Archive for ‘Advertising’

December 16th, 2010

Can You Spot the Mistake Wheaties Made on their Cereal Box?

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

Regular readers of the 60 Second Marketer know that it’s not our style to point fingers when a company stumbles, and this post is no exception. After all, we’re just human. And heaven knows I can count dozens of times when I’ve made mistakes during my career.

Wheaties Fuel made a minor error in their use of this QR code that will result in fewer click-throughs. Can you spot the error?

(Actually, I can probably count hundreds of mistakes, but you get my point.)

Given all that, I’d like to draw your attention to a minor stumble that Wheaties had on their use of a Microsoft Tag (Microsoft’s version of a QR Code or a 2D Code).

Before I mention the slip-up, I’d like to congratulate the Wheaties team for being at the forefront in their use of new and emerging technologies. You’ve got to hand it to their team for breaking new ground with their use of smartphone tags for the Wheaties brand.

So, what did they do wrong?

As you can see, the box tells consumers to “take a picture” of the tag to navigate to the Wheaties Fuel content. But you don’t actually take a picture of an MS Tag, QR code or 2D Code.

The correct approach is to “scan the tag.”

Why does this matter? Because when consumers (myself included) read “take a picture,” they literally take a picture and expect something to happen.

Unfortunately, when you take a picture of an MS Tag, QR Code or 2D Code, the only thing you get is a picture of the tag/code.

Here’s a suggestion on how the copy might have been written:

Want to connect with us via mobile? Step 1: Open your mobile phone web browser; Step 2: Download the tag reader at GetTag.mobi; Step 3: Scan the tag and join in the fun!

Again, I have to give credit to Wheaties for being at the forefront of smartphone tag usage. They made a slight stumble, which will decrease the number of fans they drive to the mobile site. But you do have to give them a hand for exploring new and innovative ways to connect with consumers.

(Special thanks to 60 Second Marketer member Jacki Schklar who pointed out to me that the codes used on the Wheaties box are MS Tags, not QR Codes as originally posted.)

Posted by Jamie Turner, Chief Content Officer of the 60 Second Marketer, the online magazine for BKV Digital and Direct Response. Jamie is also the co-author of How to Make Money with Social Media, now available at Barnes & Noble, Borders and Amazon.

Print Friendly
December 7th, 2010

Is Mass Marketing Dead? Yes, According to Robert Clay.

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

By Robert Clay, Founder and President, Marketing Wizdom

I don’t write new blog posts every day, as some people do, but this one is a biggie if you own, run or manage a business, and also an important one if you haven’t fully embraced or adapted your marketing approach to today’s vastly changed business landscape.

There's a new paradigm in marketing, according to Robert Clay, one of the U.K.'s most respected marketers. Do you know what the new paragigm involves? Read on to find out.

The end of mass marketing

For 150 years mass marketing was about the ONLY economical way to get your message out there. If you had a better mousetrap and could gather up enough money to tell enough people, you could push it on the world and you’d probably sell enough to build a good business.

But mass marketing is no longer viable for most businesses today, nor is it wanted or trusted by buyers. And I’ll explain why.

An award winning advert from the 1950’s

Let’s start by turning the clock back 60 years to an award winning magazine advert. It featured a veteran buyer sitting solemnly in his chair facing the would-be salesperson and declaring:

I don’t know who you are.

I don’t know your company.

I don’t know your company’s product.

I don’t know what your company stands for.

I don’t know your company’s customers.

I don’t know your company’s record.

I don’t know your company’s reputation.

Now—what was it you wanted to sell me?

The ad concludes:

‘Moral: Sales start before your salesman calls—with business publication advertising.’

That classic advert was created by McGraw-Hill Business Publications, to sell print advertising. The common wisdom at the time was just to get your message out there. But things have now changed. And how.

Print advertising is in steep decline today for reasons I’ll explain. But this award-winning 60-year old advert is still a great ad and it still vividly illustrates the tasks and challenges that you—and everyone in business—face in turning suspects and prospects into loyal customers.

Or does it?

While the barriers to doing business mentioned in that ad are still as relevant today as they were 50-60 years ago, buyer behaviour has changed beyond recognition in recent years, making mass marketing irrelevant for most businesses. Here’s why …

The escalation of commercial clutter

The first big change was the escalation of commercial clutter. That’s when we all started to be bombarded with sales and marketing messages at every turn. Where for years there were only three television channels, suddenly there were hundreds. And a similar proliferation has occurred in just about every area of the media.

In his book Data Smog, Surviving the information glut, David Shenk states that the average American encountered 560 daily marketing messages in 1971. By 1996 it was estimated that the number had increased to over 3,000 messages a day, with each of us seeing more ads in a single year than people of 50 years earlier saw in an entire lifetime. Today the numbers are believed to be somewhat greater still.

This continual assault of advertising and marketing messages has had a pronounced effect on buyers: There are so many messages out there that most people have become extremely adept at blocking them, tuning out all messages that aren’t highly relevant; or those which take extra effort to process. They also remember ads and marketing messages less and less, if at all. And even when buyers DO remember advertising and marketing materials, their retention is scarred by cynicism or, at best, indifference.

Take emails for example. The average email opening rate in early 2010 was 11%, a figure that has been falling for years. That implies that 89% of all mails are never even opened or looked at. Why? because most of them just aren’t important enough to devote any time to. And email, of course, is just one of many message delivery mediums.

In other words billions of dollars, Euros, pounds and other currencies worth of marketing spend just disappears down the plug hole unseen, unwanted and unappreciated every single day.

Because of this deluge of advertising and marketing messages, people are increasingly sceptical and distrustful of what they read or see. They automatically apply a ‘discount factor’ to the sales and marketing messages they see and they’re far more likely to make decisions based on what they hear directly from other people—friends, experts, their own online research, or even salespeople. While mass advertising still has a role, it should be one of the last parts of a marketing strategy today, not the first.

So commercial clutter is out of control, and it is very difficult for you to get noticed in all that clutter. If you sell business to business the people you’re dealing with are not only dealing with all that clutter, they’re probably also dealing with your competitors.

But clutter is only one of several factors that have changed everything in recent years. The rapid development and embrace of the internet has also turned 150 years of mass marketing on it’s head.

Next came the internet. Then Google.

After commercial clutter came the internet. The internet started to go mainstream in the mid 1990’s. Now, barely 15 years later, and boosted by the widespread availability of broadband and wi-fi, it has become an indispensable part of daily life for hundreds of millions of people.

Google’s arrival moved the game on massively again. Founded in September 1998, Google’s online search first appeared on most people’s radar in 2000. Before long the company had single handedly changed the world as we knew it.

While the internet made information available before Google came along, Google made the world’s knowledge accessible — and that’s a big difference. Before Google it was hard to imagine that anyone in the world today, regardless of whether they’re in an emerging or a highly developed economy, could just go online, perform a search, and gather virtually unlimited information on any subject you can think of.

If commercial clutter was a major factor before the internet took off, you now also have to factor in the volume of data we’re all exposed to every day thanks to the internet and Google. Google CEO Eric Schmidt said in 2010 that more information is now produced every two days than had been produced in all time before 2003. That’s a staggering statistic.

This ability to search newspapers and magazines the world over for relevant content has had a devastating effect on traditional media. Google’s revolutionary and much more efficient advertising model—where advertisers are only charged when someone clicks on an ad, and where response rates are completely measurable—has decimated the traditional advertising business.

Traditional media want you to pay plenty of money to advertise with them. But they can’t tell you who your ad has reached, unlike Google. Even mediums that dominated their niches until recently, like Yellow Pages, have found that their business has all but vanished, and their very survival is now in doubt.

When people can find just about any information they need in a matter of seconds just by performing a Google search, they simply no longer need to use printed media like Yellow Pages, and even online directories represent an unnecessary extra step and are largely shunned.

If we want to know anything at all, we just Google it. By late 2010 Google had between 65% and 72% share of all US online searches and around 90% in Europe. The rise of Google has created a massive shift in buyer behaviour, resulting in a new age of mass empowerment …

The rise of the social buyer has turned everything on its head. Again.

Then along came social media, and buyer behaviour changed again.

Online bulletin boards, arguably one of the earliest forms of social media, were around long before the internet took off. And instant messaging burst onto the scene in 1996. But social networking as we now know it started in 2002 with the launch of Friendster and MySpace.

Of today’s big players, LinkedIn started in 2003, Facebook and YouTube started in 2005 and Twitter in 2006. By 2009, hundreds of millions of people were enthusiastically embracing social media. It reached a tipping point and became mainstream.

Facebook, initially only available to Harvard students, was launched to the public in 2006. Since then it has accumulated over 500 million users, half of whom log on every single day. By late 2010, Facebook accounted for one in six page views in in the UK (one in four in the US), with some users spending up to 5 hours a day on the site.

As I write this in late 2010, a Hitwise report shows that social networking is now the most popular activity on the web, accounting for 11.5% of all internet visits in the UK. That’s more than the combined visits to Google, Yahoo! And Bing. Facebook is now the web’s largest destination, with 55% of all visits to such sites.

A staggering 4 billion messages are now sent through Facebook EVERY DAY. It’s now a major force in online advertising too, with 23.1% share of the display advertising market, more than doubling its share in a year, according to ComScore. In comparison, Google only has 2.7% of that market.

Google, for now, remains the largest driver of traffic to UK sites. But 1 in 10 such visits now originate from Facebook, making it the second largest driver of traffic as well as the most-visited social network, with YouTube in a distant third place. Twitter, with it’s 175 million subscribers and 100 million tweets a day is also an extremely effective driver of traffic.

Social media has given rise to the social buyer, an increasingly large section of the population who use their social media connections to seek advice and guide their buying decisions. With the growth of traffic from social networking sites increasing at an astonishing rate, everything in marketing has changed yet again. And so has the behaviour of your buyers.

Don’t overlook the role of the smartphone …

Alongside social networking Smartphones have also become ubiquitous. An increasing number of your buyers today are empowered by instant online search, social media and enormously powerful, always-on, easy to use mobile devices that they carry with them 24/7/365.

These powerful pocketable computers are now the norm, not the exception. And they have made a huge difference to what can be shared. Phones, ironically, are now used less and less for phone calls and more and more for emailing, texting, searching, browsing the web, taking and sharing photographs and videos, playing games, taking notes and connecting to one another via Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Your buyers can now find whatever information they want in a few seconds, wherever they are, and whenever it suits them. And that has changed their behavior yet again.

We’re now in an age of mass empowerment

Fueled by the internet, broadband, sophisticated online search, social media, wi-fi and smartphones, we’ve now entered an age of mass empowerment, where your buyers (whether you sell to consumers or B2B), are in the driving seat. You can tell them whatever you like, but they no longer accept at face value what you tell them.

They can easily and instantly draw on a variety of sources for their information, balancing what they see, read and hear from multiple sources and making whatever decisions they feel are most appropriate to them.

And they don’t like, welcome or want unsolicited messages from you. Uninvited messages pushed out to the world may have been the norm for 150 years. But now that there are better, more personal, and more effective ways of communicating, uninvited messages are considered to be spam, and tolerance for them has plummeted. What was the norm is now unwelcome and even creates hostility.

Your buyers delete irrelevant emails, block popups, filter or report spam, and surf away from sites they dislike. They just don’t need these things because it’s so easy today to obtain relevant information from multiple trusted sources wherever and whenever it is needed. In other words buyers are no longer at the whim of marketers. And they don’t want to be.

In today’s age of mass empowerment your buyers decide for themselves who they’re willing to listen to; speak to; or believe. They also decide if, what and when they buy. They can easily locate and speak to people who already have experience of your product or service. And if they ever have a bad experience they can tell 10,000 (or 10 million) people in an instant at the push of a button. It’s a game changer of epic proportions.

In a few short years these new dynamics have entirely changed both your buyers’ habits and the way they do business. What works today is very different to what worked only 10 years ago. And with the pace of change accelerating as never before you no longer have the option of doing business the way it used to be done. That’s because with unlimited information at their fingertips wherever they are, your buyers no longer consume information or make decisions the way they did even 10 years ago.

And if that doesn’t already describe your current buyers, it soon will.

The barriers have multiplied

If the McGraw-Hill ad at the start of this article were rewritten today, it could easily be re-stated as follows:

You’re good at what you do

You take good care of your customers

They love and recommend what you do

You just need more of them …

But your prospects don’t know who you are

They don’t know your company

They don’t know your product or service

They don’t know what you stand for

They don’t know your customers

They don’t know your record

They don’t know your reputation

They’re surrounded by sales and marketing messages at every turn

They’re deluged by people who want to part them from their money

They’re cynical or indifferent to your claims

They’re resistant to new purchase opportunities

They’re more and more demanding

They probably already have a relationship with your competitors

They’re working harder than ever but still falling behind

They don’t need another relationship

They don’t have time to listen to you

They don’t read or respond to your emails

They don’t return your calls for months

THEY decide who they’ll speak to, and what and when they’ll buy

Now — what was it you wanted to sell them?

These barriers to doing business are very real today. They also destroy the economics of mass marketing for most people in business. In addition, your best customers and clients are also your competitors’ most sought-after prospects this very minute … and they’re everywhere just waiting for you to slip up.

You can deal with this as long as you embrace a new way of marketing, based on a new way of thinking.

The new marketing paradigm

Marketing used to be defined in terms of 4Ps. Product, Price, Place and Promotion. But with the rise of social media there is now a 5th P, “People.”

Good marketing today is NOT about interrupting people or blasting them with unwanted messages. Instead it is about building relationships, peer influence, trust and engagement with a self-selecting audience.

That entails precise targeting; finding and focusing only on high potential prospects rather than mediocre suspects; positioning your product or service effectively in the minds of your prospects, which includes telling your story; and building sufficient trust for prospects to elect to hear what you have to say; let you into their space; and, in time, share your story with their contacts.

It’s no longer about sending messages to your potential clients where 98% don’t want to know, but instead, as Internet Psychologist Graham Jones says, it’s about encouraging them to send messages to you. Do that and you’ll know precisely what’s on their mind and can respond with a targeted message that’s much more likely to connect … giving you a dramatically greater response rate, and no redundancy.

Instead of wasting time on marketing campaigns that are 98% ineffective, it’s about encouraging your prospects and customers to connect with you and ask you questions so that you can respond with the exact answers they need.

It wasn’t easy or economical to do this on any scale in the past. But today’s social media tools make it both easy and inexpensive. It’s not hard to do. But it does requires a large shift in mindset, which can itself be hard. You also need to know what you’re doing, and where you can combine the old ways with the new, because one slip up in what you say or how you deliver your product or service can cost you dear.

Doing your best may have been enough to keep you in business in the past. But in today’s age of mass empowerment you have to embrace new ways of doing things and adapt the way you do business. Then do your best. And if you don’t, then I’m sorry, but your competitors will eat you alive as industry after industry can already testify.

I am sure you have thoughts you can contribute to this topic. Maybe you can share examples to illustrate some of my points. If so, please share your perspectives below. We’d love to have them.

By Robert Clay, Founder and President of Marketing Wizdom, Milton Keynes, U.K.

Print Friendly
October 27th, 2010

New (Old) Rules: How Budweiser and Bud Light can get back to selling beer

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

Guest Post by Tim Arnold

A little more than a year ago somebody at Anheuser-Busch suggests Budweiser’s ad agency dig out D’Arcy’s “This Bud’s for You” campaign, immerse themselves in its strategy, its emotion, its ability to connect with beer drinkers.  See if it doesn’t inspire something beyond their product-driven “Great American Lager” advertising and even breathe some new life into one of the world’s once greatest brands – since Bud was in the process of trending a minus 9.5% in sales and dropping to an historic low 9.3 share for the year (Beer Marketer’s Insights data).

And Bud Light’s parallel woes (sales dropped 2.5% in 09 – their first lost in 27 years – a pace that continues YTD) shouldn’t surprise anybody, either.  Their “Drinkability” campaign was off the first day out, it’s failure predictable.

The Budweiser mandate came on the heels of InBev’s takeover of Anheuser-Busch, which I wrote about at the time, for Advertising Age (“Hey Budweiser: The Only Way to Bring Back Bud is by Being Fearless,” AdAge CMO Strategy, Aug 11, 2008), which acknowledged the painful but inevitable take over with a plea to shake up A-B’s marketing – because it needed it – and for Christ’s sake, do not be penny wise nor pound foolish.  Unfortunately, it looks to me like they’ve made some major moves on their two flagship brands, Budweiser, and Bud Light, motivated by, well, fear itself.

They had reason to worry:  Budweiser sales in grocery stores, drugstores and supermarkets had declined 7.4% up to that point in the year, on the heels of total shipment declines of 6% and 4.7% the two previous years (Beer Marketer’s Insights).

The agency’s response, “It’s What We Do,” breaks less than six months later, added to their most recent tag line, “The Great American Lager.”

“It’s What We Do?”  Actually, I didn’t think their beer was the issue.  I thought it was Budweiser’s disconnect with beer drinkers that they were supposed to figure out how to fix.

Full disclosure: I have to admit, being an old D’Arcy guy instrumental in that campaign, I took some pleasure seeing the headline urging DDB to “study D’Arcy’s campaign” (AdAge, May 11, 2009), You know, imitation, or even inspiration, being some kind of flattery and all.

Bud Light left parent brand Budweiser in its wake in 2001 to become the world’s largest selling beer, to be drunk by nearly one in every five beer drinkers – a position Bud once held.  You could argue the Budweiser franchise no longer had a genuine parent brand at that point, and now Bud Light was losing business, too (3% first half of 09 according to Information Resources, Inc.).

Bud Light  finally dropped “Drinkability” for their current campaign:  “Here We Go,” from Cannonball, St. Louis, which debuted in this year’s Super Bowl.  They might as well tag it “Here We Go, Again,” because it, too, flies in the face of every New (Old) Rule described below.

If either brand is going to revitalize their relationship with beer drinkers – and that is their failure: they’ve ruptured any relationship they had – they might want to consider the following New (Old) Rules in beer advertising – with apologies to Bill Maher.

By the way: I can’t imagine anything worse – in advertising – than a client telling me to check out another agency’s advertising to see how its done, especially while I’m mired in InBev- imposed research and ivory-towered consultants.  Nevertheless  “… here we go:”

New (Old) Rule: To co-opt a political rejoinder, “It’s the strategy, stupid.” The strategy behind “This Bud’s for You” was brilliant in it simplicity:  celebrate the working man like only the King of Beers could do, and reward his hard work with a Budweiser. This was a direct path to connection.   It was aimed at the heavy beer drinkers, the 20% of guys who drank 80% of the beer.

First of all, it’s hard to know who “It’s What We Do” is aimed at, except maybe guys who watch television.  And the client.  And think about this:  instead of celebrating beer drinkers – one good way to connect with us – they’re actually kind of ridiculing us guys:  for all the stupid white man-ways we’ve been greeting each other over the years; or dissing each other (Hey asshole, you look like shit – but I’m only kidding. Let’s have a Bud.); or somebody’s delusion of how beer drinkers carry five, six beers in ballparks (Hell, you can’t even buy that many beers at once, even at Busch Stadium, can you?)

And then they make it worse by painting some kind of contrast that says, “But not us, not Budweiser, we’re not that, like, shallow, or faddish, or goofy, or cynical.  We’re still cranking out our beer the same way we have for more than 100 years.  So what’s up with you, beer drinker?”

Besides, what is the new, ground breaking strategy anyway?  We still brew Budweiser the same way it’s been brewed since 1876, despite all the quirky fads and social change swirling around us?  This has been a brand asset in Budweiser’s advertising for about a century and a half, through every conceivable kind of change and fad from flapper skirts to leisure suits and Ninja Turtles. And anyway, is this the core issue for anybody, besides the client?  Or the brewmasters?

Bud Light’s new campaign strategy is “intended to convey that Bud Light is a ‘catalyst for good times’,” according to Keith Levy, A-B’s CMO (NY Times, Jan 26, 2010).  “When Bud Light shows up, the party is going to begin.”  Somehow I don’t think partying carries the same gravitas as, say, hard work, or camaraderie, or even chilling on a beach – the last three representing relevant territory beer brands have actually owned, successfully.  Besides, these days, if I’m looking to alcohol to fuel a good time, a) I’ve probably got a problem, and b) whether or not, I’m solving it with vodka or something.

New (Old) Rule: Beer drinkers buy the image, not the ingredients – not even the taste. They rationalize their choices – in focus groups – based on the ingredients, and its “quality,” or its brewing process, which they’ll even interpret as “taste,” but nobody makes real beer choices based on rational reasons. Maybe the craft beer drinkers do (nah, maybe not), but not real, regular human beer drinkers.

So, above all, you have to connect with them emotionally. Make a relevant, emotional connection, in the context of beer drinking.  The essence of beer drinking is guys hanging out in a bar, sucking down suds, thinking they’ve still got it, and can still get it, knowing they’re in good company.  And some gorgeous, statuesque young woman walks in, all smart and confident, and walks straight up to you, the beer drinker, sticks out her hand and says, “Hi, I’d really like to meet you.”  Her eyes are dark as the night you want to spend with her and she’s got a 1000-watt smile and she’s got you at “hi” because she already thinks you’re cool.

The essence – but I digress.  The reality is most beer is consumed away from bars, a lot of it at home, with wives.  But home is boring in beer advertising.  So you try to capture some kind of essence.

Everybody knows you can justify anything through focus groups.  You hear what you want to hear – especially if you’re looking for respondents to feed back an ingredients message.  Sure, they’ll tell you, they heard it, and yeah, it’s meaningful. But they’re lying. They don’t care about product attributes; they’re only using them to rationalize an emotional decision.

They must not care about taste, either.  A-B’s president, Dave Peacock, was quoted recently (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug 20, 2010, “Can Budweiser, the King of Beers, reign again?”) saying, “(Budweiser) wins blind taste tests again and again.  It’s the perfect liquid.” Exactly my point.  Taste doesn’t matter – as long as it tastes like beer and it has alcohol in it (“It’s all good beer,” A-B’s brewmaster used to say.  He knew); if it did, Bud wouldn’t have dropped from a high of 26% market share in 1988 to less than 10% today.  Over and out.

Until this year’s Super Bowl, Bud Light’s advertising has insisted that it represented “Drinkability” – a word lifted right off of Budweiser’s label, proudly proclaiming for decades that Bud has “… a taste, a smoothness and a drinkability you will find in no other beer at any price.”  Thing is, it was believable; it made total sense for Budweiser.  It made no sense for Bud Light.

So they changed it to “… the just right taste” with “Here We Go (Again).”  Which is what every beer drinker in the entire world thinks about his beer.

New (Old) Rule:  Assume the position of a brand leader. Leaders lead, they don’t follow. Leaders set the standard, they don’t respond to lesser brands.  Leaders are proactive, not reactive.

Budweiser used to be The King of Beers.  We resisted the nagging efforts of Meister Brau when they protested that it “tasted just as good as Budweiser, only costs less.” The King does not acknowledge pretenders.

A-B held steadfast as Miller and others came out with the new, low-calorie L-I-T-E beer from Miller (as August III loved to call it) for two years, and then trumped the entire market with Bud Light (it was launched as Budweiser Light, by the way).

We were the leader, we assumed the position, and we acted like it.

No more

“This Bud’s for You” ran for what, 15, 20 years?

How many campaigns has Bud been through since then?

Worse, A-B has become totally reliant on increasingly thin line extensions and international expansion markets (Great Britain, China) to prop up their sales.  Meanwhile they’re losing their ass where it matters most, the US of A. To wit:

Bud Light Lime came on the heels of Miller’s earlier lime-flavored entry, Miller Chill.

Bud Light Golden Wheat followed Miller’s test and subsequent decision not to introduce a Miller Lite-branded wheat beer under its Brewer’s Collection.

MGD 64 boosted Miller Genuine Draft’s franchise long before A-B introduced Bud Select 55.

Even Bud Light’s “Drinkability” platform looked like a response to Coors Light’s “cold refreshment” positioning.

Meanwhile their home market, the very essence of their American roots, their DNA, continues to erode.

All of this “follow the leader” marketing is tantamount to admitting defeat.  No wonder.

New (Old) Rule: Beer isn’t funny, or goofy.  Or sophomoric.  Beer drinking isn’t funny. It’s … reparative, irreverent, satisfying, thirst quenching, rewarding, all about bonding and camaraderie.  And hooking up.  It’s … cool.  A good time, too, for sure; fun, but … not funny, unless maybe you’re drunk. This was another major flaw in Bud Light’s “Drinkability” campaign and continues to be with “Here We Go:” they seemed to assume it was Bud Light’s “sophomoric humor” that had been lost, so they’re trying to recover it. Actually, they have. Sophomoric, indeed.  Yes, grab-ass beer drinkers drink Budweiser, too, and Bud Light. But only because they aspire to be something else, like genuine Bud drinkers.  Market to the real Bud/Bud Light drinkers – the mopes will come along, too.

“Here We Go (Again)” continues to embrace Bud Light’s brand personality:  sophomoric.  It may be even worse.  Have you seen “Clothing Drive?”  It must reflect the essence of what Bud Light is after, because they’ve been running an extra-long version of it on their website.

“The Great American Lager?”  Without some kind of emotional context, who cares?  Guys buy the beer whose label they want to sit behind at a bar.  Because it stands for the kinds of things they do.  Or wish they did.  So you give them a “reason why” so they can justify their choices in focus groups and when they belly up to the bar with their buds, and their Buds.  I mean, nobody’s going to actually admit they drink Budweiser because it reinforces their wannabe image of themselves, or their need for their friends to really really like them.

“This Bud’s for You” was an outright paean to the world’s heaviest beer drinkers. This was good business.  It was only in the middle of the commercials that we suggested it was the “exclusive Beechwood Ageing process that produces a taste, a smoothness and a drinkability (there’s that word again!) you will find in no other beer at any price.”  The reason why.  But the most of it embraced the beer drinkers we were after, celebrated them and their hard work, in stories and music-driven montages – and the “This Bud’s for You’ music was uplifting, emotional(!), recognizable; it always played a dramatic role in Budweiser’s advertising, unlike the wallpaper stuff we’re seeing now.

New (Old) Rule:  All beer drinkers are not alike. Even heavy beer drinkers. First of all, plenty of heavy beer drinkers are white-collar guys, always have been, but we knew they all wanted to believe – if they really had to – that they could work as hard as the blue-collar beer drinkers.  So they, too, were attracted to “This Bud’s for You’s” celebration of the working man.  Same effect the Marlboro Cowboy had.

And if Bud Light, and Budweiser, have become “my father’s beer(s)” – the kiss of death in beer – then you’ve got to speak to their offspring, in their language.  In their environment.  To them.  First of all, there’s no damned reason to walk away from us fathers.  We drink a lot of beer, too, plus we’ve got more money.  And it may take something radical to reach the young – ok, minimum age – heavy beer drinkers, to shed the old-guy image.  But don’t compromise it all by trying to be that way with everybody.  Being way edgy or totally hip might work for “minimum  age” beer drinkers, but not necessarily for everybody else.

We had the same problem then that they do now with younger beer drinkers.  What did we do?  We segmented the market (probably the first time a major brand ever did so, at least to the breadth and scale we did).  “This Bud’s for You” for the mainstream.  Special commercials that ran only on Saturday Night Live, for “young adults.”  Broad-based integration of Blacks and Hispanics in national commercials, which convinced them that they, too, were an important part of Budweiser’s brand world.  Hell, we made Lou Rawls our national spokesguy for a few years (all of which built on important community-based programs for further credibility); plus targeted media buys for both segments (with special Hispanic creative en Espanol, customized for Cubanos in Florida, Puerto Ricans in NY  and Mexican Americans in Texas, California and NY).

What we did not do was try to be young and cool and stupid to everybody.  We isolated that stuff for the “young adult” market, and when August wanted us to run our first music-video spot for SNL (the first one ever, featuring Leon Redbone, a frequent music guest on SNL) on national football games, we talked him out of it.  We grabbed ourselves by the cojones, raised an objection, articulated why, and carried the day.  It was the right thing to (not) do then and it’s a strategy that holds today.

We earned #1 positions in every segment after being the largest seller because we were never worse than everybody’s second choice.  And we generated double-digit growth for something like 36 consecutive months in an industry that was only growing at 1 or 2%.  In fact Budweiser was the only flagship brand showing growth: Miller High Life and Coors were dropping like streamlined bowling balls.

New (Old) Rule:  It’s about the beer drinker first.  Then the beer. Connect with the beer drinker on an emotional level – his, not yours; get that right, then offer him your beer.  Relate to him, reach him, humor him even; give him something to identify with.  To aspire to, even. The badge to wear.  Something … meaningful.  Something positive.

An admission (or an obvious disclosure of truth):  “This Bud’s for You” took a cue from Miller.  They were first to recognize those 20% of the beer drinkers who drank most of the beer.  At the time Budweiser was seen as something of a white-collar beer, believe it or not. So we went after these blue-collar guys, too.  Genius!  But there was a major strategic difference between “This Bud’s for You” and “Miller Time.”  We were about the beer drinker (see above).  This Bud’s for You. They were about the beer.  It’s Miller time. We won.

“It’s What We Do?”  Same problem.

Actually, in some kind of perverse way, Budweiser’s current advertising gets the equation right:  they do put the beer drinker first.  Trouble is, they put him down.  Maybe I’m too sensitive, or too bald, but being reminded that we white boy bro’d our way thru some goofy man-greetings over the years just ain’t gonna win me over.  In life we should be able to laugh at ourselves.  It’s trickier in advertising.

And if I’m getting naked – I sure as hell have no interest doing it in an office with a bunch of other guys, do you?

In other words …

New (Old) Rule:  Beer is not for morons. Or dipshits.  Despite the fact that we elected a president two terms in a row because he was “somebody you could have a beer with,” the good beers, the brand leaders, shouldn’t be marketed to morons.  So what was with the “sophomoric humor” in “Drinkability?”  And now “Here We Go (Again)??”

“This Bud’s for You” gave the beer drinker the benefit of the doubt, that he had sufficient wit to spot bullshit a mile away.  Well, they still can, as evidenced by the failure of Bud Light’s “Drinkability” campaign.  And now, “Here We Go.”  Actually, that’s good news for the rest of us.

New (Old) Rule:  Sometimes you just have to grab yourself by the cojones and say no. Apparently EuroRSCG started the “Drinkability” campaign.  Not sure where they get their beer credentials, but DDB certainly has them.  Somebody there must have had the kind of groaner reaction to this idea then that the rest of America soon had.  Dude?  You know damned well there’s just something creepy about it.  It ain’t working.  Just say no!  Avoid the inevitable.  And yet, here you go again with “Here We Go (Again).”  Do your agency and your client a favor.  Go for it.  Lot’s of times it will actually work.  Besides, if you don’t, you’re probably going to read about it later in some trade magazine.

New (Old) Rule:  There’s no substitute for gut. Research is supposed to be an aid to judgment.  But it’s no substitute for it.  Which means you’ve got to have some judgment of your own, some instincts.  And the cojones to stand up for both.  If you’re relying on research to totally define your brand strategy, or your advertising, you shouldn’t be in the beer business.  In fact, you shouldn’t be in the advertising business either – you should probably be a researcher.

Bud Light discovered this the hard way with their “Drinkability” campaign, a strategy apparently derived from The Cambridge Group, a consultancy firm hired by August A. Busch IV a couple of years earlier (they must be pina colada drinkers).  He was following in his father’s footsteps: “the 3rd,” who retained a studied professor from Wharton – who actually came up with a definition for a “reparative” beer drinker – a guy who had a cold one to reward himself after a hard day’s work.  Thank you very much.  And in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs they were big time “Belongers.”   Once we got the prof out of the way, the result was “This Bud’s for You.”

The great DDB campaigns for Bud Light – Spuds McKenzie; “Yes, I am;” “I Love You, Man,” were not sophomoric and they were beyond funny:  they were irreverent, unexpected, wise guy attitudes that defied all sense of the expected.  They invited you to laugh with them, not at them, or at each other.  All of them expressing emotions and attitudes that beer drinkers could relate to, and did.  They became part of the vernacular.

Ain’t gonna happen with “Here We Go (Again).”

There’s a fine line, and a big difference, between being almost funny or worse, goofy – and irreverent; between humoring yourself and connecting with your target.  If I don’t like the guys in your commercials, I ain’t drinking your beer. In fact, no real beer drinker would take the kind of “kidding” in dumb silence that you see in “It’s What We Do.”   If some guy says to me, “Hey, I like your ‘stash, but where’d you dock your steamboat,” my answer is, “Yeah, and your girlfriend likes it, too.  In fact she’s outside in my steamboat, waiting for me to give her a ride.”

Truth is, these New (Old) Rules are both.  And they’ll still sell beer – if you’re willing to follow the rules.

A postscript:

Since I posted this piece, Anheuser-Busch announced the hiring of Anomaly, A NY/London independent advertising agency, and they’ve debuted their new work, “Great Times Are Waiting, Grab Some Buds.”

Unfortunately it was launched in conjunction with an announced “National Happy Hour,” when A-B gave away a half-million Budweisers, presumably to generate trial among younger beer drinkers.  Their logic?  According to their own research, 4 out of 10 beer drinkers under the age of 30 had never tried a Bud, despite the fact that, according to

A-B’s President, Dave Peacock, Budweiser wins all the taste tests.  Exactly, and the joke is on them.  Beer drinkers aren’t rejecting Budweiser’s taste; they’re rejecting the image, which A-B has rendered utterly irrelevant or worse, stupid.  So, thanks for the free beer and, until next time, I’m back to my regular brew.

Having said that, I like the look and feel of the “Grab Some Buds” advertising.  It may or may not be too late, but this advertising (re)assumes the position of a leader.  It reflects a contemporized version of the King of Beers. Simply eliminating the dipshits from their advertising sets them apart from, and above, most other beer advertising.  And with a half turn strategically, and given the time and budget support to work, I think this advertising stands a chance of making a difference.  We’ll see.

©Tim Arnold

October 2010

possible20@aol.com

www.possible20.com

917.748.6058

Author Bio:

Tim Arnold is a 30-year advertising industry veteran. His first job was at D’Arcy, St. Louis, where he ran the Budweiser business for 10 years, launching the ground-breaking “This Bud’s for You” campaign.  He moved to New York twenty-five years ago, and has worked at J. Walter Thompson (Burger King, Miller), Scali McCabe Sloves (Hertz) and DMB&B (worldwide Board of Directors; Dir, Global Business Development).  He recently completed a six-month stint helping launch a neuroscience advertising research company (EmSense), and currently runs his own consulting business (The Arnold Group), where current assignments include promoting two syndicated television and web based specials and leading a new product launch.

Print Friendly
September 20th, 2010

Has Demi Moore Gone Too Far on Twitter?

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

Last week, rocker John Mayer decided to delete his Twitter account, thus leaving his 3.7 million followers in the dust. (Yes, 3.7 million followers.)

This is a photo Demi Moore sent out to her 3.1 million Twitter followers. Has she gone too far?

Mayer was notorious for having shared way too much on his Twitter account. Oh, sure, if you were interested in tracking the progress of his chili dog dinner through his intestinal system, then his Tweets were very welcome. But if you’re like most adults, you probably felt that Mayer was sharing too much with too many people.

Then, along comes Demi Moore, who has decided that showing off her body with her 3.1 million followers was a) worth doing, b) acceptable behavior and c) something we should admire.

In this Twitter photo, Ms. Moore invited her husband to join her in bed. Is that good for her image?

Unfortunately, Ms. Moore (who goes by the Twitter handle @MrsKutcher) has made a terrible mistake. To be sure, Twitter is a great place for celebrities (or brands) to give us an unvieled look at the inner workings of that person or company. Most brands that use Twitter let their hair down a little bit and have some fun on Twitter.

But Demi. Please. If you want people to watch your movies without snickering through them, stop doing this.

(Which raises the question — when was Ms. Moore in a movie worth watching? 1996?)

I’m not against making some noise. I’m not against standing out from the rest of the pack. But if you’re a brand or a celebrity, you should do it with a little dignity.

That’s my point-of-view. I could be wrong. Or I could just be a bonehead. But that’s my story and I’m sticking with it.

Posted by Jamie Turner, Chief Content Officer, the 60 Second Marketer.

Print Friendly
Tags:
August 12th, 2010

The 13 Most Important Emotional Triggers for Marketers

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

Not too long ago, a friend of mine named Ken Robbins who runs Response Mine Interactive told me there are only three things people are interested in paying money for — Love, Weight Loss and Getting Rich.

He was simplifying things a bit. After all, Ken’s company sells plenty of things that don’t have to do with love, weight loss or getting rich. But his point was a good one — that humans function in very basic, very instinctive ways. And if you, as a marketer, can tap into those instincts, you can make a lot of money.

"Love" is one of the 13 most important emotional triggers for marketers. Do you know what the other 12 are?

How can you tap into human instincts and make a lot of money?

It’s simple, really.

Actually, it’s not all that simple. But it’s not that hard, either.

The starting point is to understand what motivates people. And when you come right down to it, there aren’t all that many emotional triggers for humans.

Here’s a list of the 13 most important emotional triggers for humans. If you can wrap your product or service around one (or more) of these, you’ll have unlocked the secret to successful marketing.

Here goes:

•    Sex
•    Greed
•    Flattery
•    Fear
•    Self-improvement
•    Love
•    Better health
•    Weight loss
•    Longevity
•    Exclusivity
•    Fame
•    Uncertainty
•    Doubt

Putting the 13 Emotional Triggers to Use

How can you use these for your own marketing purposes? Here are a few headlines I’ve written around each one, in order.
•    Sex: “The secret to better and more frequent sex”
•    Greed: “How to make millions on the internet and retire wealthy”
•    Flattery: “Why people with blue eyes attract more attention from the opposite sex”
•    Fear: “1 out of 4 homes will be the victim of a burglary this year”
•    Self-improvement: “How you can get twice as much reading done in half as much time”
•    Love: “What the Eskimos know about love that you should know, too”
•    Better health: “How 3 simple ingredients in your home can help strengthen your heart”
•    Weight loss: “The secret to weight loss may be staring you right in the face”
•    Longevity: “7 secrets the French know that can help you live 20 years longer”
•    Exclusivity: “The fine wine for people who don’t have to ask ‘how much?’”
•    Fame: “How Julia Roberts got famous. And how you can get famous, too”
•    Uncertainty: “Why risk Lasik surgery on someone who is offering cut-rate prices?”
•    Doubt: “Would you want your children to drive in a car with unsafe brakes?”

The key with all of these is to pick one or two of them and wrap your product’s marketing program around them. That way, you can tap into basic human emotions to help drive your sales and revenue.

I hope you enjoyed this post and will come back for the third installment of our series tomorrow.

Posted by Jamie Turner, Founder of the 60 Second Marketer and in-demand keynote speaker at events, trade shows and corporations around the globe.

Print Friendly
July 26th, 2010

Was David Ogilvy the First Mad Man?

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

A few days ago, a good friend of mine named Alison Rinner directed my attention to a Wall Street Journal article entitled “What Real ‘Mad Men’ Did, and Didn’t Do.” It was a recap of what really happened on Madison Avenue during the 1950s and 1960s. (The bottom line — most of what is portrayed in the TV series Mad Men really did happen.)

The article in the Wall Street Journal reminded me of a post I wrote a few months ago about David Ogilvy, the founder of Ogilvy & Mather. Most people know David as a brilliant advertising man. But what they don’t know is that he was also a brilliant manager of people.

Mad Men

Was David Ogilvy the first Mad Man? Here's a story about the legendary advertising guru that's worth passing along.

Here’s the post I wrote several months ago. If you’re interested in finding out what made David such a brilliant manager of people, read on:

“I’m a very lucky guy. When I was growing up, my father worked side-by-side with one of the greatest marketing minds of the 20th century.

I’m talking about David Ogilvy. If you don’t already know about him through Ogilvy & Mather, then you might have read about him in one of your marketing textbooks or in his profile in the book Forbes: The Greatest Business Stories of All Time.

I was fortunate to have been in the presence of Mr. Ogilvy many times and had a number of fascinating conversations with him before he passed away. (I recall one conversation where he asked me, “Am I boring you?” Imagine!)

The most riveting story I know about David took place after he had retired to Touffou, his chateau in France. It’s such an important story and provides such excellent insight into Mr. Ogilvy that I wanted to share it with the readers of the 60 Second Marketer so that it might be etched in a 21st Century version of stone.

By the time David retired to Touffou, he had accomplished a great deal. Despite having started Ogilvy & Mather later in his life (he was nearly 40 when he founded the company), he was able to grow it into a worldwide powerhouse in less than a decade.

The agency was such a force that for seven years during the 1960s, Ogilvy & Mather never lost a new business pitch. Seven years without losing a pitch — that’s unheard of.

By the 1980s, Mr. Ogilvy was working primarily out of his chateau. He would come to New York City for important meetings with clients as well as for Ogilvy & Mather Board meetings. He still had the power to hire and fire, but the Chairmanship had been turned over to Jock Elliott, another brilliant member of the Ogilvy & Mather team.

As the story goes, prior to one important board meeting, a high-ranking member of the Ogilvy & Mather Board of Directors had decided to oust Mr. Elliott from his Chairmanship. (This could be done if a majority of board members voted in favor of a new Chairman.)

Apparently, this person had secretly gone around to several other members of the board to line up votes. He had done this behind the backs of both Mr. Ogilvy and Mr. Elliott.

Now, if you hang around corporate America long enough, you’ll find that this kind of trickery happens more often than we’d like to admit. But it was the kind of thing that Mr. Ogilvy hated because it wasn’t open and honest. He believed that office politics were best left for other companies, not Ogilvy & Mather.

As the story goes, the person who had secretly lined up the votes approached Mr. Ogilvy shortly before the board meeting to tell him what he had done. “David,” he allegedly said, “I’ve got enough votes to oust Jock Elliott from the Board of Directors.” If all went as planned, this person would effectively perform a board coup when the meeting started in a few hours.

But Mr. Ogilvy hated office politics. And he certainly wasn’t about to let them infect his esteemed agency.

After David listened to this person’s plans, he paused, leaned forward and said one thing to him. “You may have enough votes to become the Chairman of the Board, but you no longer have a job. You’re fired.”

In 21 words, David Ogilvy said more about himself and about the company he founded than an encyclopedia full of articles ever could.

“You may have enough votes to become Chairman of the Board, but you no longer have a job. You’re fired.”

I’m sharing this story because it was shared with me by my father, Mike Turner, who not only worked closely with Mr. Ogilvy, but was also a good friend of his. My intent is not to spread gossipy stories, but to share it as an illustration of how a great man did a great thing at a great company.

“You may have enough votes to become Chairman of the Board, but you no longer have a job. You’re fired.”

As I’ve gone through my career, I’ve kept track of the great business stories that have taught me something important about about life. There are some stories that are so powerful and have such clarity that they should live on forever — in the hopes that they’ll teach a younger generation how to lead a life of decency and integrity.

This is one of those stories. Please pass it on.”

Jamie Turner has spent more than 25 years helping companies like AT&T, The Coca-Cola Company, CNN, Equifax and Cartoon Network grow their sales and revenue with innovative marketing programs. He is the Chief Content Officer of the 60 Second Marketer, a free resource brought to you by BKV Digital and Direct Response. Jamie’s book, “How to Make Money with Social Media” will be published by the Financial Times Press this October.

Print Friendly
April 14th, 2010

Don’t Throw Away Those Old Newspapers!

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

By Harold Becker, Founder, Emerging Business Solutions

You heard me – “Don’t throw away those old newspapers”.

Newspapers are one of the oldest and trusted media types. We have confidence in their news, sports, business, weather, entertainment information and more.

But wait — if it’s in the paper then it’s “old” news, isn’t it?  The internet will carry the same story in real or close to real time, so who cares about old news?

But then if that’s the case, why do most cities with a population of over 30,000 print a daily paper?

The answer is simple – people who read the paper typically fit a demographic that is educated, takes time to enjoy the printed word, and doesn’t like to be rushed. They make informed decisions and are primarily 45+ years old.  They enjoy reading about their local community on a daily basis.  We find they are very loyal consumers who aren’t making the switch from conventional ink and paper to digital media quickly.

So, who buys ads in a newspaper? The static medium of a traditional newspaper lends itself well to creative advertisers who are looking to drive traffic to a specific event. Here’s what’s working for our clients:

1. Use large (full page) full color ads: These ads that describe the event clearly, provide relevant information, and the right offer can generate quite a crowd. Doesn’t that describe any media type?

For the past 2 years we’ve been using newspaper to help clients in the Gold, Coin and Jewelry buying business drive consumers to hotels, convention centers and businesses.  Our clients have purchased more than $50 million in merchandise during that time.

2. Negotiate: Like with anything, if you understand the medium and know how to negotiate prices for full page ads, many papers will discount prices by 60, 70 and even 80 percent below rate card.

3. Ask for More: Because newspapers are considered a dying media form and they’re trying to attract lost ad dollars, many are willing to throw in free ads, provide further frequency discounts, and even help with the creative work for free.

The more we buy newspaper, the more we’re convinced it’s a great medium for the right clients.

So, while you are optimizing your DRTV ad media, Twittering a friend, adding pages to your Facebook page or just surfing the web, consider newspaper ads to help drive traffic for clients.  It’s working for us.

++++++

Harold Becker is founder of Emerging Business Solutions, a direct response marketing specialist.  Emerging Business Solutions provides direct response marketing consulting, management services and strategic guidance for local, regional and national clients.  Services include low cost yet efficient DRTV production, call center, fulfillment, customer service, manufacturing, merchant accounts, Integrated direct response web sites, all forms of media buying, analytics, optimization and more.

++++++

Print Friendly
March 25th, 2010

Advertising-to-Sales Ratios: 2006 to 2010 Comparison

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

By Ann Pruitt

Here’s an interesting study that looks at the advertising-to-sales ratios for some products and services.  We’ve compared the 2006 numbers to the current 2010 numbers. Anything that increased by 3 or more is highlighted in green; decreases of 3 or more points are highlighted in red.

Wow. Check out Hospitals, and check out Cosmetics. Those are pretty dramatic. Any industry insight from our followers (or did they change the formulas between 2006 and 2010)?

How are your industry ad-to-sales ratios changing? What influences are you facing? How are marketing strategies being affected in your business?  Let us hear.

Commodity or Class of Business

%age of Annual Sales

Spent on Advertising

2006 2010

Air Courier Services

0.8% .09%

Appliance and Electronics/ Electronics Dealers

n/a 3.8%

Auto Dealers, Gas Stations

1.0% 0.8%

Beverages

7.5%

6.7%

Books, Publishing & Printing

7.3%

3.8%

Cable and Other Pay TV Services

2.3% 7.3%

Educational Service

8.1% 12.8%

Family Clothing Stores

2.2% 1.9%

Furniture Stores

7.2% 8.7%

Hardware Stores/ Over $2,000,000

1.9% 2.2%

Hobby, Toy and Game Shops

4.0% 2.9%

Hospitals

13.9% 0.6%

Hotels and Motels

2.3% 1.4%

Household Appliances

1.6% 1.9%

Household Audio and Video Equipment

5.3% 6.5%

Insurance Agents, Brokers, & Service

2.0% 0.4%

Jewelry Stores

4.9% 5.4%

Malt Beverages

8.8% 10.0%

Mortgage Bankers & Loan Correspondents

n/a 1.3%

Perfume, Cosmetic, Toilet Preparations

7.9% 19.2%

Radio, TV and Consumer Electronic Stores

3.0% 2.4%

Real Estate Agents & Managers

2.4%

2.7%

Restaurants/ Full Service, <$15.00

2.0% 2.0%

Shoe Stores

2.4% 2.3%

Sporting Goods Stores / Full Line, $2mil-$5mil

1.5% 1.6%

Tobacco Products

4.4% 4.0%

Video Tape Rental

3.1% 4.7%

Women`s Clothing Store

3.7% 3.7%

SOURCES: the 2010 and 2006 NAA Planbooks

Print Friendly
February 18th, 2010

Priming Your Business For Publicity

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

By Todd Brabender, www.SpreadTheNewsPR.com

When it comes to putting together your initial business plan or making out your annual marketing budget, the amount of money you allocate toward “marketing supportives” can make a big difference in the success of your business’ impending public relations/publicity campaign.

Although it sounds obvious, many new entrepreneurs don’t realize that typical sales marketing materials you budget for can certainly be used for your “media marketing” as well. What I consider “marketing supportives” that are effective for publicity/media exposure are things like

  • product photos
  • product samples
  • website links
  • sales fulfillment options
  • etc.

The more supportives in place — the more media coverage you might expect.

Case in point, I recently launched a consumer product publicity campaign for a client who had many strong supportives: great product photos (hard copy & digital); product samples for the media; an online ordering vehicle on his website.

  • Because the product was very visual, the coverage on the TV medium would have increased tenfold had the client had a VNR (Video News Release) with product footage.
  • When many shows requested the VNR and found out the client didn’t have one, they simply could not give us coverage because they didn’t have the time to shoot the video themselves to meet the show’s deadline.
  • The same principle holds true for product photos.

This is not to say that your publicity/media campaign will fail if you don’t have EVERY marketing supportive available. If you can have money in your limited budget to afford a FEW supportives – at least photos or media samples – your media coverage can be even more extensive.

Bottom line – from a publicity standpoint – your marketing supportives should help the media cover your product with as little effort as possible.

If you are planning and/or budgeting for a publicity campaign and you have strong marketing supportives in place you stand to gain much more from your campaign. Conversely, maybe you hadn’t thought about a publicity campaign for your business. But if your marketing budget has, in fact, allowed for a few supportives, you are more primed than you realized for a campaign that should lead to some great media exposure.

++++++

Todd Brabender is the President of Spread The News Public Relations, Inc.. His business specializes in generating media exposure and publicity for innovative products and businesses. (785) 842-8909

todd@spreadthenewspr.com

www.SpreadTheNewsPR.com

________________________________________________________________________________________

Print Friendly
February 16th, 2010

The History of Advertising Timeline from Advertising Age

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

This is going to be a short post, but one that I hope is useful to you.

I’m doing some research into the history of advertising and came across a fabulous timeline from Advertising Age. It outlines some of the more important events in the history of advertising going back about 300 years.

According to Advertising Age, the first advertising agency wasn’t located on Madison Avenue. It wasn’t even located in New York City. In fact, Philadelphia was the location of the first official advertising agency.

Procter & Gamble was the first company to genuinely understand the power of marketing and believed in it so much, they spent a whopping $11,000 advertising Ivory Soap in 1882. (At the time, the median household income was about $400.)

These are just some of the interesting facts you can learn on this timeline from Ad Age. If you’ve got a minute or two, check it out. It’s a fun and engaging exercise.

Print Friendly
February 12th, 2010

More Worst Marketing Mistakes of 2009

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

This is a continuation of last week’s blog covering BNet’s top 77 Worst Business Blunders of the Year. We picked out the marketing blunders so you won’t repeat these mess-ups. After all, we expect we will NOT see you on next year’s list.

x

Most 15-year-old boys and about 75 percent of Comic-Con attendees strongly disagree.

In May, the conglomerate founded by Richard Branson attempts to dispel rumors that it’s interested in purchasing the media empire founded by Hugh Hefner. Actual headline run on The Washington Post’s Web site: “Virgin Denies Interest in Playboy.”

x

The $20 baggage fee? That was for taking your luggage. We didn’t say anything about delivering it unharmed…

While waiting for his United Airlines flight to take off, Canadian folksinger Dave Carroll looks out the window and sees baggage handlers hurling his band’s guitars like so much Samsonite. Sure enough, upon arrival he finds that a $3,500 instrument has been damaged. In July, after months of waiting for the airline to reimburse him, he decides to write a song called “United Breaks Guitars.” The airline squares up when the song reaches 1 million hits on YouTube.

x

…or delivering it at all, for that matter.

In October, Carroll gives United Airlines another chance, flying the carrier en route to his appearance as a keynote speaker at a customer service conference. The airline loses his luggage for three days.

x

The award for worst rebranding since New Coke goes to…

PepsiCo hires the Arnell Group to consult on a major overhaul of the company’s core beverage brands. In January, it unveils redesigned packaging for the Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice line, ditching its iconic straw-in-an-orange logo for a floating-juice look that many confuse with a generic store brand. Sales immediately fall by 19 percent and the company is inundated with irate letters, causing PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi to order a return to the old packaging.

x

OK, now it all makes sense.

In February, the Arnell Group’s proposal to PepsiCo for a redesign of the Pepsi logo begins circulating online. Titled “Breathtaking,” the 27-page memo compares the new logo to the earth’s magnetic fields and the sun’s radiation and traces its geometrical lineage back to ancient Greek and Chinese forms, with further references to proportions in the Parthenon and Mona Lisa’s face. It implies that the new logo, with “brand identity Dimensionalized through Motion,” increases Pepsi’s “gravitational pull.” For an undisclosed sum believed to be in the seven figures, Pepsi receives a moderately tweaked logo and a massive amount of mockery, with BusinessWeek saying the memo reads “like the work of a college student majoring in art and the humanities.”

x

There you have it. Marketing gone awry – great examples of what NOT to do. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

++++++

Print Friendly
February 5th, 2010

Worst Marketing Mistakes of 2009

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

In one of the most entertaining reads so far this year, BNet has published its top 77 Worst Business Blunders of the Year. Looking back over 2009, they picked out some doozies. I spent darned-near an hour, lost in capitalistic craziness. Here are some of our favorite marketing strategies gone awry. There are so many good ones, I’m having to publish some this week, and some next (so you’ll have something to look forward to).

x

Don’t worry, it’ll be fine: Nobody listens to Oprah anyway.

KFC promotes its new Kentucky Grilled Chicken by having Oprah Winfrey tout a coupon for a free meal on her show. The promotion goes the way you’d expect anything mentioned on Oprah to go: Viewers run to their computers, download more than 10 million coupons, and head to KFC in droves. Mobbed stores run out of chicken and turn customers away empty-handed, leading Advertising Age to call the promotion “one of the all-time blunders” and company president Roger Eaton to post a mea culpa video on YouTube.

x

Buy the bloody car, you git, or I’ll smash your sodding skull!

In September, Toyota and its ad agency, Saatchi & Saatchi, are sued for $10 million by a Los Angeles woman who says she was terrorized by a Web campaign for the Toyota Matrix. A video promoting the campaign features a group of “maniacs” and offers people the chance to “prank” a friend: “It’s easy. Tell us a little about them, then pick one of our maniacs to mess with their heads — through personalized texts, email, calls, video — for 5 straight days.” The woman, Amber Duick, says she received a series of e-mails from “Sebastian,” a British soccer hooligan on the run from police who planned to “hide out” at her house with his pit bull. Duick claims the “terror marketing campaign” left her “constantly in tears and shaking and sobbing in emotional distress,” unable to eat, work, or sleep.

x

World peace. Cure for cancer. Left-handed underpants.

“Switching the opening from vertical to horizontal may sound like a small step, but it’s the major breakthrough that many have been waiting for.” — Rob Faucherand, spokesman for British department-store chain Debenhams, on the debut of a new line of tighty-whiteys designed to make life at the urinal easier for southpaws. Faucherand goes on to call the briefs “a vital step toward equality,” given that, heretofore, “left-handed men have to reach much further into their pants.”

x

Just Do It?

Thanks to a late-night car wreck and subsequent revelations of marital infidelity, Tiger Woods brand manager Tiger Woods manages to irreparably tarnish the Tiger Woods brand. He is dropped as a pitchman by Accenture and AT&T, and a study by two economics professors at the University of California–Davis estimates that shareholders of companies that sponsor the golfer will lose as much as $12 billion as the result of his confessed “transgressions.”

x

Well, hope you learned a thing or two. Come back next Friday for the scary continuation of what NOT to do in marketing.

++++++

Print Friendly
February 3rd, 2010

How Super is the Super Bowl for Advertisers?

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

Not all programs are right for all brands, even if it happens to be the Super Bowl. The 8th annual Super Bowl Engagement Survey, conducted by Brand Keys, Inc. (www.BrandKeys.com), a New York- based brand and customer loyalty research consultancy, predicts the monetary return advertisers will get on their advertising investments in the Super Bowl.

“More and more, clients want to know more than ‘was their ad seen,’ and with 30-second spots selling for $2.5 million – $2.8 million, this is a whole new ballgame. Brands like Pepsi, which has advertised on the Super Bowl forever, have decided there are more effective media venues,” noted Passikoff, founder and president of Brand Keys.

Does the ad buy actually lift the brand?

A survey was conducted among a national sample of 1,350 men and women, 18 – 65 years of age. It measured respondents’ reactions to brands in that medium’s context, and is a reliable predictor of future brand purchase. “Think of it as identifying how the media reinforces, or in some cases degrades brand values,” said Passikoff, founder and president of Brand Keys.

Which advertisers will be most likely to get the highest return on their Super Bowl ad investments?

What you want to see is a minimum of seven points added to your brand to ensure you’re getting a real return on a very expensive investment,”  said Passikoff.

Advertiser

“Super Bowl” R.O.I
Viacom’s Paramount Pictures (Iron Man 2) 11
Diamond Foods (Pop-Secret) 10
Hyundai 10
Denny’s 9
Doritos 9
NFL 9
Anhauser-Busch  (Budweiser) 8
Electronic Arts 7
Monster 7
Motorola 7
Unilever’s Dove Men&Care 7
Universal Pictures (The Wolfman) 7
Audi 6
CareerBuilder 6
Walt Disney (Toy Story 3) 6
Bridgestone Firestone (Halftime Sponsor) 5
Mars 5
Viacom’s Paramount Pictures (Last Airbender) 4
Go Daddy.com 3
Coke 2
E*Trade 2
Boost Mobile -0-
Telaflora -0-
US Census Bureau -0-
Viacom’s Paramount Pictures (Shutter Island) -0-
Walt Disney (Alice In Wonderland) -0-
Dockers -2
TRUTV -2
Cars.com -3
HomeAway -3
Dr. Pepper Cherry -4
Kia -5

Engagement assessments are separate from how many eyeballs were watching and are a reality check that lets advertisers know how super their media buys actually are, and it can be done before signing a check. “It has nothing to do with ‘being watched’ or of consumers ‘being aware,’ and has everything to do with being emotionally engaged with the brand,” noted Passikoff. “That’s vastly different from just being entertained. A laugh is not an acceptable return on an investment of this size.”

++++++

Visit www.BrandKeys.com for company background

++++++

Print Friendly
February 1st, 2010

Bud Light and Naked People

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

What does a company do after watching its sales fall for a year?

Anheuser-Busch shows naked people.

The new Bud Light Clothing Drive commercial is hilarious. Check out the ad:

x

x

It doesn’t fit in the new campaign reported by The New York Times, though. According to them, Anheuser-Busch intends to run nine commercials that will take up five minutes of air time on the Super Bowl, abandoning the “drinkability” promotion they ran last year. Of the nine spots, five are scheduled to be devoted to unveiling a new theme for Bud Light, “Here we go.”

I like the naked people spot, whether it fits in the new campaign or not. It’s funny, it’s not very tasteful, and it’s clever.

Makes me wonder whether we ought to have a clothing drive here at The 60 Second Marketer.

On second thought, scratch that.

++++++

Print Friendly
January 19th, 2010

Super Bowl XLIV Advertising Stats

Share on TwitterSubmit to StumbleUpon

Football fans are gearing up for the Super Bowl on February 7th, studying the teams, readying their “We’re #1” pointy fingers.  Players will be studying playbooks, announcers will be studying the stats. Marketers? They’re studying the ads.

Here are some statistics for this year’s advertising during the Super Bowl .

  • Last year there were 98.7 million total viewers of the Super Bowl.
  • This year’s Super Bowl ads are pricing between $2.5 million and $2.8 million.
  • This year is the first time since 1996 that the average price for an ad has dropped from the previous year.
  • Anheuser-Busch has appeared in every big game in the last two decades, followed by PepsiCo, then GM:
    • Anheuser-Busch  has spent $311.8 million on airtime
    • PepsiCo has spent $254.2 million on airtime
    • General Motors has spent $80.5 million on airtime
  • PepsiCo will not be advertising Pepsi, but will run ads for Doritos.
  • GM will not be running ads.
  • Foreign car makers will be spending more on ads this year.
  • A total of about 30 companies will run ads during Super Bowl XLIV.
  • The 2009 telecast on NBC included a record 45 minutes and five seconds of ads.
  • Typically, about 20% of the commercial time is given to plugs by the network for its own shows.
  • Since 1990, more than 1,400 spots have run during the Super Bowl.
  • The Super Bowl over the last twenty years has generated $2.17 billion in network sales.

For more from the full articles, click to go to Adweek and NYDailyNews.com.

Print Friendly

The 60 Second Marketer is a free online magazine brought to you by BKV Interactive and Direct Response. We try to provide quick updates on the newest tools, tips and techniques in marketing. We also try to accomplish that with a dose of humor or levity. As it turns out, we're pretty good at providing tools, tips and techniques, but we're not actually all that funny. Which would explain why people don't call us "funny" as much as they call us "laughable." Bummer. Our offices, for those of you who are interested, are located in Atlanta (404-233-0332) and Kansas City (913-648-8333). We also have offices on Bora Bora, but they don't have the phones installed yet.

© 60 Second Marketer, a division of BKV, Inc.