Breakthrough insight: people like stuff

I like stuff a lot. And I like a lot of stuff. I imagine other people do, too. In fact, I’m pretty sure it was George Carlin who said that "home is where you keep your stuff, while you’re out getting other stuff."

Knowing that, it was hard to keep a straight face when I read in Adweek that a survey was needed to discover that people really like it when advertisers give them stuff. If the stuff has the advertiser’s name on it, people remember the advertiser. They may even buy something from said advertiser.

The icing on the gateau? The survey was done by the Advertising Specialty Institute. They’re an organization that helps bring advertisers and tchotchke vendors together. Not exactly the least biased of all sources.

It’s fun to mock them but, of course, they’re right. Marketers wouldn’t use these branded items if they didn’t measurably increase results. And if marketers didn’t use them so much, there’d be no need for an Advertising Specialty Institute.

One clarifying point. The best use of promotional swag is not to get the target market’s attention. That’s why "clever" agencies and advertisers don’t often go for the idea. And if they ever try, those agencies and advertisers rarely know how to make the swag work for them.

In direct marketing, we don’t give this stuff away without a plan. We call these items "offers" and we use them to get the action we desire from our target market -- from giving us their contact information to closing a sale.

Branded stuff, promotional swag, tchotchkes, offers . . . whatever you call it, it’s a direct marketer’s secret weapon. I’m not too worried that the secret is out. Most Adweek readers won’t understand.

Comments:

Vindication! Sort of.

Back on June 16, I posted a piece about better targeting for cable television advertisers in response to a Wall Street Journal article. The article’s writer was concerned about tighter targets meaning less advertising dollars going to cable. I thought this was short-sighted. If I may quote myself here:

I see this as an opportunity for cable companies to keep their audience -- the audience that’s turning to the Internet for entertainment -- and perhaps turn the cable medium into something different from broadcast TV.  Perhaps, with targeted audiences and higher prices, cable companies can provide more entertainment with fewer commercials than the big networks.  The argument for higher prices would get marketers both a tighter audience and more attention.  Without ten or twelve other commercials in every pod, your ad will stand out more.

Now The New York Times has a piece about Hulu, one of the new online video sites. Apparently, Hulu sees it my way.

In the place of the long commercial pods that TV viewers have become accustomed to, only one ad is shown during each segment break on Hulu. Fewer ads make the ones on the site more memorable, Hulu executives say, allowing the site to charge higher prices for the ad units.

Hulu isn’t cable TV, so my idea about this happening off the Internet didn’t happen (yet). But I have to say, I think they’re brilliant.

“The notion that less is more is absolutely playing out on Hulu,” Jason Kilar, the chief executive of the site, said. “This is benefiting advertisers as much as it is benefiting users.”

As I said before, win-win-win.

There are no comments for this post.

When CMOs despise their agencies.

Ow! Got a little burned by the acid in the CMO comments in an Ad Age article today.

Agencies are getting "in the way" of advertisers, rather than smoothing the path with online media companies. Advertisers have to do their own strategic briefings with the online ad networks. Advertisers are laying down the law and calling in representatives from 20 ad networks . . . and the law "included no reselling, serving ads only on sites that have a direct relationship with the publisher and full transparency, and the ability to audit every site where its banner ads appear."

Tough stuff.

When you have a client who is ready to deal personally with 20 vendor relationships to that level of detail, rather than work through your agency, it’s clear you’re in trouble.

One of the comments from agencies on this article indicated that the solution is to make sure you add value, come up with new ideas and be sure you stay a few steps ahead of your client.

The tone I got from the article is that the clients wish their agencies were on top of things they should be doing. The clients weren’t asking for new ideas. They wanted competence.

Another commenter threw up his or her hands and wondered why we should bother, because clients are never happy.

I can’t bring myself to agree with that either. With so many hungry agencies out there, why would we see any long term client/agency relationships?  And there are many of those.

Clients are rational and they can be pleased.

There are no comments for this post.

New talent. Old challenges.

There’s no guarantee of life-long employment at the same company. Our economy is becoming increasingly challenging and employees are looking to go where the jobs are. As Head Headhunter, my job is to look for qualified and, often, experienced people. And sometimes those experiences bring baggage. Heavy baggage.

A recent management study at NYU examined hundreds of employment applications and the hiring records of many companies. The objective of this study was to assess the cognitive and behavioral aspects that an employee developed during their previous stints of employment. In other words, if the job remained the same, what characteristics/attributes did they acquire? The results were stunning and called “Cross-Corporation Baggage” -- a fancy term meaning that people get weighed down by the baggage they bring from past experiences. Of particular interest were the interviews with executives who noticed that those hired from the competitor came at a premium price. And they turned out to be the least successful hires.

What does this mean?

From where I sit in the niche industry of DM, it means a company should invest in training fresh recruits with little experience so the company has more control over how an employee “fits” and becomes part of the team. They’re not “molded.” Also, there’s the values and culture component that needs to be considered.

Values, norms and politics become part of the on-boarding experience as well. It shapes us, influences our decisions and actions.

It also means that just because you hire someone with experience does not diminish the urgency or necessity of training. An employee’s many years of experience will not translate to an immediate high return on investment.

As companies continue to focus on employee and client retention, managers will need to consider whether many years of experience is an adequate substitute for someone who’s fresh, inexperienced and open to new experiences. Without the baggage.

There are no comments for this post.

Should you go all-in with digital marketing?

Economic uncertainty can bring opportunities for brave souls.  Many business advisors are telling marketers that -- while cost-cutting is important -- cutting marketing budgets too much can be deadly. Considering the marketing mix becomes crucial when there’s little room for error.

Here’s data from an August survey done by Epsilon:

To offsest budget cuts, CMOs are shifting to more targeted and measurable marketing strategies. When asked how their firm determines target market for each channel, 50% said they use data-driven marketing techniques: 31% stated they use sophisticated modeling tools to analyze existing customer data (behavioral, preference and demographic) and 19% said that they analyze past purchase behavior. In contrast, 28% said they made “rough estimates based on past experience.”

Of course, as a direct marketer, I think CMOs ought to put accountable marketing strategies high on the list -- in good times and bad.  It’s just smart.
But in the same survey, "social computing" was "the most popular emerging channel with 42% of marketing executives expressing interest in adding it to their marketing mix."  The definition of "social computing" in this survey includes word-of-mouth, social networking sites and viral advertising.  At least two of those three -- word-of-mouth and viral -- are more of a crap shoot than something to build your marketing plan around. 
Maybe I’m overstating.  To express interest in a channel isn’t necessarily a commitment.  But it is surprising to me that mobile marketing -- a much more serious contender as an accountable marketing channel -- was only cited by 29% as worth a look (with 22% already dipping their toe in).

There are no comments for this post.

Is behavioral targeting evil?

Lots of behavioral targeting start-ups are going away or slowing down, according to Online Media Daily until "Congress sorts through the rulings."

Part of the problem is fear -- privacy issues haven’t been completely addressed -- and part is that BT hasn’t proven its worth to advertisers.

One proposed solution is a bit bizarre if you’re trying to prove you’re legitimate (and I quote):

Traveling to the United Kingdom to offer the service might be one option for companies offering ad targeting. A source requesting anonymity says Adzilla plans to pull up stakes in the U.S., move to the U.K., and use whatever capital they have left to refocus the technology on a more conventional business model.

Leave the country?  Even if you "refocus" on a "more conventional" proposition, you’ll look like you’re trying to avoid the new rules. I think most advertisers would not want to be associated with that.

Beyond the privacy issues -- even if the whole world opted in -- as we’ve discussed in this blog many times before, behavioral targeting is not ready for prime time. The behaviors being measured have to be associated with the behaviors marketers want.  You can try to sell a neat little what-if scenario that assumes people behave the way we hope they will. (Take a look at my July 22, 2008 post.) In the real world, things often work out differently.  This is the scientific way to approach marketing.

I honestly don’t believe behavioral targeting is, by definition, evil. In fact, as a tool, its power could be used for good -- for marketers and consumers.  But for now, we have to wait and see whether anyone will be allowed to practice BT and, if they do, whether they can find the key to making it work.

There are no comments for this post.

Communicating credibly in a crisis.

At a certain point, people stop believing your messages. For banks, that day has arrived. For political candidates . . . well, I have to think their time for "setting the record straight" may have come and gone. The hysteria has reached a fever pitch and cynicism is everywhere. No one believes anything that doesn’t match their pre-conceived ideas about the candidates.

If you’re going through a troubling time, it’s tempting to pull yourself into a fetal position and wait till the storm is over. Unfortunately, that only makes things worse.

I’m not an expert in crisis management. But I do know something about communicating, as well as building -- and keeping -- trust through your marketing efforts.

If your company has something important to communicate in difficult times, you want to keep what you’ve learned from the marketing department in mind.  If you’re a politician, you should know a thing (or twelve) about communication. 

First, think about all your market segments. A company has its employees, customers, stockholders and the general public (or potential customers) to consider. If it were me, I’d take care of those audiences in that order -- unless, of course, you have a public health crisis on your hands. Talk to employees first. They deserve your honesty. Don’t hide from your customers. They’re your lifeblood. Explain things to your shareholders. And deal with your advertising or PR campaign last of all.

I have a friend who goes online to check her bank account every day. I won’t name names, but its initials are WaMu. The bank hasn’t talked to her as a customer about what’s going on . . . but each day as she signs in, a new tagline greets her. That’s not reassuring. That just makes her a little more nervous. She’ll be moving her money to a credit union soon because the advertising department has gotten ahead of itself and hasn’t talked to customers directly.

After you determine your target segments, where will you find your audience? How can you reach them with the least amount of waste? That’s your media plan.

Then consider the action you want those groups to take. Put the message and offer together that will drive that action.

And, finally, follow through with what you promised. That’s really the only way to build trust or build a brand.

There are no comments for this post.

Love is not enough.

Brand advertisers often find themselves in a complicated relationship with their customers and prospective customers. They are in hot pursuit of customers’ affections. They believe, "If only the world loved my brand as much as they love their iPhone, their Moleskine notebook, their Prius and shopping at Whole Foods, I could live happily ever after."

Too often, a marketer’s love is unrequited or the customer gets involved with a competitive brand and complications ensue.

As with any relationship, attraction is just the beginning. For love to develop, you need something deeper. You need to engage in give and take.

There’s nothing wrong with romancing your customers -- but romance is only a starting point. When you are dating, you don’t propose marriage without having some conversations first. When a love interest tells you what they like, you don’t put it in a database and then forget about it.

The key is to get deeply involved. That’s what separates a temporary crush from a meaningful relationship.

People long to believe that the products they love are made just for them.  They modify their Mini Cooper to suit their style.  The iPod has not just a few, but ALL of their favorites tunes -- and their favorite movies and videos, as well.  The beverage they get at their local café is hand-made to order.

This engagement with the brand, with the molding done by the consumer, is the true goal. Love is just the beginning.

There are no comments for this post.

Marketing strategy in a downturn.

Buy low. Sell high. Now that’s wisdom for the ages.

It’s pretty clear we’re going to be hitting bottom in the economy one day soon.  And we may be hanging out at the bottom for a while.

That’s an opportunity to buy.  As a marketer, you may be able to pick up market share on the cheap.  But it takes guts.  You have to believe you’re going to outlast the bad times. 

My company is in the same position as yours. We’re thinking about how to cut costs during the recession. But we’re still investing in marketing. In fact, one of our unbreakable rules is "Never Stop Selling." 

There are no comments for this post.

You don't have because you don't ask.

I regularly get busted for being too pushy.  In my marketing copy, not in real life.  In real life I’m a teddy bear.  Just look at my photo.  It’s obvious.

But, on behalf of clients, I’m a tiger.  When it comes to asking for a response, I go for the jugular immediately.  Sometimes clients think it’s a little too much -- but I beg to differ.

Too much advertising is mere mush.  It’s entertaining.  It’s funny.  It’s clever.  But it’s too shy to say, "So buy me, already!"

There’s no shame in saying, "Call now."  It shouldn’t embarrass you to say, "Find it at your favorite department store."  No one will be put off if you say, "To get this great offer, go to www.xyzxyz.com."  In fact, if you’ve done your job right, they should be chomping at the bit to get your great widgety-thing.

I learned long ago that a direct marketing appeal has a much greater chance of winning when you ask for a response as early as possible.  Even in a long-form medium, like direct mail, if you don’t ask for a reply on the first page, your letter is doomed to fail.

On the Web, you put the Get It Now button right at the top of the page.  You don’t let people wonder whether there’s a reason to click on your banner -- you give them a reason.

Same for emails.  Ask early.  Ask often.  Don’t worry about being obnoxious.  I never do.

There are no comments for this post.