Category: Uncategorized

I guess this is what happens when there are so few taboos left to break.

Last time I wrote a blog post tagged #badvertising, it was about a strangely discombobulated spot for Depends undergarments in which figure skaters (who took pains to indicate they did not need the product) leapt around in adult diapers ‘for charity’. I had a little sympathy for the advertisers, though: It’s hard to make incontinence appealing.

Today, however, I have no sympathy for our #badvertising culprits.  Readers, I give you Harvey Nichols’ latest ads:

Just in case you can’t believe what you’re seeing here, those dark spots in the crotches (sorry) of the models’ pants are in fact supposed to be pee stains.  The point of the ads, you see, is that you’ll be so excited by the Harvey Nichols sale that you will literally wet yourself.

And it continues:

Now, in case you are unfamiliar with Harvey Nichols – or Harvey Nicks, as Edwina and Patsy would say – let me just explain that it is a London-based department store where you’d go to find, say, an $800 pair of shoes.  In other words, this isn’t an Urban Outfitters sort of a place that is trying to appeal to the ironic hipster crowd.  And while I could no doubt make some cheap jokes about the likelihood of the Tara Palmer-Tomkinson socialite set both (a) dressing badly but expensively and (b) wetting their pants after some particularly salubrious nights out, I just don’t think associating your brand with urine stains is really the way to go.

(What’s more, I have a suspicion that the biggest-spending clientele of Harvey Nichols – as with many of the higher-end stores – is in fact the 50-but-dying-to-look-like-their-teenage-daughter crowd, and the last thing about which they’ll care to be reminded is their impending incontinence. But that’s just my opinion.)

Harvey Nichols’ spokesperson said something about how the ads were supposed to be ‘tongue-in-cheek’, irreverent, blah blah blah.  The usual.  But wouldn’t it have been so much more tongue-in-cheek if the ‘excitement’ was represented by, say, visible engorgement of erectile tissue?  Or possibly headlights?

Okay, I can’t write any more.  I’m cringing as much as you are.

…and make housecleaning a lot more educational.

^{Image via this website.}

These days, I’m doing a lot of ghost-blogging and speechwriting for clients.  Which is good, because I do love writing, and when I’m doing the speeches I pretend I’m Aaron Sorkin writing for West Wing.  What’s less good is that I’m often writing well outside my core competencies – it’s surprising how few of my clients need a piece on diet Coke or 80s new wave bands – so it’s not unusual for me to be staring at my screen wondering if I should have taken a job in accounting.

But I have discovered a secret weapon:  Podcasts.  

In the past few weeks, information I’ve gleaned from podcasts has not only provided excellent fodder for speeches and blogs on subjects I would otherwise have known little about, it’s also made me look incredibly polymathic.  A client says “I wish we could find a good case study about the effects of kale chips on workplace productivity…” and there I am with “Well, Dr Tooloolamay of Higgledy University just conducted a study on that, with some interesting results – let me find the data for you.”  I look like a genius.

And it’s all from podcasts.

I first started listening to podcasts at night because I suffer from insomnia and tinnitus and found that a quiet voice in my ears helped me focus and sleep.  Now I listen to podcasts all the time:  When I’m walking the dog, cleaning the house, taking the subway.  I’m listening to a podcast right now, in fact.  It’s sort of like listening to the radio, except you can choose what you listen to, and there aren’t any commercials.

So what should you be listening to?

My preference is for BBC podcasts, because I think their news coverage is more global and their comedians are funnier. And you often find out about interesting music and tv shows before they make it over here.  But there are lots of great podcasts.  Here are my current favourites:

BBC World Update
This is an excellent news roundup that covers everything from Syria to Greece in 30 minutes a day. Will definitely make you look like you’re au courant about current events.

Dr Karl’s podcasts
Dr Karl Kruszelnicki is a hard-core science geek who discusses everything from whether microwaves can interfere with your cellphone reception to the technology behind commercial space shuttles – and he does it in language normal people can understand.  He has lots of podcasts, and all of them will teach you new things.

The Economist
Why buy the Economist when you can listen to almost all the articles read to you in nice voices?  I don’t always agree with their perspectives on economic events, but at least they make me think.

Freakonomics
These podcasts always give me something interesting to think about, and they have fantastic in-depth discussions about studies you might never otherwise have heard of.  Excellent blog fodder here.

More or Less: Behind the Stats
I almost failed stats in university, so I like the fact that this podcast walks you through the way the media (and others) manipulates statistics – and helps you understand the real truth behind them.  

Stephen Fry podcasts
Unfortunately, Stephen Fry isn’t doing his podcasts regularly any more, but his pieces on language and fame are still well worth listening to.

Tech Weekly
I admit I’m not one of those people who’s reading Mashable every day, so I like to save up the Tech Weekly podcasts and listen to them all in a row to feel up-to-date on technology trends. There may be better tech-related podcasts out there, but this one at least has good production values.

(I’ve given you links to the relevant pages here, but if you use iTunes, you can find all of these there.)

Have fun getting smarter!

 

 

Branded philanthropy is a great idea, but doing the math is making me cynical.

^{(I have borrowed this image from this website.)}

All things considered, I think the rise of branded philanthropy has been one of the best things to happen in marketing in the past 10-15 years. Between corporate giving back programs and the internet, kids are more aware of (and are doing more for) charitable causes than they used to, overpaid celebrities are under more pressure to give money away, and it’s becoming an integral part of companies’ business plans:  These days, almost every big RFP I come across has a ‘community involvement’ component; ten years ago, almost none of them did.

But when I see things like Cadbury’s Bicycle Factory, I get a little depressed.

If you live in Canada, you’ve probably seen some tv ads for this initiative in the past couple of weeks, though apparently this is the third or fourth year they’ve done it.  Essentially the goal is to ‘build’ 5000 bikes which Cadbury will then send to kids in Ghana, for whom a bicycle is an important tool in all kinds of ways.

All very laudable, except that you can’t help to ‘build’ a bicycle without giving Cadbury all kinds of your personal information and ‘engaging’ with Cadbury products online.  

More difficult for me to swallow was the fact that if each ‘specially designed’ bicycle costs $250, the total spend for Cadbury is only $1.25 million.  This is less than they typically spend on advertising a single brand of chocolate bar in Canada in a single year.  Worldwide, Kraft/Cadbury revenue is about $48 billion – which makes $1.25 million a drop in the proverbial bucket.  And Jodi Lastman over at Hypenotic offers some interesting insights into the negative effects of turning a complex sociological issue into a simplified ‘contest’.

I became even more cynical about the whole thing when I read this piece in Strategy Magazine, in which Cadbury cheerfully announces that the program has driven sales increases of 42%.  Even if that is typical agency hyperbole, I do know that if the program hadn’t driven double-digit sales increases in its first year or two, they wouldn’t have continued it.

 

They’re not the only ones

Tonight, the Cadbury spot was followed by a 30-second edit of this commercial for Coca-Cola’s support of a Participaction program to help disadvantaged teens become ‘more active’:

At the end of the spot, there’s a super announcing that Coca-Cola is giving $10 million – but it’s over 10 years.  In other words, a company which makes $10.5 billion annually is trying to make you think that its $1 million/year spend is a big deal.  But given the production value of the video, and the frequency with which I’ve seen the commercial, I’m positive they’re spending more money promoting this initiative than they’re spending on the kids.  Heck, Wikipedia says Coca-Cola spends upwards of $3 million lobbying the US government every year (no doubt to convince Congress that 17 teaspoons of sugar per can isn’t a problem).

Look, I know that neither of these programs are the only branded philanthropy efforts these companies are undertaking.  I’m not suggesting that companies should be giving away all of their profits, and I think it’s okay when companies use their philanthropic efforts to generate some positive media attention for themselves. That’s how the system works, and a company which doesn’t continue to grow revenue soon can’t do any good for anyone.  

So what am I saying?  Well, I think I’m encouraging you to think twice, and maybe do some research, when a company tells you to buy their products first because they’re committed to ‘giving back’.  And I think I’m also hoping that if enough of us make it clear that we’re noticing the details, it’ll encourage companies to do just a little bit more, next time.  

Don’t confuse ‘professional’ with ‘dull as ditchwater’.

^{(Image via this site.)}

Michael Gass’s recent blog post, “Nobody Reads Ad Agency Blogs” has turned up in my Twitter stream a few times in the past couple of weeks, and I finally got around to reading it today.  It’s a decent summary of why ad agency blogs – and plenty of others – don’t get nearly the amount of traffic that their owners wish they would:  No strategy, no consistency, too much self-promotion, etc.  

He’s got some good points, but I think it’s simpler than that.

Why people read blogs

In my opinion, there are two reasons why people read your blog, keep reading your blog, and keep telling their friends to read your blog:

1. Information
2. Personality

Being a good, reliable source of information is definitely one of the best ways to get more traffic to your blog.  There’s a reason why the Drudge Report – which is one of the longest-running news aggregator sites out there – still drives enormous amounts of traffic even though it’s not visually appealing, doesn’t have a huge PR machine, and is basically run by 3 people in a small office. 

Why people read your blog

Here’s the thing:  Unless you’re spending your entire work life engaged in investigative journalism, university-endorsed research, or highly specialized content aggregation/development, people aren’t reading your blog for ‘information’.  You may be very proud of your pieces on “5 Tips for Making Yoga Part of Your Life” and “Better Ways to Implement IT Solutions”, but I promise you that there are already plenty of other blog posts and articles out there on the exact same subject.

If people are reading your blog, it’s because they like the personality of your blog:  They like your take on things, they like your writing style, they like the ‘you’ they think they’re getting to know through your posts.  Maybe you make them laugh, maybe you make them think, maybe they just think your life is a bit of a trainwreck and are tuning in for updates.

Penelope Trunk, who writes the ‘trainwreck’ blog example, makes $150k/year from blogging, by the way – and she’s not even doing it every day.  The woman behind Dooce.com says her revenue is upwards of $400k. HyperboleandaHalf has posted only 5 entries in the past 18 months – and still has good traffic stats and social media engagement.

These sites aren’t providing cutting-edge ‘information’, or incisive insight on the major problems of our times.  They’re popular because people love – or love to hate, in the case of Penelope Trunk – the personalities represented.

“But my blog is professional. There’s no room for personality!”

Ha!  Here’s what I have to say about that:

1. Penelope Trunk will tell you that she ‘founded 2 startups’, blah blah blah, but the truth is that her professional success has been almost entirely predicated on the fact that she’s created an online ‘personality’ for herself that has very little to do with actually making money from those startups.  
2. People without personalities are boring.  So are blogs.
3. In the long-term, the most profitable client relationships are based on personal relationships, not on a strictly objective comparison of features/benefits/price.  You wouldn’t dream of trying to remove the ‘personal’ from those client relationships – why would you try to strip it out of your blog posts?
4. Unless you have knowledge, contacts, or access than no one else in the world has (think, say, former US presidents), people aren’t choosing to work with you because of what you know or even who.  They’re choosing to work with you because of how you know.  That ‘how’ may manifest itself in the way you approach your work, the way you synthesize information and form opinions, or because you have a very particular perspective. 

In other words, if you’re stripping your personality out of your blog – leaving it devoid of a sense of humour, personal details, controversial opinions or even your passion for steampunk – you’re removing all the elements that go into your successful real-life business relationships.  

And that’s why no one’s reading it.

Lots of choice may seem like a good thing, but it won’t make people buy more of your stuff.

Ten years ago, researchers at Columbia and Stanford Universities published the results of experiments in which they studied the effects of choice on action. They discovered that when people are given limited choices, they are more likely to take action (making purchases or writing essays, in the study) than they are if they are given an ‘overwhelming’ number of choices.

(The study has become a little famous as ‘The Jam Study’ – because the first experiment they did involved 24 different types of Wilkins & Sons jam – and you can read the full text here.)

I’ve read the study – so you don’t have to! – and while I think it has some limitations (small sample size, relatively trivial situations, and simplistic decision-making models), there are some other interesting conclusions:

• People who were given no choice were less happy with what they were given than people who were permitted to make choices
• Consumers’ stated preferences were for more choice.  However, when they were given more choices, they became less satisfied with their selection
• People can find choosing among ‘too many’ alternatives to be both ‘enjoyable and overwhelming’ simultaneously

What this means for B2B marketing

I work with a lot of SMB (small/medium business) companies.  I’m often called in when they want to do a new (or first) website, and this coincides with a redefinition of their value proposition and service offerings. 

One of the biggest problems I encounter is that many SMBs – even the ones which have had some success – have a really hard time narrowing down the number of services they want to offer.  Even when they know that 85% of their business comes from one or two specific service offerings, they’re afraid that if they don’t throw in all the other things they can do (or could do, if only they found a client to offer them to), they’ll somehow miss out on a Big Opportunity and leave money on the table.

Except that when you try to put every possible service offering on your website, or try to make your value proposition too inclusive (“We help people”), you simply end up overwhelming your potential clients – and driving business away.

Things to keep in mind:

Limited choice is a positive influencer of action and satisfaction:  It’s a good idea to communicate that you can provide more than one service.  In a B2B SMB environment, I’d suggest that it’s probably very important to offer more than one service, or your potential customers might think that you’re too limited to become a strategic partner in the long term. 

Too much choice causes frustration:  The Jam Study saw a high correlation between ‘overwhelming choice’ and ‘frustration’, even when the consumers liked the products/options they were given. When it comes to B2B services, which involve products and services much less inherently enjoyable than the jam and chocolate used in the study, the potential for business-killing frustration becomes greater.  If you’re selling something that already tends to cause frustration or anxiety – photocopier maintenence, computer repair, financial services – you want to make your choices as simplified as possible.

More choice = less opportunity for the ‘Aha!’ moment:  When you’re creating marketing for any channel, you want the target to see the message and immediately say “Aha! This is the right product/service/company for me!”  When the consumer is instead faced with an interminable list of possible services, you reduce the chances that they’ll immediately see that you deliver the one they’re looking for.

Too much choice leads to a muddled message:  I’ve written before about the importance of clarity when it comes to your message.  The #1 barrier to a clear message is trying to accommodate 8 million service offerings in one value proposition or on a homepage. Concentrate on your core competency and you’ll do better at getting your message across.

Remember: There’s nothing to stop you from expanding the services you sell in the long run, but it’s easier to gradually introduce existing clients to new products and services over time than to try to hit them with everything you’ve got all at once and risk driving them away.