the polls without ‘a win’ on the web?

It was just over a year ago, while blogging on Forbes.com about the 2008 elections, that I first heard the name Barack O’bama and the words presidential candidate in the same sentence. At the time I thought wait, who the heck is Barack O’bama? I did some web research and found that he was a junior senator who hadn’t even served two years and yet there were more internet sites devoted to ‘O’bama for President’ than I ever would have expected for an unknown political player with no real congressional achievements.

So how did an unknown junior senator suddenly spring to the forefront of politics during the race for the presidential seat? Genius Marketing and smart [aggressive] use of the internet.

Over the last year we’ve seen campaign trails sprout a number of candidate sponsored YouTube ads, one-on-one candidate forums on MySpace and MTV, candidate profiles on Facebook, campaign stop-shops in Second Life’s virtual world, and now voter submitted YouTube questions seem to be driving the contexts of presidential debate forums.

A year ago I might have said that successful internet marketing was a supportive factor to building awareness but not "the" factor for winning at the polls (think Howard Dean). Today, it's half the battleground.

Six months ago Barack O’bama and Ron Paul both had laughable leads over all other candidates in their number of MySpace friends and YouTube channel views. And yet all the polling data concluded that neither Paul nor O’bama were front-runner candidates for their respective parties. In fact Paul barely registered on any poll. Flash-forward to recent weeks where O’bama (the candidate who’s harnessed the internet most effectively and most aggressively) is a serious contender for the democratic nomination with Clinton recently losing significant lead points to O’bama in several key swing states. And while Ron Paul is still in the bottom percentages of republican polls - his candidacy and general popular support has definitely gained spotlight attention and he’s risen quite quickly in just the last few months alone.

I don’t know if the web is the new ‘campaign battleground’ but I do know two things: 1) the democrats are harnessing the internet far more effectively as a campaign tool and 2) younger-generation voters are watching far more political YouTube clips than they are televised debates. At the end of the day, candidates who do not aggressively tackle the internet arena will be doing a serious disservice to their campaign strategy and their overall chances for winning the top seat.

** Hint, hint Republicans….**

On election-day eventually it might even come down to "vote for your candidate at the polls...OR vote online at myvote.com"

How to Effectively De-motivate Your Employees

So I get these weekly newsletters from BNET online - a sort of “go-to” place for management & strategy stuff (trends, whitepapers, etc.). Usually the content takes on a more serious tone and some of it is interesting read but today’s video of the day is just too comedic not to pass on.

It’s a de-motivational video tutorial created by Despair, Inc. – a company devoted to offering satirical management advice and demotivational products for the pessimists, underachievers, and chronically unsuccessfull worker-bees of the world.

AT DESPAIR, INC., we believe motivational products create unrealistic expectations, raising hopes only to dash them. That's why we created our soul-crushingly depressing Demotivators® designs, so you can skip the delusions that motivational products induce and head straight for the disappointments that follow!

Spend some time navigating the website. It is hi-LAR-ious.

For an exceptionally funny read: check out their FAQ's section here.

Funny BNET Videos of the Day:

"Battle Bureaucracy with Fake Crises and Caffeine"
If your company is at all established and successful, it's probably already become a bloated, uninspiring workplace. Here's how to take back your company by over-caffeinating your workers, limiting their contact with the outside world, and teaching them that the need for "fairness" is petty and weak.

"Problem Employees? It's Not You, It's Them"
Dr. Kersten shows how to manage three types of problem employees. Whether you're dealing with the "perpetually offended employee," the "aggrieved superstar," or the "egomaniac," the answer is simple: they need to be grateful for what they have.

Get an ‘A’, Get a Happy Meal

Ad Age had an interesting article last week detailing McDonald’s latest strive to market itself to pre-adolescent tykes by plastering Ronald McDonald and a happy meal coupon on the front cover of report cards. According to Ad Age, kinderpoops who earn all A's and B's, have two or fewer absences or exhibit good behavior are entitled to a free happy meal at a local McDonald's -- so long as they present their report card.

While not an entirely novel idea - I say Kudos to McDonald’s for having the guts to do it. I mean, if it were Healthy Choice soups, parents and children's advocacy groups probably wouldn't have much gripe about it.

I never had free meal coupons on my report cards for doing well or behaving well but I do remember the ice-cream and pizza parties sponsored by the teachers. And wow was that a treat - both times (usually, I was tossed out of the running on account of bad, er aggressive, behavior). Frankly, I don’t understand why every company vested in the teen and pre-teen category doesn’t attempt to do the same thing. For pricier items – say new shoes, a backpack, school clothes, or school supplies – for every report card you get ‘X’ number of dollar credits for good grades and good attendance and at the end of the year if you’ve accumulated a certain number of points..it’s free! That or you get a good student discount. What kid doesn’t need these things and what parent wouldn’t be happy to have the help. Besides, I thought coupons were a staple of American living….

Now, I understand that it’s McDonald’s – far from being a member of the healthy foods category and I also understand the perspective that advertisements should steer clear of kids – period; But come on, if we can advertise cell phones to tween toddlers ‘just because’ – I think we can advertise a free kiddie meal for good grades and good classroom attendance. After that, it’s up to the parents to exercise those parenting skills and make their own judgment call.

Really though, at the end of the day, are 4 Happy Meals a year so bad if your kid excels in school and refrains from exhibiting violent behavior? Hmm,...me thinks yes.

The Blackberry versus the iPhone

Techies just love to have pow-wow over this one. So which one is better?

Obvious answer: well it depends on what you want to use it for. Some people feel that the not-so-new-anymore iPhone has some serious potential to ruin future sales growth of the blackberry. Nonsense. What we really have is a non-compete situation here because these two products target completely different markets (with some overlap but not enough to impact sales performance of one over the other). The Blackberry, like the iPhone, is still a niche product but unlike the iPhone it’s expanded it’s reach to garner mass-market attention.

The Blackberry is for business professionals on the run; the iPhone is for consumers that want flashy, fun multimedia capability from their phone. The multimedia functions of the blackberry cannot compete with the iPhone but they’re also not selling points for the market either. Folks don’t buy a blackberry for the audio/video features similarly to the way iPhone users don’t buy an iPhone to check/send email and keep their contacts lists up-to-date.

For folks that own a blackberry and have little use for push technology, GPS and calendar/contacts synchronization – the iPhone might very well be a better option. But until the iPhone locks-in these capabilities, you simply can’t compare the two.

And as for me, until the iPhone has basic cut and paste features, you can count me out for sure. I'd die without cut and paste.

You Can't Knock High-Hopes

I got a good chuckle out of this businessweek article covering this years LA auto-show design challenge. The topic - where will auto design and functionality be in the year 2057.

Some of the concept themes (I highlighted the key words I thought were most interesting)

• Fluid designs and materials that can be reconfigured into different
"modes" (i.e., compact and maneuverable when commuting/sleek and aerodynamic so you can zip right through that L.A. traffic)

• Artificial Intelligence to allow vehicles to be operated with little or
no input from the user;

• Advanced fuel systems using multiple energy sources to achieve excellent
economy and power while minimizing or indeed reversing environmental damage;

• "Organic" design that mimics and responds to natural forms;

• Omni-directional drives instead of simple forward/reverse wheels.

These are all great, forward thinking ideas. But I say, let’s be realistic. In the year 1941, Chrysler came out with the Thunderbolt - an “idea car” that was vastly ahead of it’s time in 1941 and only six were made. Interesting from a time-warp perspective is that some of the most advanced aspects of it’s design included a fully retractable hardtop that was electronically operated from pushbuttons on the dashboard, power windows, and retracting headlamps. Flash-forward to present day where countless vehicles still don’t include power windows (fortunately not my car), you pay extra for the automatic convertible top (if it’s even an option for your convertible) and most headlamps don’t retract. Not because this technology doesn't exist obviously but for many mainstream car manufacturers, it's just not cost-effective for the offering. And the avaibility of these features has come about in a manner that I call gradual technological evolution, natural evolution.

In looking at the historical developments of our fine auto-industry over the last 50 years – I really don't think we've come 'that far' when we're talking about what's available in the mainstream. What have we really achieved - Speed? "torque-age"? fuel-efficiency? When you consider the cars that are the most innovative in design and functionality – those that truly create that divide between themselves and the cars of 1950 – you'll also find they are in the top 1% of affordability (think the Bugatti Veryon which, priced in 1999, was sitting with a pretty pricetag of 1.3 million; check out this video - thanks Michael).

If I could predict functionality of mainstream cars in the year 2057 - I could believe the use of A.I. - to a degree (i.e., like cruise control on auto-pilot - built-in movement sensors that detect moving objects in front of you and behind you, relative to distance and direction - to slow down or increase speed. That to me seems like natural technological evolution as evidenced by the last 50 years). That said, cars with an organic design that can mimic and respond to natural forms, change from compact to aerodynamic...? Sounds like technological advancement from some parallel universe - somewhere in the realm of nuclear fission; An idea car for the year 2057 - of which perhaps six will be made.

Cost-effective? Doubtful. Mainstream? Not.

Goodbye Advertising, Hello Social Media!

Or not. Lately, I’ve been getting my self embroiled in conversations with people that prat on and on about how advertising in the new marketing age is dead. The future of marketing is CGM and Social Media. As many already know, I’m a big fan of Social media, web2.0 and new emergent technologies but as for advertising being dead – well I just poo-poo that notion..

A couple of schools of thought that some of my marketing colleagues and I tend to disagree about:

Q: What is advertising.

For them it’s a 1-1 communication; It’s me as a marketer communicating to you as the customer. You don’t communicate back, you just (hopefully) pay attention and then (hopefully again) respond as a new customer.

For me, advertising is about putting your brand/marketing message in front of an audience. It’s about getting their attention; and getting them to respond. Having said that, why would social media ‘not’ fall into the category of advertising? Traditional advertising it’s not but whether you call it community word of mouth, social media, or interactive dialogue – your objective is still the same. You’re getting your message out to your audience in hopes that they’ll “get it”. And I’m not necessarily a believer that advertising in social forums (however good or bad the response is) is a bad thing.

If we’re talking about traditional advertising then it’s true; It’s “in flight”. In a world where consumer control is heading straight for the helm of marketing efforts (be it TIVO, Youtube, or circumventing online click ads), people aren’t going to listen to the things they don’t want to hear. The trick is to make it relevant, make it meaningful. Traditional media will only die if marketers refuse to give up control. What marketers need to do is find a way get traditional advertisements in on the consumer-control action. Think Tide detergent's new 'Crescent Heights' ads that interweave traditional advertisements with online and social media (Thanks James). Be creative. Stop talking "at" them and start talking "with" them (as with the ever popular Secret deoderant 'What's your secret' ad campaigns).

If you can connect and engage with your target audience then bravo. But whatever the ad-road you travel: Good marketing plans are like strong investment portfolios. What does that mean? Diversify, diversify, diversify.

Advertising in the traditional sense, is here to stay. We as marketers need to get off our butts and start looking at how we can utilize traditional advertising in a "non-traditional" way.

Blog or Bust

"What is the value of blogging?"

Should companies in the financial/investment services industries blog on their websites? I’ve had this discussion with folks many times and from where I sit the answer is pretty simple (and applies to any service company regardless of industry). Breaking it down into far simpler terms:

YES, If…
- the intent is to build meaningful and engaging relationships with consumers

NO, If…
- the intent is to increase the bottom line

Businesses that want to extend their brand reach, want to develop stronger customer relationships, and want to achieve a greater depth of customer insight to deliver quality products and services – should have a blog. There is tangible value there – it’s called ‘the customer experience’ and it’s measurable by the interaction you achieve. It's a conversation between people and when providing a valued service, having that interaction builds trust and humanizes your organization. As social networking sites, blogs, consumer review sites and other CGM-centric corners of the web continue to increase, financial companies will have to get on board or they risk slow brand erosion.

But (there is always a but)... if you're going to blog keep it interesting, keep it updated and keep it relevant - to your industry, your brand message, and your audience. Keep it real. Blogs are heavily viral so assuming you keep to the rules eventually you'll attract a vast community to your company. And for a nice little bennie, a well-trafficked blog can also help generate better results on search engines. Now that can't be bad for any organization. ;-)

Marketing in the Virtual World: Yay or Nay?

I had an interesting conversation recently with an executive at a large SF-based financial/investment services firm about marketing outreach in the web2.0 world and in particular, interacting with consumers in the virtual space. Web2.0 marketing has been a big topic over the last year and the subject of virtual-world interaction is increasingly gaining discussion ground in many of the marketing forums I’m involved with.

My question to this executive: how relevant is the virtual space for reaching potential customers and what’s the opportunity? And honestly, I was surprised at how quickly the idea was scoffed.

Her take on emerging technology or new marketing vehicles is: it’s only relevant for a brand like Apple - known for (and rather expected to be) innovative and trendy in their marketing solutions – to jump on the bandwagon of emerging technology but the question other companies need to ask is “how relevant is that space for our company and how does it mesh with our brand”.

Hmmm…interesting position and not without valid points but it seems to me to devalue the potential for connecting with your audience in a new way, not necessarily pushing products or services mind you, but rather interacting in a community-minded way (er, a virtual way) in an environment that they’re comfortable with. What’s so innovative and trendy about that?

The virtual space still has significant growing room to go through and it’s still very unfamiliar territory for many marketers and users (particularly as I’ve found in the financial services arena) but here’s my take: if the objective of today’s marketer is to “connect” and “engage” - emerging technology shouldn’t be relegated to the idea-bucket for only those brands whose message resonates with innovation and “coolness” but rather the question should be asked:

Where is our audience going and how can we build a presence and engage them in these places intelligently and “comfortably”.

Companies like Pontiac, IBM, and even Sears have put their brands out in Second Life and with now nearly half a million Second Lifers logging on weekly and roughly a million logging on each month – such a new possibility only has upward growth. The average age of users is 32, and the median age of users is 36 – for most financial and investment services firms, that’s very relevant.

In a world saturated by direct mail, email and online advertisements, I think it’s necessary for marketers to at minimum consider it’s possibilities. Your marketing approach and marketing message needs to be carefully addressed but ignoring these emerging vehicles seems to me to be sticking your head in the sand by way of enslaving yourself to traditional outreach methods that are already overrun.

Update: I'm not devaluing the use of traditional marketing tactics; Not at all. They're invaluable and their effectiveness is measurable. However, diversification of your marketing plan is essential if you want to keep up with your consumer-base (what they're doing and where they're going) in order to expand your brand reach and remain engaged.

Ad Effectiveness: When Less is More

As I'm making my way through the first 25 pages or so of my latest issue of Businessweek magazine I start to notice an interesting little trend. There are "a lot" of advertisements. From the front cover to page 25 there are 11 full page ads; In it's entirety - 88 pages, 33 full page advertisements. **insert homer simpson head-scratch** Airbus, Canon, Movado, Cingular, Samsung, Nadurra, Ebel... and this doesn't even include all of the many quarter-page and half-page beauties.

Yikes.

I toss the magazine down on the desk, walk over to my little “mag hanger” and start looking through the last 4 BW print editions. Is this a new phenomenon or have I just been completely oblivious. Answer: I’ve been oblivious.

The realization of all these intrusions has got me thinking about the effectiveness of magazine ads - the mad ad flops versus those that engage readers to stop, look, read, and remember and the rare gems that actually move consumers from the "reader" category into the "buyer" category. What makes one print ad more effective than another(?) particularly when readers are forced to scroll through so many in just one sitting...

Measuring Ad-effectiveness
I did some research on the web and came up with a short list for measuring impact and reader engagement:

· Ad awareness
· Brand awareness
· Recollection of elements in the ad
· Recollection and comprehension of the brand’s message
· Feelings about the ad: liked, amused, believed, etc
· Brand images, perceptions
· Emotional “involvement”
· Persuasiveness

So with these in mind let’s take a look at some of the ads and see how they measure up..

Principal Financial (page 7)
“Think Big” - two words that resonate with me so I look. There’s a little cartoon pictorial with Principal shining it’s light on a short, balding simpleton with his big, big shadow projected in the background.

Hmm. I don’t get it. What’s a little man with a big shadow got to do with investment and finances? This can’t be what they mean by “Think Big” - or is it? The picture should reflect the brand's message but this one requires too much thinking; to understand the message - you have to read the fine print. Ack. Maybe if the little guy was at least staring at the enormity of his own shadow the image might be more meaningful from a personal front. Some version of this would have, at minimum, evoked the sense that to invest in Principal means to invest in your future; to visualize your growth potential. But the ad fell short and the marketing message was lost.

*THUD*
Someone dropped the ball.

Invest in Macedonia (page 9)
Beyond the obvious - I don’t know what this page says and I don’t care. Too much text, too many maps and graphs and way, way too many bullet points. Information overload.

Next!

Huawei (page 10)
What is that a picture of - a million tiny people crammed into a stadium?...town square?...grassy knoll? Are the people attending a concert?...a festival? Please for the love god - what is going on in this picture!! Beyond Frustrating. I stare a little harder and study the images but quickly find myself getting annoyed and decide to move on.

How relevant is the ad for me as a consumer? Actually, I have no idea because I couldn’t figure out the message or, more importantly, the product that was being represented but considering the ad inflicted so much mental anguish I have no doubt that I will remember the name. Score one for Huawei? Maybe.

Movado (page 13)
The ad is simple, sleek, sexy; And yes - just looking at the hot, hot Mikhail Baryshnikov makes me want to go out and buy one. He's looking ultra sexy, cool and sophisticated; And the way he’s looking back at me I feel sexy, cool and sophisticated too. Oh yea, me and Mikhail and our matching Movado’s. MMMmmm...wait- head shake. Reality check! Damn.

This ad definitely resonated; Because of the product pitch or celebrity endorsement - more likely the latter. Does this mean I'll go out and buy a Movado? Well actually, I already own one. Does this mean I'll think of upgrading the next time I'm out shopping for shoes? No.

Well, maybe. *me and Mikhail...me and Mikhail*
Yea ok I'll buy that.

Nadurra (page 17)
Very dark (perhaps intended to invoke feelings related to those exclusive, uptown boy cigar-clubs). Almost immediately my eyes are drawn to the tiny paragraph next to the bottle; the story behind the product. Yikes. The print is too tiny to read, the page is too dark for the text and there's too much print to read through anyway. My eyes feel strained just looking at it. I'm not a scotch drinker but I might, on occasion, have a need to buy someone a bottle. Will I remember this brand? Not likely.

Ebel (page 19)
“The Architects of Time”. Major eye candy. Very nice. I don’t need an adventure watch but the "zoom-in" on all the details of the clocks, gizmos, dials and numbers have me salivating. *maybe I do need an adventure watch* Of course, if I see a hot guy wearing this bad baby – hot diggity! This ad was by far the most effective for me. Very "in-your-face" cool.

Less is More
OK, so what does all this mean. "Ad Saturation". Considering that I've never noticed these ads in previous weekly issues (and I've been a subscriber for almost two years now), perhaps it's evidence that the increasing number of print ads in magazines has devalued their effectiveness. From a print perspective, I don't have the time or the inclination to look at every ad. If you want my attention, your marketing message needs to be creative but bold enough to capture my curiosity within one glimpse-over beit through images or words. The ads that got my attention and had the most impact for me were those that kept the message short, "in-your-face" simple.

Marketing messages that are too long or leave readers scratching their heads might leave on impression but a) it's likely not the one you want to leave and b) frustration rarely moves readers into the buyer category.

That said, from a consumer standpoint and being that I'm an avid mag reader, here’s what I say – ditch the ad proliferation. If there was less brand marketing crammed into just a few pages - I might very well be inclined to stop, look and read.

Financial Services, Innovation and Web 2.0

"It's not a channel; It's technology"

As a member of the ISF (Internet Strategy Forum), we’ve had some discussions of late around web governance, obstacles surrounding internet strategy development and relevance/adoption of Web2.0 technologies. I was recently engaged in a Web2.0 study by another ISF member (and CTO for IBM.com) and it got me thinking...about how it relates to my business area, the financial services industry and the key issues we face in adopting Web2.0 technologies. You can find I’m sure a thousand and one definitions for Web2.0 but here’s my high-level take coupled with thoughts pulled from the web:

Web 2.0 is the result of an internet technology movement involving multi-dimensional collaboration (social networking, open standards, b2b/b2c/c2c relationships). It's the result of a technological movement where the web replaces the PC as the platform not just from a business operating standpoint but from the consumer standpoint as well.

Due to recent progresses like pervasive Web connectivity, faster bandwidth, growing numbers of online users, increased trust of online software and general cost-to-buy difference…eventually I believe that web software will replace PC software in measurable numbers.

That said, internet strategies in this area and within the financial services sector are far from where they should be and our adoption of new web technologies trails that of most other business areas and by a long shot. In order to move forward with the times and drive efficiencies in customer-centricity we need to make some sweeping changes in how we drive the business. First stop: we need to ixnay leveraging the internet as a communication “channel” and start viewing the internet from a technology perspective so that we can maximize our offerings, visualize the opportunities that lie in those technologies, and focus on "harnessing" and "developing".

What does all this mean - simple: We need to revamp our business models to incorporate internet as technology. Period.

Obstacles we face today
Policy
- Ensuring the applications and offerings don’t expose the business to regulatory or legal action. An obvious caution that needs to be carefully addressed.
- Application access control levels: Most large financial corporations are mired in hierarchical, complex authorization schemes across data repositories and web functions (understandably to keep folks from accessing things they shouldn’t) but folks across business verticals need to be able to leverage [all] the data that's available internally and externally.
- Risk (reputational and/or business risk). The kiss of death. Have someone from legal or operations say the words “there’s risk involved” and people won’t move for boo. It’s stifling. While risk is necessary to review and measure – it shouldn’t be the roadblock that halts innovation.

Technology Strategy
- Like I said, right now the internet is viewed as “just another channel” to reach our customer base but really it should be considered from a technology perspective in that it presents a fundamental shift in how we offer financial services to our customers. It means separating Internal/industry/and functional technologies from Internet Technologies.

Performance-based Goals
- Measuring ROI, prioritizing monetary returns: The requirement to address quarterly performance targets gets in the way of strategic investment period. The Web2.0 environment centers on multi-dimensional collaboration and thus carries with it a soft ROI. When dealing with innovation and new technologies such as Web2.0…we should focus on measuring information relevancy and value prop to our customers. Measurable ROI will come in time.

Sponsorship
- The internet champion. I put this one last because I feel it’s the most important and I wanted to discuss it a bit further since it impacts corporate governance and organizational structure. The industry needs to have people at the top of the corporate ladder sponsoring internet activities so that we can realize the opportunities behind the technology.

Organizational Structure
Most large corporations have some rendition of the following governance structure: They have a CMO (Chief Marketing Officer); an IT executive (or CTO focusing primarily on internal or industry-specific technologies, network infra-structures, etc.); a Legal executive; and a Customer Service executive to manage all customer level communications and interactions (think call-centers, etc.). This list might be a missing one or two but it’s pretty much the bulk.

What the structure is missing (and what it needs) is a CIO (Chief Internet Officer) whose primary focus is to drive internet technology innovation and internet technology adoption across the business while addressing the smaller needs of other business areas as they relate to the internet. All things internet should fall under the CIO; All business areas should liaisons with functional areas within the internet department to achieve their respective business goals.

An independent block that stands on it’s own and not as a sidearm to (or blended-in with) other marketing teams creates "business focus”. Blend the internet function with all other marketing areas and you end up with what we have today – function and focus gets blurred, ideas serving different needs get thrown into the same prioritization bucket, soft ROI loses and innovation gets lost.

"Innovation and the consumer" - that's what's key here. Web2.0 means a shift of power from the business to the consumer; it means a change in the way we communicate with our customers and how we service our customers. We need to harness what’s out there and we can do that if we change the way we view the internet.

It's not a channel; It's technology. Say it again...it's not a channel; It's technology.

Now... let’s start by getting ourselves a senior sponsor. CIO’s sign here please!

Branding the West Point Brand

The typical West Point cadet is a white male. He’s in the top decile of his high-school class; he’s a Jock. Middle-class; middle-American. He came to the academy for the free top-ranked education but he’s also patriotic on some level.

My slightly less-genius older brother (ha! sorry Jimmy) is a Captain in the army and a West Point alum, graduate of the class of ‘98’. We recently had a lengthy discussion about West Point’s student diversity numbers and their difficulties in increasing ethnic diversity and, in particular, student representation from within African-American communities.

Some have suggested that in order to attract more eligible African-American students - reducing entrant and test score criteria is a necessary first step. To this - many (myself included) say “nonsense”. West Point is among the academic elite for a reason and frankly, I think it’s a demeaning proposition for incoming students who don’t make the standard cut. The objective isn’t just to increase the African-American student base but to do it without sacrificing their quality of applicants and entrants. That said, leaders of the future don’t necessarily come from affluent backgrounds or middle-America and students might be inclined to go elsewhere if the West Point brand gets mired in the image of life-long military service.

Marketing the offering
The university world has reached it’s comeuppance and they’re realizing that the world of entrant applicants is a very competitive arena. If you want more students, you need to give more point of difference. For West Point, what better point of difference is there than providing the highest quality of education for a pretty price tag (it’s free), a notable career upon graduating (5 years required service in the military to pay back the 250,000 education - starting as an officer) and the promise of leadership excellence within and beyond the military (you’ll likely find that the greatest percentage of graduates saddling the executive-level seats in corporate America are West Point alums).

So with everything West Point has going for it, why are African-American numbers so low? Without question, internal brand management isn’t an issue – every cadet wears the brand 365 days of the year, 24-7 and USMA grads are the brand when they leave. But what about brand management outside of West Point...what's the perception? Likely the typical association is with that of uniforms, marches, up at dawn down at dusk…”yes sir” and “no sir” - the military. If the brand message doesn't engage a broader audience high-school students and/or African-American students with less patriotic affinities might not be inclined to send in an application.

The allure of the institution from an outside audience perspective has to stem not from a factual knowledge of the university's strengths, but from a received understanding of what it stands for --- its prestige, ideology and reputation. West Point needs to leverage it’s brand equity beyond the perception of being a rigorous "military" academy and beyond the traditional academic arena – particularly since most low-income communities don’t offer as rigorous an educational curriculum when compared to middle-income public schools or private schools for the more affluent families. They need to market the skills students will acquire to succeed in corporate America.

The question: How do you weed out the desireables and increase diversity without sacrificing the academic reputation of the school by resorting to modified score cuts?
1: Leverage the Prep Academy
2: Target non-traditional audiences/focus on the experience not the product
4: Market through multiple channels and consistently across all bases

The Prep Academy
To be sure, many of the cadets at West Point still come from affluent families. But thanks to the prep school and the fact that West Point is free, it's doing far better at attracting low-income students than some of its elite rivals. All prep cadets who successfully complete the program are eligible to go to West Point and typically more than half the eligible student body moves on to attend the university.

To achieve the objective, the Prep school should have a mandatory entrant cut based on income and ethnic diversity; and it’s required numbers each year need to be far higher than what they are today. High school students who typically haven’t made the grade will have one year to prove themselves.

Non-traditional audiences
Recruiters need to target their audience more effectively in reaching out to youths of all races and ethnic backgrounds from all income-areas; they need to market West Point’s brand promise in a manner that communicates and connects on an emotional level.

Giving You The Responsibility And The Opportunity To Go Out And Achieve.

This is not their tagline (and to be honest I don't even know what it is) but to attract students who may not have a strong patriotic affinity, promoting leadership skills and the bevy of skills acquired that are marketable outside of military service is a must. They need to focus on the experience, not the product. And alongside all West Point marketing communication should be information and applications for the West Point prep school.

Marketing Opportunties
MySpace – West Point could take a cue from the Marines who put up a profile on MySpace.com to attract fresh blood. This would give the academy the opportunity to reach a younger audience base freely and early-on in order to build "brand mindshare". The Marines were given sole control over what advertisements (none) that are posted to their profile and Friends are rigorously screened. Detailed information and communication is provided in the profile as is a link to apply.

Viral marketing – multiple variations should go out in circulation – all speaking the same language and sharing one voice. Giving You The Responsibility And The Opportunity To Go Out And Achieve. You can do this by having versions that emphasize patriotism and service and others that show how skills acquired at West Point are marketable in the civilian world (i.e., an ad that follows the West Point cadet of yesterday and the leader that he is today). Focus on the West Point experience and the by-product of that experience.

General marketing efforts - When was the last time you saw a marketing message for West Point? How many people have heard of West Point but don't know anything about it other than it's a military academy? I rarely see the West Point brand in or around the university towns I live near (but I’ll admit I don’t actually tootle around these places very often - it's a little under my age criteria ;-) ).

Point being - they need to increase their general marketing efforts, pull together a coherent brand message that emphasizes the marketable skills students will acquire and then market across all income communities with the objectives being to attract strong candidates, increase diversity among applicants - and in turn, increase adiversity among entrants.

To build diversity you need to go where diversity lives and breathes, and you need to be able "connect". Students have to believe that West Point offers more than just a military life - academic excellence, a deep-seeded sense of brotherhood within the West Point family, top-notch career opportunities, leadership, success, etc.. And if your audience believes - they'll apply.

Not everyone has a penchant for life-long military service and leadership "in the military" isn't the only benefit West Point delivers to it's student body.

Reinventing Walmart: Why Roehm & Walmart Failed

An article was posted on Businessweek’s Brand New Day blog which included a lengthy interview excerpt with Walmart Inc. CEO Lee Scott. With all the media hoopla going on lately between the store giant and former ad chief Julie Roehm – and every trivial, less-than-interesting detail being squeezed by every trade magazine and marketing news site – reading through his very candid interview sans mention of the Roehm/Wommack/Draft FCB scandal was a huge breath of fresh air. But it also got me thinking...about Walmart's attempt to reinvent their brand image and why recent efforts failed to deliver.

Obviously Scott understands who Walmart's core audience is and he recognizes how deeply embedded the association is with more affluent customers. It doesn't require mensa-level thinking to figure out that Walmart is not synonymous with designer fashion and high-end retail (or necessarily high quality and high value). They have a large inventory of products and services that satisfy the average consumers needs and they're available at low prices.

In an attempt to draw in the affluent base they put out high-fashion and high-end retail at double or triple the price. So what happened? They couldn't move the high-end products off the shelves because their core audience wouldn't pay the higher prices and most affluent customers won't shop there because it's Walmart and Walmart = "low end" and "cheap". You can't change such rudimentary perceptions over night.

Over-hyped scandals aside, from a marketing perspective Walmart needed to cut Roehm loose. The synergy between Roehme's style and Walmart's vision was lacking from the get go - having mutual trust and sharing a passion for your belief in something is crucial for creating a unified message that connects with customers. Even in retail, customers need to be able to emotionally "connect" on some level with where they shop on a regular basis. Marketing strategies that push the envelope can be extremely effective but ultimately what ever the image you’re trying to portray your customers need to be believe it. Walmart = premium brand, high fashion, high-end retail? ha ha ha....not.


Creating value must be real, and tangible to a targeted audience.
For Roehm's part - there was a process that needed to take place in order to move Walmart’s brand image from point A to point D (and subsequently from point D to whatever point you're trying to reach). Beyond just having a strong marketing concept you need to have a well developed, "thoughtful" execution strategy that is laid out over a period of time. The period of time depends on the brand and it's target audience. Bold/edgy marketing strategies won't deliver if the brand hasn't earned the right to ask it's audience to accept such new possibilities.

Taking out a few snazzy spreads in Vogue magazine, putting on a runway show in New York, and throwing $200 bottles of wine in the isles all-the-while asking would-be customers to believe that it's any more impressive than what it's always been....is asking too much, too soon.

"A brand is a living entity - and it is enriched or undermined - cumulatively over time, the product of a thousand small gestures." [Michael Eisner, ex-CEO of Disney]

Personally, I wouldn’t be caught dead stopping on a Walmart spread while flipping through a Vogue magazine, except maybe to gasp at the intrusion. Think of the types of people who typically go to a fashion show in the city. Sure you'll have trendsetters that show up..even those that won't get the premium gifts just for being there. Attending fashion shows is, after all, a Manhattan affair. But if you think that afterwards they'll be touting those front-row seats to all of their friends and then running off to the nearest Walmart...all I can say is "life must be a wonderland inside that head". For the moderately affluent or trend-conscious, what motivation do they have to buy clothes from a store where the feel and look of the place, employees included, is so seemingly dumpy? You'd be better off taking your money to H&M, Express, Zara, and the like - at least in these places you can buy-in to the idea that you're still maintaining "coolness" without feeling like you're lying to yourself and everyone else because of where you bought your clothes.

For Walmart, marketing to the affluent with a fashion-forward approach might have been a good strategy in concept but Roehm failed to execute it "intelligently". They could learn a thing or two from the marketing team at Target who brought in designer labels at low prices for their core customers and put them up on e-bay at higher prices to attract high-end customers. Eventually some of those high-end customers starting going into the retail store to get the benefit of lower store pricing.


Walmart: the other half of a "failed formula"
Culpability for success or failure is not entirely on Roehm here. This blame-game is two-fold and Walmart's corporate governance is the other half of a failed formula.

Even if a strong ad or marketing tactic is successfull it will only provide a temporary lift if a business consistently delivers a weak personal experience factor. Brand image begins with a vision and the vision starts with the CEO and president and filters down to every employee of the company. The employees are the brand stewards if you will; they’re constantly communicating/reflecting the values of the brand to customers in one way or another. If the brand image you’re trying to portray isn’t at least moderately reflected through your brand’s constituents, good luck convincing your audience.

Unimpressive reputations nullify good marketing strategies.

After sections of New York recently shunned Walmart's attempts to build stores in the local areas, Walmart CEO Lee Scott responded with a few comments that I think a) are inappropriate from a PR-standpoint but more importantly b) give strong indication that Walmart's internal branding strategy is badly in need of an overhaul (assuming it ever existed in the first place). In this New York Times article, Scott's reaction to what he calls the snobbish elites was shall we say less than exemplary and less than what we would expect from a C-level exec. Amongst other things he says, "You have people who are just better than us and don’t want a Wal-Mart in their community". Yikes. Maybe he or the NYT forgot the words "think they are".

Still...I mentioned earlier in this post that when I read the excerpt of businessweek's interview with Scott I found his candidness to be a refreshing change. But it was also somewhat sobering and most certainly not inspiring. Note to self: Even if my previous efforts turned out to be a flop and I'm feeling dismayed by the notion that I can't change perception...what I say in public, how I say it and when I say it are all good PR opportunities to do just that. 'Be the brand'. That said, is it any wonder why Walmart's brand image is suffering? If the CEO doesn't reflect the integrity and pride of the brand, neither will the employees who interact with the brand's core customers.

Walmart thought that by bringing in a change agent they could turn things around. Note to Walmart: focus on internal brand management first. "Change management" has to start from within and it has to lead from the top down.

Bank of America's Latest Ad Nuisance

I've got Morcheeba playing in the background, my 'leaning tower of Piza' coffee mug in one hand and the March 19th issue of BusinessWeek in the other. The March 26th weekly arrived today as well so I'm a little behind on my reading. I settle down into my comfy oversized couch-chair, pull up the ottoman, take a sip of my tasty brew and set it down onto the end table next to me. I open up my BW and flip to page 48 for the front cover story.

Flip, flip, flip…page 21. Hmmm. Let’s try this again. Flip, flip, flip…page 21. A weighted section of the magazine has annoyingly affected the flow of my flip. It’s Bank of America’s new ad spot promoting their new “Windows of Opportunity” tagline; a two-page ad on heavy-weight paper three times that of your standard magazine subscription postcard.

It was an annoyance that just wouldn’t go away. Every flip went to page 21. I couldn’t even find the front end of the magazine to get to the table of contents; all the pages seemed to just cling together easily overpowered by BofA's heavy-weight ad. Beyond frustrating. After 40 minutes of rediculous back and forth page-flipping I finally ripped it out smiling and cursing all the while. I feel this two-page nuisance has stolen my relaxing morning.

Blasted!

I take a closer look at the source of my ills. At first glance, the first ad page looks nice. You feel like you're walking toward the entrance of one of those plush corporate buildings in New York's business district near 3rd and Park. But immediately my eyes are drawn to the large cutout in the center of the page. It's Bank of America's flagscape logo which has been stenciled-out so you can see the images from the ad-page behind it. It's a pciture of an old man and...a clerk? Maybe his son, maybe a worker, maybe a total stranger. Who knows. The flagship cutout is intended to represent the "window of opportunity". The building on the front page reflects the disposition of an opportunity realized (this didn't hit me until much later); the people in the images behind it represent the opportunity seekers. Hmm.

A good concept surely but in print form – ack. First of all, portions of the flagship cutout are blocking the faces of the people behind it (minor) but more importantly, all the colors of the image blend in with the colors on the front page. How often do you look into or out of a window and everything looks the same? And since the window is supposed to reflect two different points in time - i.e., here's where we were - here's where we are now - the colors used for both points in time should contrast each other enough to convey that sense of growth through the years. Instead, my eyes just wash over all the brown and I have no desire to flip to the second page to glimpse the story of the opportunity seekers – which is also where the Bank of America tagline appears. But, since I know I’m going to write about this annoying little incident I feel I must. I flip, I look and two seconds later... I throw the pages down and eagerly return to my BW magazine.

My review...a good concept but I think the print version misses the mark entirely on delivery. On the right track but poorly captured. I didn't feel the opportunity nor the spirit of circumstance that the idea of an opportunity realized should convey. The "window of opportunity" and the image of the people behind it just melded together into one bland concept. Of course.. I'd be remiss if I didn't at least admit the possibility that my discontent with the ad's involvement in tainting my sunday morning routine has made my opinions biased. But I'll also note that I didn't even realize the image on the front page represented the "now" of the image on the second page until after I had looked over the ad several times to write this post. I didn't make the connection - probably because there wasn't enough contrast between the two images..or maybe I'm just s-l-o-w.

Whatever. It'll quickly get the kibosh if it shows up in my March 26th BW weekly.

Financial Services and Brand Differentiation

Building a successful brand in the financial services sector is less about “market” positioning than it is about differentiation - differentiating your company or offering in a way that makes you stand out from your competitors. The differentiator must be transparent to your customers.

My company has these quarterly “marketing and strategic” meetings. A topic often discussed is:

In such a highly saturated market where customers are bombarded with multiple product offers, and as the industry grows more competitive, how do we differentiate ourselves to pull away from and ahead of the competition”

Where do we need to focus our solutions?
- Diversify our communication channels?
- Develop new and even more competitive price offerings and rewards services?
- Create strategic partnerships?
- Develop new communication strategies?
- Focus on mergers and acquisitions?

Certainly all of these things are important but in today’s market it’s simply not enough (M&A aside). One of the truths of modern business is that there is almost nothing that your competitors can't duplicate in a matter of one or two months. And in light of recent senate hearings over credit card practices, all the top lenders are taking drastic strides to develop more customer-centric strategies and policies to differentiate themselves from the competition.

Citibank discontinued it’s proactive rate increase policy except at the time of card renewal and they dropped their universal default policy on payment behavior with other lenders. JPMorgan Chase began a series of mass proactive rate reductions with autopay signup and 6 months of on-time payments, new ‘spend more/pay less’ strategies and colorful mailings with “insider tips” for avoiding future rate and fee increases. Discover began sending out it’s own ‘good behavior” rewards offerings that lead to interest rate reductions, and soon other leading lenders will follow suit. Eventually customer-centricity at this level will converge on the marketplace and strategists will have to go back to the drawing board to re-differentiate themselves once again.

What tends to get sidelined during strategy development is the backend of the product/service offering beyond acquisition; customer service at the grassroots level. Probably one of the few line areas where a financial services company can truly differentiate itself is through value-added customer service that resonates and connects with customers on some emotional level.

If you’ve ever called your credit card company to make a complaint – you understand when I say that quality customer service that builds mindshare is a rare find. You can sit in the call queue for what seems like – a very long time – you run through every thoughtful detail of your situation and then you sit in silence for 10-15+ minutes while they research your information. Half of the time, advisors just don't seem to know what they're talking about. You'll likely get transferred once, twice or even three times all-the-while explaining every irksome detail of your situation over and over again. If you are really unlucky you accidentally get dropped from the call queue. Whoops.

Identity contact is the sum total of all information and experiences that a customer has with a brand

In this line of business, customer service call centers represent 75% of total ‘existing’ customer touch-points and delivering a great customer experience consistently across such a broad distribution network is all about execution, execution, execution. An advisor who fumbles through responses, drags in response time, or lacks the appropriate level of confidence to respond to an irate caller is more likely to kill a call, force costly escalations, spur multiple call-backs (doubling or even tripling unnecessary operating costs per call) or potentially even provoke a customer to close the account and we lose the business.

Whatever product or service you provide you need to have the strength in your customer service solutions to support it - from a technological perspective as well as a management and training perspective. Customer service centers need to be equipped with the best technology and data management tools to leverage customer information quickly and easily in order to handle calls more effectively. Sufficient training on the background of the business as well as in-depth and continuous credit education is essential. And equally as important is training in communication 101. These people are the voice of the Brand and our link to the customer.

Changing the way we service our customers from the ground up is a necessary next-step in pulling away from and ahead of the competition. Financial service companies that create and support customer-centric strategies AND build effective and efficient backend customer service solutions will be the ones building valuable brands and increasing long-term profitability.

Credit Card Debt: Who's to Blame?

And ‘round and ‘round we go…

Coalition groups have long criticized the policies and practices of the consumer lending industry and certainly in this type of business environment where so many details have a fine line – it’s always good to have some form of checks and balances. Until recently though most of their criticism was covered in newspaper and magazine editorials that aimed to build consumer awareness by providing educational and financial tips to avoid getting hit with penalty fees and rate increases. Well the heat just went up a notch with their recent launch of a series of aggressive print and web ads that compare the effects of “predatory” lending to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods. Yikes. The ad images depict people and families in seemingly dire circumstances – without home or possessions, holing up under patched roofs and dilapidated shacks with a tagline that advises readers of the tragedies caused by burdensome credit card debt resultant to unfair lending practices. Ouch.
Wholly unfounded? Yes, and No.

What the marketing campaign fails to address (and like most industry-bashing forums) is personal accountability. There was an editorial in the Washington Post earlier this week detailing the latest round of senate hearings that have put the nations top lenders under familiar fire and on the defensive once again about fee and pricing policies. A key witness at the hearings was a former Chase cardmember who testified that since opening the account back in 2001, the bank charged him $7,500 in fees and interest over six years in addition to early purchases he made totaling $3,200. $7500? An egregious sum surely. An apology was made to the customer and all remaining debt waived. Many I’m sure will say that Chase should never have charged so usuriously to begin with.

Quite right.

But what the article failed to do was hold the cardmember accountable in any manner. Not that he was entirely at fault but the bottom line is that over a period of five years this particular cardmember was overlimit 90% of the time and also on the "never pay on time/pay every other month/occasionally pay the minimum due" program. It's no wonder he couldn't pay down his balances. Where’s his accountability? Indeed the Bank handled this account poorly – there’s no question. This cardmember was clearly not fit to maintain a line of credit and what the bank should have done was close the account and place it in an assisted payment program where interest rates along with late and overlimit fees are not applied to the remainder of the balance. The assist program would also have negotiated a low, monthly payment amount that fit within the customer’s financial means. In some cases, the remaining balance is also negotiated down.

So there’s no arguing that improvements can and need to be made in the credit-card lending business. There are a number of customer touch points where bank service and account handling need to be better managed. But when you have a business with customers numbering in excess of 50 million - you’re going to come across some very unfortunate circumstances and poor customer experiences. Some situations are beyond a customers control - ‘they happen’; And for some of those I’m sure the resulting financial impacts could have been mitigated with better service management. But I'll also note that the total dollars going back out the door for courtesy fee refunds and interest reversals is in the not so insignificant double-digit millions.

That said, this particular cardmember (and like so many others that run into similar situations) share a HUGE portion of the blame and are equally, if not in many respects more, responsible for getting stuck with “burdensome credit card debt”. Here's a thought, if you experience a brief moment of pause before you decide not to pay your bill, or to pay less than the amount you owe or to make a purchase you know you can't afford - take heed! When you don't cuplability is on you. For people to say or even imply that they don't get it just boggles the mind. I simply cannot believe that stupidity can be that tangible.

I’m not defending the bank or condemning cardmembers – not in the least. But if people truly want to raise awareness – don’t forget to bring the facts from both sides of the relationship. Too many are too quick to place the full weight of the situation in the hands of the bank.

Marketing to Special Interest Groups??

Several columns of late have been written on Businessweek’s ‘Brand New Day’ blog regarding recent TV advertisements that have been attacked by special interest groups [SIG]. Those corporations coming under the most fire: GM for it’s robot/jumping off a bridge dream [under fire by MH and suicide prevention groups-according to BW] and Snickers for it’s quick/do something manly commercial [under fire by gay rights groups]. As for the GM-spot SIG-reps say that potential suiciders might be influenced by the ad and follow the tagline. Phooey I say. That sounds strikingly similar to the “condoms are a prelude to sex” argument. <>

Initially GM stated that it would run the ad as intended and would not make any changes. Less than a week later execs finally relented and edited the last frame – rather than actually show the robot jumping off the bridge, he just stands on the bridge at which point the frame changes. With this minor and seemingly meaningless edit [a reactive proposition that I feel holds zero value anyway since the implication is still the same], I was displeased with GM for folding and responded to the column with a post. But I’ve seen a number of folks that felt that the ad was thoughtless and irresponsible and I wholly disagree.

In the middle of stressed-out work day I say all the time – That’s it; I’m throwing myself out the effing window – colleagues say it, friends say it. If I’m not saying it, I’m usually holding my hand to head in a gun-like cocked manner and pulling an imaginary trigger. We’re not and I’m not advocating suicide. When watching the GM ad - the point is “we get it”.

Whether you’re overweight, a little fugly, blonde, brunette, a sexy woman or a pot-bellied guy, or you reflect one of the gazillion other circumstances in life that at the core of our cultural biases will always generate not-so-well received stereo typing – we [in the media and as a society] have to be able to draw the line between that which truly offends and is abhorrent and that which pokes fun at our own failures, insecurities and tendencies for political incorrectness.

If TV-watchers are truly offended by the content or implied meaning of an ad – they’ll let you know. Special interest groups represent the minority not the majority; And the majority are cognizant enough to make up their own minds.

As for the snickers spot, I thought it was hi-LAR-ious and was sad to hear it got the “SIG”-ax.