Peter Drucker said:

“Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two–and only two–basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business.”

Yet, time after time we see companies trot out responses to competition that aren’t much different than the competition. Witness the box like car pioneered by the Scion Xb, then the Honda Element, and now the Nissan Cube. Honda misjudged the primary market so badly for the Element- thinking young hipsters would be the primary market- and it ended up being a car for the practical geriatric set (don’t worry, Chrysler had the same experience with the PT Cruiser).

And then there is a crazy inventor named James Dyson. The man who made 5,127 prototypes before coming up with the vacuum that doesn’t lose suction as it does its job. Not only did the vacuum work better- it also looked better- bright yellow, in a land of beige and brown. It also proudly displayed your dirt- something other vacuums were skittish about.

He was able to charge a premium for his product, not because of better marketing, but because he had built a better product. How many times would I rather get a better product than a better advertising pitch: it’s a no brainer, every time.

Dyson Air Blade hand dryer

But the key to the Dyson brand is that they’ve continued to offer products that don’t look or act like other products. Just adding a ball to the vacuum wasn’t enough, next came the hand dryer- the “Air Blade” the scraped the water off your hands with one simple swipe through a wall of super fast air. It cut the time to dry hands by a third compared to other air dryers.

Now, Dyson introduces a fan- like no other. And, while the fan looks different, works different, it also solves a major safety issue (which I only found out once I tweeted about it- and a friend instantly retweeted- kid safe, no fan blades).

Dyson Air Multiplier fan

Sure it costs about 10 times more than the fan you can get at the local superstore, but, that’s what real innovation does- it gives a business a distinct competitive advantage. Here is the description from Dyson:

The Dyson Air Multiplier™ fan works very differently to conventional fans. It uses Air Multiplier™ technology to draw in air and amplify it 15 times, producing an uninterrupted stream of smooth air. With no blades or grill, it’s safe, easy to clean and doesn’t cause unpleasant buffeting.

via Dyson Air Multiplier™ fan | Dyson.com.

So, next time the client says “make the logo bigger” the correct response is “make the product better.”

Dyson understands what Peter Drucker preached. Innovation is better marketing.

 Print This Post |
Posted in: Brand relevancy, Differentiating your brand

Sure, Burger King has seen 20 consecutive quarters of same-store-sales-growth since it finally hired an ad agency that “gets it” (Crispin Porter + Bogusky) and then let them do their thing.

Of course for that to happen, you also need a Chief Marketing Officer who “gets it” and it seems Russ Klein has some pretty good insight on what to green light:

Mr. Klein: “Whopper Freakout” was a great example of tension and the way deprivation affects the way someone who is a loyal Whopper fan. We try to make all of our briefs hinge on some sort of social or anthropological insight that’s charged up with tension. It’s not like we’re trying to set our hair on fire to get tension.

via Burger King’s Russ Klein Promises More Premium Products – Advertising Age – CMO Strategy.

The line that we put in bold italics should be on a big sign above any marketers desk. It’s much easier to get an emotional response to something that’s already got emotions attached.

No one cares about your nifty new twist on your features, advantages or benefits- no, they want to know what’s in it for them- in a way that makes them lust for your product and trust your company.
Interestingly enough, the article on the other side of the spread was “Why emotional messages beat rational ones.” This quote sums it up nicely:

What the data show us is that emotional campaigns are almost twice as likely to generate large profit gains than rational ones, with campaigns that use facts as well as emotions in equal measure fall somewhere between the two.

It turns out that emotional campaigns in general generate a wider range of desirable business effects, each of which plays its part in improving profitability. But they excel in one noteworthy area: reducing price sensitivity, and hence strengthening the ability of brands to secure a premium in the marketplace (or, in the current economic climate, to hold firm on pricing).

To create messages with meaning, start looking at what decisions a buyer has to make to choose your product, and think of how it fits into the rest of their life- then find what makes them uncomfortable and make it engaging or funny- be it the complexity of a car- broken down into the parts that go together like the Honda Cog ad they point to in the second article or the “Whopper Freakout” campaign. Either way- you’ll get more interest, which should translate into more sales.

 Print This Post |
Posted in: Brand relevancy, Crispin Porter + Bogusky, Differentiating your brand

While this is a story about a book, it’s really a story about the transformation in marketing.

There has to be a new authenticity, a new transparency and most of all, companies need to listen to their customers first, and maybe, only respond through action.

It’s not enough to “advertise” or “market” or even “brand”- you have to bring your product to life, and give it a personality. Look at the slides for Personality Not Included: Why Companies Lose Their Authenticity And How Great Brands Get it Back, Foreword by Guy Kawasaki then do what I did and buy the book

 Print This Post |
Posted in: Brand relevancy, Differentiating your brand

There are a few ad agencies that really understand relationship marketing and building brands based on emotional ownership over rational decision making processes- Wieden & Kennedy is one of them.

Since 2004 they’ve worked with Starbucks, a brand that’s been known as a poor client. When your agency fires you as a client, it’s time to do some introspection. Especially if you are a marquee type client.

Getting fired means you are doing something wrong, and Starbucks’ senior VP-marketing seems to be the first candidate for the introspection couch:

In a statement, Starbucks’ senior VP-marketing, Terry Davenport, said Wieden’s decision was a response to Starbucks’ recent move to ask a number of agencies it works with, including Wieden, to “provide ideas to move the brand forward. … And, as a result, Wieden has decided to opt out of the process,” he said.

While Wieden is Starbucks’ primary agency, the retailer has worked with a number of other agencies in recent years on co-branded products. Interpublic Group of Cos.’ DraftFCB, New York, is the primary shop on its grocery coffee business. Starbucks has also worked with Omnicom Group’s Goodby Silverstein & Partners on the bottled Frappucino beverages it co-markets with Pepsi and Energy BBDO for the coffee liqueur brand it co-marketed with Beam Global Wine & Spirits.

But Wieden, which also handled media buying and planning for the coffee roaster, as well as much of its in-store graphics work, had been responsible for the first large-scale advertising in Starbucks’ history, including its first TV push last winter.

Wieden Parts Ways With Starbucks – Advertising Age – Agency News.

Starbucks is a brand that’s a love it or hate it brand. Their market penetration is incredible, as I’m constantly reminded when I pop up my “Starbucks finder” on my iPhone and almost always find one nearby when the coffee urge hits my companions.

And here is where the fundamental problem exists: The best marketing and advertising that Starbucks can do- isn’t marketing or advertising in the traditional sense of the words- because it’s just not necessary. The focus should be on refining a voice through the brand touchpoints and building very tight relationships with their customers through Customer Relationship Management tools. This is hard for both a VP of Marketing to understand and hard for an ad agency to caculate a compensation program for.

Modern marketing techniques don’t come with conventional media billings- and for a company like Starbucks, they shouldn’t. But, an open mind of how to build relationships with customers should be the first order of discussion with any agency who is bold enough to take on this “difficult client.”

 Print This Post |
Posted in: Brand relevancy, Great ad agencies, How to select an ad agency

Our part of Ohio recently got hammered by a windstorm that did billions of dollars in damage, knocking out power for over a week for many people. While the national news has been covering the financial crisis and the effects of Hurricane Ike that wiped out parts of Galveston, for the people in the Midwest their immediate issues were with putting things back to normal.

Some astute companies turned the disaster into opportunity, while others lost respect. These are just some observations about how to turn lemons into lemonade when a disaster strikes.

Home Depot wins points for taking out full page ads offering no-interest for six months on purchases over $299 on their credit card to help repair storm damage. This came across as a sincere attempt to share the burdens of the storm with their customers.

Cincinnati Bell on the other hand, took this as an opportunity to mock Time Warner and digital phone which requires both a connection and electricity to work, while their phone service only requires a connection. Yes, the people who had switched to digital phone service had learned this lesson, however, gloating over the failure came across as crass and opportunistic. Their offer of a free Trimline phone, a $14.95 value was an even greater insult. Phones access in a crisis can be a matter of life and death for some, but, touting a $15 “gift” when people are sitting in the dark with rotting food in powerless refrigerators is just classless. There is also the question of deliver-ability- even if you called to take them up on their phone service- how fast could they hook you up while lines are still down?

Call centers also are an opportunity to make a good impression. Comparing the automated systems of the power company, DP&L with the cable company, Time Warner was a lesson in how to do it wrong from DP&L to how to do it right from Time Warner. The DP&L system never once acknowledged their failure to deliver a critical service or apologize for the outage. No information was available via phone, or online about projected repair time. Time Warner on the other hand, acknowledged their failure, apologized for service outages, explained what was causing the outage and advised that they were working as fast as possible to restore service but the nature of the storm and their dependence on DP&L to provide power was causing delays.

Even with the power out, many people were using laptops, cell phones, wi-fi hot spots to connect online and seek information. Restaurants that were open and serving food, did well to notify their customers via their site and through e-mail blasts. Hotels that had power, had customers. The ability to quickly update a website with the latest status, inventory or answer frequently asked questions online separated the winners from the losers in the midst of the crisis.

A large part of a brands value is measured in “goodwill” and when the chips are down, it is often the best test of how well you understand your brand and it’s position in the consumers psyche. Remember, it’s ok to reach out, but do it with a kind heart, not a greedy hand. Also, always address, acknowledge, apologize for any decrease in service. Pointing fingers usually end up sticking you in your own eye.

 Print This Post |
Posted in: Brand relevancy, Marketing & the Web, Practical Marketing 101, Public Relations in the Web 2.0 world

If anyone thinks there is room for exaggeration in advertising anymore, think again.

Truth and authenticity are the true currency of branding in a web 2.0 world.

Back in 1999 some guys got together and wrote a little thing called the “Cluetrain Manifesto” which built a good foundation for future marketers. My favorite one of their theses is number 12:

the cluetrain manifesto
There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.

And thanks to web 2.0 and search engines, there is no escaping the scrutiny of not just the press, but hundreds or thousands of empowered web citizens.

If you need an example, look at the recently announced Mac clone being offered by a no-name company called Psytar and what happens when you try to pose as legit without building a credible reputation first:

So exactly who or what is Psystar? We dig a little.. | Technology | Guardian Unlimited
But we thought we’d look further, because if the company’s going to make these big claims about what it can do, why, that’s interesting; but what sort of company is behind it?

The Psystar site talks a lot. OK….

The post opens the door, the comments nail it to the jam. Everything from real estate records to previous sites to business licenses- uncovered by netizens. If you thought political wonks were like rabid attack dogs going after raw meat, look at what the Macintosh Zealots do to a potential competitor for their beloved Apple.

The lesson to be learned is before making a bold move into a market, one must prove ones chops with a proper introduction to the big league. Introductions are more important than ever, with a gradual build to your “big idea.”

Had Psystar prepared the field by seeding key advocates and trusted sources within the Macintosh community before unveiling their game changing clone, they may have had a chance at being taken seriously. Now, they’ll be lucky to get any orders at all- and no chance at a second chance should something go wrong with any of the first units (if they ship).

Better mousetraps can’t be sprung without proper preparation, and poser brands don’t stand a chance at hiding behind any value proposition, until tested and proven.

Time will quickly tell if Psystar is a poser, but, until then, they’ve already dug themselves a pretty deep hole.

 Print This Post |
Posted in: Brand relevancy, Differentiating your brand, Marketing & the Web, Public Relations in the Web 2.0 world

You know it costs big money to have three global superstars in an ad. Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Thierry Henry all appear in this Gillette Phenom spot- and somehow, I’m wondering: is this the best way to sell a razor?

“The word is mine” from getting up in the morning and shaving with the most comfortable razor in the world? I’m sorry, but no one has ever come up to me and said “nice shave”- it’s not quite like pulling up in a Lamborghini.

Superstars, special effects, big budget to run it, yet no real reason that resonates with me, Joe Shaver, who looks at shaving as something I have to do for a few minutes daily. Why should I spend more on a “Phenom” razor? To support the big budget ad campaign? At some point, the reality sets in- no razor is going to let me play golf like Tiger, hit a tennis ball like Federer or play soccer like Thierry Henry. There is a total disconnect between superstars and shower time.

If you are reviewing advertising campaigns for your company and want a simple test of agency competence- ask if another product could be placed in your ad- and still work? If not, time to go back to the drawing board.

This ad could be for any razor- or soap- or even breakfast cereal and not miss a beat.

I bet Gillette could get a better ad without the three superstars, special effects, or glitzy graphics- by just doing a simple head to head comparison ad- if in fact their razor is really all that and a bag of chips.

 Print This Post |
Posted in: Brand relevancy, Differentiating your brand, How to select an ad agency, Procter & Gamble Advertising, The craft of advertising

Google doesn’t spend a lot on advertising, that’s what their competition does. Guess what? It doesn’t matter how much you spend if you are Yahoo, Microsoft or Ask.com, Google will continue to win.

But, kudos to Crispin Porter + Bogusky, they were able to bump Ask.com from a nobody to a better known nobody with their campaign (“Experience Instant Getification” and “The Algorithm”) more than any of the other also rans, up a whole one-tenth of a percentage point.

Guess Who Gained Search Share – Advertising Age – Digital
…scrappy little Ask was dropping millions on a high-profile, Crispin-designed ad campaign and telling everyone it had the best algorithm. So guess which company gained the most share in search this year. Yes, it was Google.

According to ComScore, Google’s share in January was 52.6%, and by October, the most recent month with available data, that number had climbed to 58.5%. Others peg its share as even bigger: Hitwise has it at 65.1% in November, up from 64.1% in January.

In the meantime, Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL all lost share, and Ask was the only gainer, up one-tenth of a percentage point. (It’s not very likely, but things still could turn around in November and December, as those returns aren’t in yet.)

“Google has really become the verb of search,” said James Lamberti, senior VP at ComScore. “It’s a combination of viral and branding power.”

Pepsi vs. Coke
“If you did the equivalent of the Pepsi Challenge and had a blind taste test of Google, Yahoo and Microsoft results, I don’t think people would find Yahoo’s results are necessarily bad,” said Ellen Siminoff, CEO of Efficient Frontier, a search-marketing-technology company. “But it comes down to branding. Google has done a heck of a job continuing to build its brand.”

Absolute search numbers tell a different story. According to ComScore, only one search engine, AOL, declined in terms of total queries. Yahoo gained 5%, Google gained 37%, Microsoft sites gained 15% and Ask gained 24%.

So should marketers be worried? As the search category — estimated at $8 billion in 2007 by Forrester — becomes an increasingly important part of a marketing plan, the seeming consumer consolidation with one player arguably gives Google more control over the search experience.

“Marketers sure would like for someone to give Google a run for its money,” Ms. Siminoff said. “There’s lots of emotional support behind Microsoft and Yahoo.” But, she said, “marketers aren’t spending on Google because Google’s a nice guy but because Google works for them.”

It’s worth noting that the share gains didn’t manifest themselves only in consumer search-engine use. They carried over into ad spending. Efficient Frontier, which has $400 million under its management, said more than 73% of that went to Google in October of this year, up from 62% two years ago.

Looking for innovation
Google is not a monopoly — yet — but luckily for paid-search marketers, even if it were, price inflation is less likely thanks to Google’s market-driven, auction-based pricing.

“Marketers just want to see the innovation,” Mr. Lamberti said. “That’s why there’s buzz around Ask.”…

So even though Google spends less, their brand delivers more. Sounds like serious marketing judo doesn’t it. Here is the lesson to learn, and it applies to all those who want to effectively use Google to drive business to their site: in a land of similar products the only differentiation that you can control as marketer is the user experience – and that is what you should focus your marketing efforts on.

It’s why Apple is the only personal computing company that stands apart from the crowd; why no other online retailer has the customer base of Amazon and why Google is the winner in search. The focus is on the customer experience as much as the actual product. Google could have delivered banner ads- but at the expense of slowing the delivery of results. Amazon could have advertised, but instead chose to spend that money on free shipping. No matter what Crispin Porter + Bogusky does for ask.com, the problem is that search now depends on critical mass and massive investment on technology to refine results- and no one can catch up with Google.

Now, more than ever, there is a science to advertising: deliver answers instead of ads, experiences instead of excess,  and results instead of rhetoric. Everything can be tracked and measured either by clicks or by sales, so when looking at an ad agency to deliver customers via search, think twice about the creativity and look for the science behind the campaign. You’ve already found one agency that understands how to make this work or you wouldn’t be reading this.

We dare you to find another.

 Print This Post |
Posted in: 1 to 1 marketing, Advertising case studies for The Next Wave, Apple Advertising, Brand relevancy, Crispin Porter + Bogusky, Differentiating your brand, Future of advertising, Great ad agencies, How to select an ad agency, Marketing & the Web, Practical Marketing 101, Public Relations in the Web 2.0 world, Search and Business, Secrets of great advertising, Web strategy

Today I was at the farmers market and their were clowns/mimes there from Cirque Du Soleil doing advance work for the Saltimbanco show next week. Call it “street teams” or guerrilla marketing, it was refreshing to see a business go out and actively seek customers in their environment. Doesn’t happen much anymore. We’ve gotten lazy- trying to invite our message in by interrupting their entertainment with commercials, their landscape with billboards and their websites with ads.

But while I was shopping, I was listening to American Public Radio’s Marketplace on my iPhone, and heard a story of how Procter & Gamble invented the market for Crisco- and it reminded me why they are the marketing powerhouse- not just by dollars spent, but by long history of working hard to connect with consumers. Our current industry fixation with “Branded Content” is nothing more than a new name for the soap opera- a P&G invention.

Here is an excerpt of the podcast- and a link to the whole she-bang. Highly recommended short podcast:

Marketplace: Crisco: A marketing revolution
…Crisco maker Procter & Gamble was a pioneer in the emerging science of creating demand. Historian Susan Strasser says the Crisco experiment started in 1911, when the company was selling Ivory soap. Cottonseed oil was a key ingredient.

Susan Strasser: And they decided to develop a product that would use a lot more cottonseed oil, so that they could control that market, really.

P&G’s scientists came up with this white, fluffy substance. It sort of resembled lard, and yet had no taste and no smell. It wasn’t food, exactly, but the company would ask consumers to bake and fry with it. Thus began an American mass-marketing milestone.

Strasser: Originally, they tried to call it Crispo, but then they discovered that a cracker factory already had the trademark.

P&G hawked its new product as a “scientific discovery.” The company sent free samples to every grocer in America. They held Crisco teas — an early version of the focus group. P&G even niche-marketed the product as kosher to the Jewish community….

In the podcast they talked about how P&G educated the consumer in how to use their products- something that the web is incredibly useful for. Yet, how many company websites feature big how-to communities built around their product?

For instance, BMW motorcycles has an xplor area that’s focused on tips and tricks for sport touring – the segment of the market that they have a preferred position. How to pack your bike best, tips on GPS usage, and segments on where to go. However, it’s a members only site for BMW owners- you have to provide a vin number- and not open to the general public. Why not open the doors- so that potential customers can get a feel for what “joining the family” by buying BMW means?

Back to the Crisco story:

Marketing scholar David Stewart says P&G’s genius was not only giving people a convincing reason to try the product but training them to use it as well, with free cookbooks and recipes.

David Stewart: First of all, they focused on the health benefits — recognizing that this was a time we didn’t know about transfat and so forth. And then they taught people how to use it, they taught people how to cook. They gave them ideas. And between giving them a real benefit and information about how to use the product, they were able to get people to adopt it.

Crisco’s crowning achievement was creating demand for something nobody knew they wanted.

In today’s open information economy- putting your “recipes” behind a log-in is as silly as trying to charge for it. Would Google have been as successful if they had asked users to pay per search? Sounds absolutely stupid, doesn’t it? How about having to log in to use Google? Again, very silly.

To make friends with consumers today you have to be informative, useful, practical- and be able to demonstrate value. So, before you do an ad that is either hard sell- or entertaining- think first about what it does to enhance the customers life. The same way P&G introduced Crisco as the consumers friend: “Honestly, with a little Crisco in your frying pan, you can have supper on the table in a jiffy.”

That was marketing.

 Print This Post |
Posted in: Advertising, BMW Advertising, Brand relevancy, Branded Content as advertising, Creativity, Differentiating your brand, Everything you want to know about advertising, Guerrilla campaigns, Low budget advertising, Marketing & the Web, Practical Marketing 101, Procter & Gamble Advertising, Public Relations in the Web 2.0 world, Secrets of great advertising, Web strategy

We teach a seminar called Websitetology to try to educate clients on web 2.0. We also teach a fair number of other ad agencies (even the local competition) because, well, that’s the kind of people we are.

One of the things we stress is that if you aren’t on the first page of Google you don’t exist, and that content drives traffic. Build valuable content and they will come.

Unfortunately, it’s falling on mostly dead ears. Even huge advertisers like Apple, Burger King and BMW don’t seem to understand how to port their marketing to the web properly. It’s not about how your site looks, especially your “home page”- it’s about the content on every page: every page is home for someone- about something.

So- it was good to see new media bigwigs Avenue A/Razorfish do a study to confirm what we already knew- excerpts from the Ad Age article follow- with a short primer on what we know works on the web:

Do Home Pages Have a Place in Web 2.0’s Future? – Advertising Age – Digital
Avenue A/Razorfish: Brands’ Main Sites Decline in Importance as Consumers’ Reliance on Search Grows
By Abbey Klaassen Published: October 01, 2007

Garrick Schmitt was sitting in a meeting, listening to a client talk about the need to make its website “Web 2.0-compliant,” complete with tag clouds and profile pages. “Tag clouds?” thought Mr. Schmitt, VP-user experience at Avenue A/Razorfish. “Really?”…

The request seemed curious to him — do that many people really use tag clouds that a brand marketer’s website needed to incorporate them? Surprisingly, he couldn’t find the answer to that question. So he decided to find out. (more…)

 Print This Post |
Posted in: 1 to 1 marketing, Ad Agenices In Dayton OH, Advertising, Advertising case studies for The Next Wave, Apple Advertising, BMW Advertising, Brand relevancy, Change the world, Differentiating your brand, Everything you want to know about advertising, Future of advertising, Great ad agencies, How to select an ad agency, Marketing & the Web, Practical Marketing 101, Public Relations in the Web 2.0 world, Search and Business, The Next Wave in Business, Web strategy