Since Microsoft's release of Bing last month, there has been much discussion from marketing, business, and technology news sources (or opinion sources) about how Bing performs. In particular, how Bing performs in comparison to #1 search engine Google.
At the risk of merely adding to the hullabaloo, I would like to recognize another newly debuted - and not yet as well-known - search engine, Spezify.
Spezify.com, released on June 15, takes a different approach to presenting information. Rather than showing search results as a list of text links, Spezify displays a non-linear collection of images, video, blogs, news feeds, tweets, and articles from all over the Web. The effect is a smorgasbord of content, arranged rather like a bulletin board. Spezify also generates a list of related search terms for probing further.
According to Spezify founders Felix af Ekenstam and Per Persson (both of Sweden), Spezify is about "Inspired Search." It certainly seems that Spezify is great for exploration - for learning and discovering information in various media from a plethora of sources.
Do I think that Spezify take over the likes of Google, Yahoo, Ask, Dogpile, and Bing? No; I think Spezify is suited for a different purpose. Spezify is perfect for gathering information and discovering interesting content from a variety of sources. However, since Spezify assigns no order of importance, relevance, or credibility to its search results (a task that arguably is responsible for Google's dominance among search engines), Spezify is not the place to search for, say, the website of your favorite musician, or directions for your road trip, or places to purchase a new laptop.
Perhaps this differentiation of purpose is the exact feature that will enable Spezify to thrive alongside, rather than compete with, Google.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Lame Excuses for Being Boring - #3
Excuse #3:
"We're just a little local shop. We/Our clients can't afford any expensive 'new media' or outdoor stunts."
Actually, it's less expensive - and more effective - to do something outstanding and creative that gets people interested in your brand, than it is to keep cranking out boring, unremembered print ads, billboards, and tv spots.
When people see something new and different and crazy and remarkable, they pay attention. They tell their friends. With the near-ubiquity of cell phones, your story can be spread around the globe - literally - within minutes. For free. If it's worth talking about.
CiCi's Pizza recently launched their Penny Picker Upper campaign, in which they dropped 1 million pennies ($10,000) outside of 650 of their stores. Those who picked up a penny might find a ticket for a free drink or kids meal or buffet. They accompanied this campaign with a website, beapennypickerupper.com in which visitors can create a virtual bobblehead of themselves on a penny. Think this got attention?
Other companies have dropped wallets containing business cards and coupons around city streets. Some have anchored vehicles to the sides of skyscrapers, or "accidently" blown up the "wrong" restaurant. Think they got attention?
How much did ideas like this cost, in comparison to the exorbitant costs of television commercials, or newspaper and magazine ads, or billboards? And which produces more impressions, more responses, and more brand awareness?
Yes, you can create really amazing traditional ads that capture attention (think Super Bowl commercials). But why not save those hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to simply get the ad running, and use that same creativity to do something that gets you free marketing from viewers and the press?
(For more words of wisdom on how to get people talking, visit www.ideavirus.com to download and read the free e-book, Unleashing the Idea Virus by Seth Godin.)
"We're just a little local shop. We/Our clients can't afford any expensive 'new media' or outdoor stunts."
Actually, it's less expensive - and more effective - to do something outstanding and creative that gets people interested in your brand, than it is to keep cranking out boring, unremembered print ads, billboards, and tv spots.
When people see something new and different and crazy and remarkable, they pay attention. They tell their friends. With the near-ubiquity of cell phones, your story can be spread around the globe - literally - within minutes. For free. If it's worth talking about.
CiCi's Pizza recently launched their Penny Picker Upper campaign, in which they dropped 1 million pennies ($10,000) outside of 650 of their stores. Those who picked up a penny might find a ticket for a free drink or kids meal or buffet. They accompanied this campaign with a website, beapennypickerupper.com in which visitors can create a virtual bobblehead of themselves on a penny. Think this got attention?
Other companies have dropped wallets containing business cards and coupons around city streets. Some have anchored vehicles to the sides of skyscrapers, or "accidently" blown up the "wrong" restaurant. Think they got attention?
How much did ideas like this cost, in comparison to the exorbitant costs of television commercials, or newspaper and magazine ads, or billboards? And which produces more impressions, more responses, and more brand awareness?
Yes, you can create really amazing traditional ads that capture attention (think Super Bowl commercials). But why not save those hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to simply get the ad running, and use that same creativity to do something that gets you free marketing from viewers and the press?
(For more words of wisdom on how to get people talking, visit www.ideavirus.com to download and read the free e-book, Unleashing the Idea Virus by Seth Godin.)
Friday, June 26, 2009
Lame Excuses for Being Boring - #2
Excuse #2:
"We've always been this way. This is who we are."
Being creative in your work does not mean departing from your identity as a company or as a brand. Being creative does not mean that you must become Apple, or 3M, or Southwest Airlines, or Starbucks, or Procter & Gamble. In fact, imitating other "innovative" companies is not "innovative" at all.
Being creative means proactively looking for ways that your brand can be even better at who your brand is supposed to be. Becoming even more aligned with your corporate identity, by creating greater value for your customers within that context. Be creative within the boundaries of who your brand is.
So who is your brand? What is your brand promise? Is your brand about luxury and status? Then find ways to pamper your guests in even better, more serving, more extravagant ways than before. Is your brand about family fun? Then spur on your imagination - and create amazingly fun products and environments that encourage kids (and their parents) to use theirs, too. Is your brand about bare-bones, no-frills, low-cost? Then be innovative about how you can cut non-necessities to help your customers save money. Is your brand about customer service? Then bend over backwards for your customers. Is your brand about drawing people together? Then probe for ways in which your products and locations invite people to share life.
Let your brand be itself. But make it the absolute best self it can be.
"We've always been this way. This is who we are."
Being creative in your work does not mean departing from your identity as a company or as a brand. Being creative does not mean that you must become Apple, or 3M, or Southwest Airlines, or Starbucks, or Procter & Gamble. In fact, imitating other "innovative" companies is not "innovative" at all.
Being creative means proactively looking for ways that your brand can be even better at who your brand is supposed to be. Becoming even more aligned with your corporate identity, by creating greater value for your customers within that context. Be creative within the boundaries of who your brand is.
So who is your brand? What is your brand promise? Is your brand about luxury and status? Then find ways to pamper your guests in even better, more serving, more extravagant ways than before. Is your brand about family fun? Then spur on your imagination - and create amazingly fun products and environments that encourage kids (and their parents) to use theirs, too. Is your brand about bare-bones, no-frills, low-cost? Then be innovative about how you can cut non-necessities to help your customers save money. Is your brand about customer service? Then bend over backwards for your customers. Is your brand about drawing people together? Then probe for ways in which your products and locations invite people to share life.
Let your brand be itself. But make it the absolute best self it can be.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Lame Excuses for Being Boring - #1
I'm starting to collect a series of lame excuses for why a company doesn't have creative products, services, marketing, or marketing communications.
Here's the first:
"We can't afford to hire the top creative minds."
Then cultivate creativity among the team you already have. Research shows that for persons with enough intelligence to have attended college (an IQ of about 115 or higher), success is less a product of innate talent than of preparation, practice, and opportunity. (Read Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers for more information on this.)
Your marketing department, or product design team, or logistics personnel, or supply chain managers, have the capacity to think of creative ways to better serve your customers. To communicate better, to design better products, to reach them better, to provide better value (greater quality or less expense). You need to inspire them.
How do you inspire their creativity? Give them an afternoon at the movies - watching YouTube videos of excellent tv commercials and human zaniness. Send them to a park, or museum, or art gallery for the morning. Take them to lunch at a themed restaurant. Hold your next brainstorming session in a lime green room full of bean bag chairs, playdough, and whiteboards. Confiscate all pens - write with crayons instead. Have everyone name the most creative thing they've seen this week, then free associate to think of creative things that could work for your brand. Make your team act out a story using puppets (a story they make up as they go along, not one they know already).
Inspire creativity. Expect creativity.
Here's the first:
"We can't afford to hire the top creative minds."
Then cultivate creativity among the team you already have. Research shows that for persons with enough intelligence to have attended college (an IQ of about 115 or higher), success is less a product of innate talent than of preparation, practice, and opportunity. (Read Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers for more information on this.)
Your marketing department, or product design team, or logistics personnel, or supply chain managers, have the capacity to think of creative ways to better serve your customers. To communicate better, to design better products, to reach them better, to provide better value (greater quality or less expense). You need to inspire them.
How do you inspire their creativity? Give them an afternoon at the movies - watching YouTube videos of excellent tv commercials and human zaniness. Send them to a park, or museum, or art gallery for the morning. Take them to lunch at a themed restaurant. Hold your next brainstorming session in a lime green room full of bean bag chairs, playdough, and whiteboards. Confiscate all pens - write with crayons instead. Have everyone name the most creative thing they've seen this week, then free associate to think of creative things that could work for your brand. Make your team act out a story using puppets (a story they make up as they go along, not one they know already).
Inspire creativity. Expect creativity.
A Burst of Creativity
Customers are tired of boring. They are tired of mediocre, status quo products, services, and marketing. Successful brands are those that are remarkable, creative, and exceptionally good at something. Because people are attracted to great work. And consumers want to identify themselves with something outstanding.
So, is your brand exceptionally good at something? Does your design team (or supply chain management, or finance department, or HR) exhibit superb innovation? Are your marketing communications creative, reaching customers in a fun way?
Or does it seem that your creativity has dried up?
Perhaps your company is like many - it's a good company. But not exceptionally good. Not great at anything. Not noted for creativity or innovation or the pursuit of excellence.
Do you need a boost to get those creative juices flowing again?
While it may be difficult to teach someone how to be creative, it seems to me that one of the best ways to stir up creativity is to immerse oneself in the creativity of others. Surround yourself with creative people and creative work.
Visit websites that showcase creative advertising, design, and marketing - try creativity-online.com, www.luerzersarchive.us, www.oneclub.org, and adsoftheworld.com for starters. Check out what innovative companies are doing - and not just in your own industry. Look at artwork - on Flickr, at artists' studios, in art museums. Search YouTube for old Super Bowl ads, funny videos, and top-rated tv commercials. Ask your friends to tell you the funniest thing they've seen, heard, or experienced recently. Read the comics. Tour a cathedral or historic mansion. Sit at a park and watch children playing. Lie on the grass and look at cloud shapes.
Surround yourself with creativity and excellence. Be inspired. Pursue greatness.
So, is your brand exceptionally good at something? Does your design team (or supply chain management, or finance department, or HR) exhibit superb innovation? Are your marketing communications creative, reaching customers in a fun way?
Or does it seem that your creativity has dried up?
Perhaps your company is like many - it's a good company. But not exceptionally good. Not great at anything. Not noted for creativity or innovation or the pursuit of excellence.
Do you need a boost to get those creative juices flowing again?
While it may be difficult to teach someone how to be creative, it seems to me that one of the best ways to stir up creativity is to immerse oneself in the creativity of others. Surround yourself with creative people and creative work.
Visit websites that showcase creative advertising, design, and marketing - try creativity-online.com, www.luerzersarchive.us, www.oneclub.org, and adsoftheworld.com for starters. Check out what innovative companies are doing - and not just in your own industry. Look at artwork - on Flickr, at artists' studios, in art museums. Search YouTube for old Super Bowl ads, funny videos, and top-rated tv commercials. Ask your friends to tell you the funniest thing they've seen, heard, or experienced recently. Read the comics. Tour a cathedral or historic mansion. Sit at a park and watch children playing. Lie on the grass and look at cloud shapes.
Surround yourself with creativity and excellence. Be inspired. Pursue greatness.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Radical honesty is in your best interest
Do you remember the Miracle on 34th Street customer service phenomenon?
In the 1947 movie, Santa Claus comes to work for Macy's department store, and promptly starts sending Macy's customers to other stores when Macy's prices are higher than those of competitors.
The result? Rather than hurting Macy's sales, this practice draws more and more customers to shop at Macy's, effectively boosting sales and causing competitors to follow suit in sending customers to other stores for cheaper prices.
Why? Why did sending customers to competitors cause Macy's to gain more customers and more sales?
Because customers like honesty. We like people we can trust. When a person (or company) openly admits his weaknesses (like Macy's charging higher prices than a competitor), his listeners believe that he is acting out of their best interests, not his own. The company who practices this becomes known as (to quote Mr. Macy) "the helpful store, the friendly store, the store with a heart." And people like to do business with that kind of company.
Noah J. Goldstein, Steve J. Martin, and Robert Cialdini cite real-life examples of this principle in their book Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive. They quote the U.S. debut of the original Volkswagen Beetle ("Ugly is only skin deep"); Avis rental cars ("Avis. We're #2, but we try harder. When you're not #1, you have to."); and Listerine mouth wash ("Listerine: the taste you hate three times a day." Progressive car insurance proudly advertises its comparisons with competitors - even when competitors' insurance rates are cheaper than Progressives'. Since Progressive began comparing rates, it has continued to grow an average of 17% per year.
What other industries could use this technique to improve customer service? Automakers? Electronics? Universities?
Are you using this principle to better serve your customers? Do your customers know they can trust you?
In the 1947 movie, Santa Claus comes to work for Macy's department store, and promptly starts sending Macy's customers to other stores when Macy's prices are higher than those of competitors.
The result? Rather than hurting Macy's sales, this practice draws more and more customers to shop at Macy's, effectively boosting sales and causing competitors to follow suit in sending customers to other stores for cheaper prices.
Why? Why did sending customers to competitors cause Macy's to gain more customers and more sales?
Because customers like honesty. We like people we can trust. When a person (or company) openly admits his weaknesses (like Macy's charging higher prices than a competitor), his listeners believe that he is acting out of their best interests, not his own. The company who practices this becomes known as (to quote Mr. Macy) "the helpful store, the friendly store, the store with a heart." And people like to do business with that kind of company.
Noah J. Goldstein, Steve J. Martin, and Robert Cialdini cite real-life examples of this principle in their book Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive. They quote the U.S. debut of the original Volkswagen Beetle ("Ugly is only skin deep"); Avis rental cars ("Avis. We're #2, but we try harder. When you're not #1, you have to."); and Listerine mouth wash ("Listerine: the taste you hate three times a day." Progressive car insurance proudly advertises its comparisons with competitors - even when competitors' insurance rates are cheaper than Progressives'. Since Progressive began comparing rates, it has continued to grow an average of 17% per year.
What other industries could use this technique to improve customer service? Automakers? Electronics? Universities?
Are you using this principle to better serve your customers? Do your customers know they can trust you?
Monday, June 22, 2009
A Thank-You to Fathers
In remembrance of Fathers' Day yesterday, I spent some time thinking about how important fathers are and how much they mean to us. Obviously, without fathers, none of us would be here. But really and truly, fathers contribute so much to who we are and who we become.
I was blessed to have grown up with a great dad who loved my siblings and me, who loved my mom, who was invested in our lives, who spoke encouragement into our lives, who disciplined us, and who cultivated the best in us. I couldn't be with my dad yesterday, since we live 1,500 miles apart (although I did get to spend time with some other "dads" in my life). But in honor of my dad, in honor of the other men who have been "fathers" to me, and in honor of all of the fathers around the world, I would like to say this:
Thank you for loving your kids.
Thank you for loving their moms, even when things are tough.
Thank you for showing your kids that "family" means that you are committed, that you stick it through, that you work things out.
Thank you for envisioning the best for your kids, and expecting the best of your kids, and empowering them to achieve their best.
Thank you for modeling honesty, and integrity, and hard work, and commitment.
Thank you for showing your kids that family matters more than a job does.
Thank you for showing your kids what it means to do hard things.
Thank you for saying "no" sometimes.
Thank you for talking with your kids, and for explaining why you say "no".
Thank you for being patient and long-suffering and always loving, even when your kids don't seem to like you or care about you or think anything of you.
Thank you for forgiving your kids, and for showing them grace when they come back around.
Thank you for teaching your kids how to be self-disciplined.
Thank you for teaching your kids the consequences of disobedience, and sin, and poor choices.
Thank you for teaching your kids to respect God, and country, and authority.
Thank you for teaching your kids the dignity of human life.
Thank you for showing your kids how to be giving and generous to all.
Thank you for giving your kids the freedom to fail, and to come to you for encouragement, and to pick themselves up, and to try again.
Thank you for showing your kids that your love for them is not contingent on what they do, or how well they perform, or whether they are successful at everything, or whether they always make good choices, but that you love them just because, forever.
Thank you for teaching your kids to be good stewards of the resources they have been given.
Thank you for teaching your kids to enjoy the simple things in life.
Thank you for teaching your kids to give thanks in all things, and to appreciate people.
Thank you for empowering your kids to soar.
Thank you for being a dad.
I was blessed to have grown up with a great dad who loved my siblings and me, who loved my mom, who was invested in our lives, who spoke encouragement into our lives, who disciplined us, and who cultivated the best in us. I couldn't be with my dad yesterday, since we live 1,500 miles apart (although I did get to spend time with some other "dads" in my life). But in honor of my dad, in honor of the other men who have been "fathers" to me, and in honor of all of the fathers around the world, I would like to say this:
Thank you for loving your kids.
Thank you for loving their moms, even when things are tough.
Thank you for showing your kids that "family" means that you are committed, that you stick it through, that you work things out.
Thank you for envisioning the best for your kids, and expecting the best of your kids, and empowering them to achieve their best.
Thank you for modeling honesty, and integrity, and hard work, and commitment.
Thank you for showing your kids that family matters more than a job does.
Thank you for showing your kids what it means to do hard things.
Thank you for saying "no" sometimes.
Thank you for talking with your kids, and for explaining why you say "no".
Thank you for being patient and long-suffering and always loving, even when your kids don't seem to like you or care about you or think anything of you.
Thank you for forgiving your kids, and for showing them grace when they come back around.
Thank you for teaching your kids how to be self-disciplined.
Thank you for teaching your kids the consequences of disobedience, and sin, and poor choices.
Thank you for teaching your kids to respect God, and country, and authority.
Thank you for teaching your kids the dignity of human life.
Thank you for showing your kids how to be giving and generous to all.
Thank you for giving your kids the freedom to fail, and to come to you for encouragement, and to pick themselves up, and to try again.
Thank you for showing your kids that your love for them is not contingent on what they do, or how well they perform, or whether they are successful at everything, or whether they always make good choices, but that you love them just because, forever.
Thank you for teaching your kids to be good stewards of the resources they have been given.
Thank you for teaching your kids to enjoy the simple things in life.
Thank you for teaching your kids to give thanks in all things, and to appreciate people.
Thank you for empowering your kids to soar.
Thank you for being a dad.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Musing about Twitter
I've been on Twitter for a few months now, and am still trying to explore and understand all of its potential uses. Recently, people to whom I have no connection have started to follow me. This set me to thinking and wondering:
- I'm new to this phenomenon of having businesspeople I don't know start following me on Twitter.
- It's weird. Perhaps I should be happy and honored, because ostensibly it means that more people are reading what I have to say, that they like what I have to say, and that they might someday be interested in hiring me.
- But I wonder if they are just following me because they hope that I will follow them back.
- How did they find me, anyway?
- Is this what most companies are using Twitter for? Following others just to get them to follow back? Cialdini's old "reciprocity" principle?
- I wonder if there is solid data yet on how and why companies are using Twitter?
- Maybe it's just the sleazy, value-less ones who are doing this "serial following." Is it akin to spamming and pop-ups?
- A couple of the strangers who just started following me seem to subscribe to services like www.TweepMe.com ("Get 4,000 Twitter followers for $19.95"); www.GetMeFollowers.com (Register; follow/refer users; get points; get more followers); www.TopFollowed.com ("reciprocal following"), etc.
- Why? Reciprocal following makes sense, if it's organic. But why manufacture it? Why follow/be followed by people you don't care about? Do you really want quantity instead of quality?
- Are there people out there whose goal is to get thousands of followers on Twitter, simply for the sake of being able to say they have thousands of followers on Twitter?
- Why?
- Are they viewing Twitter as a new [business] toy? Whoever has the most followers wins?
- Is it based on the human desire to be heard?
- Is it because they're expecting those followers to turn into new customers?
- Don't they believe that if they truly have a great product or service, that they will gain loyal fans anyway? And those loyal fans will then want to follow them on Twitter? Not the other way around?
- There's another stranger following me on Twitter, who tweets 20 times a day, posting links to other peoples' online articles. I wonder why.
- Most of these people who seem to be "serial followers" (aka they try to follow as many people as they can, in order to get as many followers as they can), may have numbers of "following" and "followers" in the hundreds or thousands, but they have more they are "following" than they have "followers."
- It seems to me that a well-known, successful company who is known to be excellent and has lots of loyal customers, will have a lot more followers than people they are following. As in 100:1 or 1000:1. Or maybe they don't follow anybody at all, but all of their customers/fans follow them.
- That would be my measure of success for Twitter: is your Followers/Following ratio greater than 1?
- If you're following more than you are being followed, it tells me that you don't have much of value to say. And why are you following so many people anyway? Are there really that many people whose words are meaningful enough that they are worth your time to follow them? I haven't found quite so many sources of excellence whom I want to learn from and emulate.
- But perhaps I'm on Twitter for a different reason than these people are.
- As for the people I don't know who are following me on Twitter, it would please me more to see them follow my blog instead.
- If they follow my blog, it tells me that they like what I have to say.
- If they like what I have to say, maybe we can have a conversation. Maybe they'll want to do business with me in the future.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Ever since I subscribed to a few daily marketing e-journals a couple weeks ago, I have been hearing a lot about search engine marketing (SEM) and search engine optimization (SEO). I mentioned this fact to a friend who does SEM at TMP Directional Marketing, and she commented that SEM seems to be remaining "a very strong part of marketing budgets, even during this recession."
Perhaps SEM/SEO is viewed as a "safe" (non-risky) part of interactive marketing - it is formulaic, and helps companies reach customers who are already looking for their products - and so marketing managers rely on it when money is tight. Or perhaps SEM/SEO is so foundational to interactive marketing and e-commerce, that companies must invest in SEM/SEO if they are to have any online presence.
Whatever the reason for the prevalence of SEM/SEO, it seems (at least according to one MediaPost publication) that there is a gap between the demand for good SEM and its supply. A study by [x+1] revealed that while 65% of respondents planned to maintain or increase their SEM budgets this year, only 21% of respondents were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the results of their SEM.
MediaPost's Online Media Daily suggests that the poor satisfaction with the results of SEM/SEO stems from failing to improve the user's experience after they click on a link. As OMD put it:
"Paid search or SEO professionals might say: 'It's not my job, man' to determine what's next once a person clicks on a link or paid search ad and ends up on a client's Web site landing page. That kind of thinking could cost the industry revenue in the long term."
It's never good business to use the excuse, "It's not my job." If a person wants to be successful at what he does, he should look for ways to be remarkable and exceed his customers'/clients'/boss's expectations. If he finds a related task that is typically considered to be outside his arena, he should jump at the chance to provide an extra service that will increase his value in the eyes of those he serves.
Wise SEM/SEO professionals should take the hint from MediaPost and extend their focus to help create more integrated (and more successful) online marketing. Use their data on who clicks which links and why, and help the web design teams to develop more customer-centric landing pages that give viewers what they need. Web design teams, embrace this knowledge of users' search behavior in improving your websites. Let the data inform your design.
Keep integrating, marketers. Get past your job titles. Work together. Improve your services. Achieve good results. Help people. Win more (and happier) customers. Be successful.
Perhaps SEM/SEO is viewed as a "safe" (non-risky) part of interactive marketing - it is formulaic, and helps companies reach customers who are already looking for their products - and so marketing managers rely on it when money is tight. Or perhaps SEM/SEO is so foundational to interactive marketing and e-commerce, that companies must invest in SEM/SEO if they are to have any online presence.
Whatever the reason for the prevalence of SEM/SEO, it seems (at least according to one MediaPost publication) that there is a gap between the demand for good SEM and its supply. A study by [x+1] revealed that while 65% of respondents planned to maintain or increase their SEM budgets this year, only 21% of respondents were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the results of their SEM.
MediaPost's Online Media Daily suggests that the poor satisfaction with the results of SEM/SEO stems from failing to improve the user's experience after they click on a link. As OMD put it:
"Paid search or SEO professionals might say: 'It's not my job, man' to determine what's next once a person clicks on a link or paid search ad and ends up on a client's Web site landing page. That kind of thinking could cost the industry revenue in the long term."
It's never good business to use the excuse, "It's not my job." If a person wants to be successful at what he does, he should look for ways to be remarkable and exceed his customers'/clients'/boss's expectations. If he finds a related task that is typically considered to be outside his arena, he should jump at the chance to provide an extra service that will increase his value in the eyes of those he serves.
Wise SEM/SEO professionals should take the hint from MediaPost and extend their focus to help create more integrated (and more successful) online marketing. Use their data on who clicks which links and why, and help the web design teams to develop more customer-centric landing pages that give viewers what they need. Web design teams, embrace this knowledge of users' search behavior in improving your websites. Let the data inform your design.
Keep integrating, marketers. Get past your job titles. Work together. Improve your services. Achieve good results. Help people. Win more (and happier) customers. Be successful.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
A Return to Soap Operas?
We are seeing a welcome shift in the marketing world - a move away from trying to capture customers by shouting at them with ads and commercials, and a move toward gaining fans by creating simply excellent content. Certainly we are still inundated with traditional "interruption marketing" (to borrow the term from Seth Godin) in magazines and newspapers, on tv and billboards and the Internet. But more and more marketers are letting great content speak for itself. They are doing and creating remarkable things that get people talking. (To learn more, read Seth Godin's Purple Cow, if you haven't already.)
I think the rise of smartphone apps and customer-created media (a la YouTube) has aided this trend toward remarkable content. Marketers are communicating via things that can be enjoyed as entertainment even without a brand message.
There is Gillete's uArt iPhone app that lets you add facial hair to a photo of yourself, then shave it into designs of your choice. There is the microsite for Coke Zero, which is really a video game in disguise. And how many company-created YouTube video phenomena do we see now? Like the Frosty Posse from Wendy's.
I see this trend, and I like it. This model inspires us to deeper levels of creativity. It makes me wonder whether we will soon see a huge reinvention of traditional advertising, such that we no longer see magazine ads and billboards and tv commercials as we have them today. Instead, will we see pure content - art, music, videos, games, short stories, poetry, etc. - "sponsored" by companies? For example, instead of tv commercials between our programmed viewing, will we see fun, 60-second short films with a simple, one-line message at the end: "brought to you by [insert brand name here]"?
It would be as if advertising (at least tv and radio) were coming full-circle, returning to the soap opera model. Soap operas got their name because a consumer products company (i.e. Procter & Gamble, who may have been the first?) would sponsor the radio or tv show. They would promote their cleaning products (i.e. Ivory soap); hence the name. If we see more pure content coming from marketers, it will be like a return to our roots.
Regardless, it will be interesting to see where advertising heads in the future. With the rise of the Internet and other "new" media, there has been talk of whether traditional advertising is on its way out. I can still see television, print, and radio ads as having a place alongside (instead of being replaced by) interactive, social media, viral marketing, etc. But these traditional advertising media may look very different in just 5-10 years than they do now.
I think the rise of smartphone apps and customer-created media (a la YouTube) has aided this trend toward remarkable content. Marketers are communicating via things that can be enjoyed as entertainment even without a brand message.
There is Gillete's uArt iPhone app that lets you add facial hair to a photo of yourself, then shave it into designs of your choice. There is the microsite for Coke Zero, which is really a video game in disguise. And how many company-created YouTube video phenomena do we see now? Like the Frosty Posse from Wendy's.
I see this trend, and I like it. This model inspires us to deeper levels of creativity. It makes me wonder whether we will soon see a huge reinvention of traditional advertising, such that we no longer see magazine ads and billboards and tv commercials as we have them today. Instead, will we see pure content - art, music, videos, games, short stories, poetry, etc. - "sponsored" by companies? For example, instead of tv commercials between our programmed viewing, will we see fun, 60-second short films with a simple, one-line message at the end: "brought to you by [insert brand name here]"?
It would be as if advertising (at least tv and radio) were coming full-circle, returning to the soap opera model. Soap operas got their name because a consumer products company (i.e. Procter & Gamble, who may have been the first?) would sponsor the radio or tv show. They would promote their cleaning products (i.e. Ivory soap); hence the name. If we see more pure content coming from marketers, it will be like a return to our roots.
Regardless, it will be interesting to see where advertising heads in the future. With the rise of the Internet and other "new" media, there has been talk of whether traditional advertising is on its way out. I can still see television, print, and radio ads as having a place alongside (instead of being replaced by) interactive, social media, viral marketing, etc. But these traditional advertising media may look very different in just 5-10 years than they do now.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Trust Comes First
Yesterday I saw I an online ad that read, "Click here to build a custom network for your brand." It had a little graphic and logo and another button that said, "Take 60 Seconds to Build Your Network." I had no interest in hiring a marketing services company, but, being a fellow marketer, I was interested in seeing what these guys were doing with this marketing piece.
I clicked on the ad, which took me to a microsite by a company called Casale Media where I could build a "sample custom network". I was curious; I wondered what Casale Media could do with this "custom network" thing; and I was okay with building a little free sample for fun.
So I picked some random "target demographics" (B2C, Miami area, males, 18-34, interested in fishing) to plug into the form. BUT, in order to submit the demographics and generate my free sample custom network, Casale Media wanted me to submit my Name, Company, Email, and Telephone number. Bad move. I left the site.
See, I knew nothing about Casale Media. Had never heard of them before. Had never seen their work. As a "prospective customer," I wasn't yet interested in Casale Media's services. I was willing take two minutes to check out their product, get a free sample, and learn whether Casale might actually provide a beneficial service to marketers. If they did, and I were a marketing manager at a company, I might have pursued further a relationship with Casale Media.
But, until I could see and learn about what Casale Media actually did, I was in no way interested in giving my contact information to this company about which I knew nothing. They had given me no reason to show them that kind of trust yet. And since I was only curious about the company (and not actively seeking any marketing services), I was happy to leave their site and never give them a second glance, if I could not test their free sample without submitting that information.
They lost me as a prospective customer.
If Casale Media truly wanted to attract new customers (which is ostensibly the purpose of most advertisements), this is model they should have followed:
Casale Media needs to create some modicum of trust by allowing prospective customers to see a sample of their work. By requiring a yet-unearned level of trust from their prospects, they turn people away and sabotage their marketing efforts.
Trust comes first, Casale Media. Give them something free. Then, if they like it, they will come.
I clicked on the ad, which took me to a microsite by a company called Casale Media where I could build a "sample custom network". I was curious; I wondered what Casale Media could do with this "custom network" thing; and I was okay with building a little free sample for fun.
So I picked some random "target demographics" (B2C, Miami area, males, 18-34, interested in fishing) to plug into the form. BUT, in order to submit the demographics and generate my free sample custom network, Casale Media wanted me to submit my Name, Company, Email, and Telephone number. Bad move. I left the site.
See, I knew nothing about Casale Media. Had never heard of them before. Had never seen their work. As a "prospective customer," I wasn't yet interested in Casale Media's services. I was willing take two minutes to check out their product, get a free sample, and learn whether Casale might actually provide a beneficial service to marketers. If they did, and I were a marketing manager at a company, I might have pursued further a relationship with Casale Media.
But, until I could see and learn about what Casale Media actually did, I was in no way interested in giving my contact information to this company about which I knew nothing. They had given me no reason to show them that kind of trust yet. And since I was only curious about the company (and not actively seeking any marketing services), I was happy to leave their site and never give them a second glance, if I could not test their free sample without submitting that information.
They lost me as a prospective customer.
If Casale Media truly wanted to attract new customers (which is ostensibly the purpose of most advertisements), this is model they should have followed:
- Offer their free, fun little interactive application which generates a sample of Casale Media's "product" (the custom network).
- DON'T require any personal information to run the app.
- Let the viewer (who has already taken the first giant step by clicking on the ad) see the results of their very own sample custom network.
- If the sample custom network shows that Casale Media has a fun and useful product, THEN invite customers to submit their information to learn if Casale Media's services are right for their company, or to visit Casale Media's website to learn more.
Casale Media needs to create some modicum of trust by allowing prospective customers to see a sample of their work. By requiring a yet-unearned level of trust from their prospects, they turn people away and sabotage their marketing efforts.
Trust comes first, Casale Media. Give them something free. Then, if they like it, they will come.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Black is better?
A few days ago as I was walking around Abilene, Texas, on a sunny afternoon, I saw a man on a motorcycle stopped at a red light. Now, this was a summer day in West Texas. The sun was blazing, the temperature was in the high 90's, and I was wearing the lightest-colored polo shirt and shorts I owned. The man on the bike, however, like most bikers I've seen, was wearing black leather. A black leather vest over a long-sleeved, button-down shirt, with jeans and boots. In my light attire, I was glistening with perspiration and could feel the back of my shirt getting more damp by the minute. I could only imagine how the man on the bike must be drenched in sweat.
Admittedly, I have never been on a motorcycle. I'm not opposed to the idea; I simply have never had the opportunity. And perhaps the wind rushing past as one zooms down the road is sufficient to cool the biker. But I still have to think that the blazing sun on that dark, heat-absorbing leather generates quite a lot of warmth.
So why do serious bikers wear the ubiquitous black leather, even during the heat of summer? Why doesn't some brilliant company make WHITE leather motorcycle gear? Imagine how much cooler it would be - literally and colloquially. White reflects light, directing all of those blazing rays away from the biker. Plus, a biker would look so sharp wearing white leather. If the black leather is a fashion statement, imagine what the white would do!
This is a marketing opportunity in the making. Someone should jump on it.
Admittedly, I have never been on a motorcycle. I'm not opposed to the idea; I simply have never had the opportunity. And perhaps the wind rushing past as one zooms down the road is sufficient to cool the biker. But I still have to think that the blazing sun on that dark, heat-absorbing leather generates quite a lot of warmth.
So why do serious bikers wear the ubiquitous black leather, even during the heat of summer? Why doesn't some brilliant company make WHITE leather motorcycle gear? Imagine how much cooler it would be - literally and colloquially. White reflects light, directing all of those blazing rays away from the biker. Plus, a biker would look so sharp wearing white leather. If the black leather is a fashion statement, imagine what the white would do!
This is a marketing opportunity in the making. Someone should jump on it.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Crowds, Art, and Psychology
Last Saturday evening, my friend Lindsey and I attended the Dallas CityArts Festival, an annual outdoor celebration of visual and performing arts in downtown Dallas. We joined the throngs of people gathered along several city blocks in 100-degree heat to browse artists' booths, listen to music of varying genres, watch dances from different cultures, enjoy free admission to the local (air-conditioned!) art museums, and eat bratwurst and snow cones. Both Lindsey and I are artistic souls (she graduated with a degree in art; I was an art major for two semesters), and events like this thrill us to no end.
Although Lindsey and I arrived after the museums had already closed for the evening (much to our dismay), we thoroughly enjoyed looking at artwork by local painters, sculptors, photographers, and jewelry-makers. However, the plight of these artists saddened me somewhat. Here they were, sitting in stifling heat for the better part of three days, lost in the never-ending row of booths belonging to their fellow artists, watching as hundreds of people surveyed their work without so much as a word to the creators, and hoping - mostly in vain - that someone might actually love some of their work enough to BUY it.
Alas, it seemed that most of the patrons of the Dallas CityArts Festival were more interested in looking at art rather than buying it.
Despite my "artophilia", I myself, having only recently graduated from college, was certainly not in a position to fulfill the artists' hopes of selling their several-hundred-dollar artwork.
However, I experienced a curious psychological phenomenon as I wandered in and out of artists' booths: when I encountered a booth in which empty spaces and discarded price tags betrayed evidence that someone had actually purchased artwork there, I was much more eager to visit that booth and study the work therein. I was also more willing to investigate whether the artist had inexpensive prints or notecards that I might be interested in purchasing. If someone else had loved a piece enough to actually spend money and take it home, perhaps the artist's work was good enough that I, too, would like it and even want to buy it.
Researcher Robert Cialdini calls this psychological phenomenon "Social Proof" - the idea that we take cues from what people around us do. If others act a certain way, we assume that it is reasonable to act in the same fashion. This is especially true when we encounter new situations in which we are unsure of how to act.
If "Social Proof" affects us so much, maybe the artists at art festivals could use this principle to their advantage. A psychology-savvy artist looking to sell his work could set up his booth and hang his paintings around the tent, but intentionally leave one or two painting-sized empty spaces where a person would expect to see a piece of artwork. Then he could watch and see if more people than normal enter the booth interested in viewing and purchasing the art.
Would this have worked for the artists at the Dallas CityArts Festival? I don't know. But it wouldn't have hurt for them to give it a try.
Although Lindsey and I arrived after the museums had already closed for the evening (much to our dismay), we thoroughly enjoyed looking at artwork by local painters, sculptors, photographers, and jewelry-makers. However, the plight of these artists saddened me somewhat. Here they were, sitting in stifling heat for the better part of three days, lost in the never-ending row of booths belonging to their fellow artists, watching as hundreds of people surveyed their work without so much as a word to the creators, and hoping - mostly in vain - that someone might actually love some of their work enough to BUY it.
Alas, it seemed that most of the patrons of the Dallas CityArts Festival were more interested in looking at art rather than buying it.
Despite my "artophilia", I myself, having only recently graduated from college, was certainly not in a position to fulfill the artists' hopes of selling their several-hundred-dollar artwork.
However, I experienced a curious psychological phenomenon as I wandered in and out of artists' booths: when I encountered a booth in which empty spaces and discarded price tags betrayed evidence that someone had actually purchased artwork there, I was much more eager to visit that booth and study the work therein. I was also more willing to investigate whether the artist had inexpensive prints or notecards that I might be interested in purchasing. If someone else had loved a piece enough to actually spend money and take it home, perhaps the artist's work was good enough that I, too, would like it and even want to buy it.
Researcher Robert Cialdini calls this psychological phenomenon "Social Proof" - the idea that we take cues from what people around us do. If others act a certain way, we assume that it is reasonable to act in the same fashion. This is especially true when we encounter new situations in which we are unsure of how to act.
If "Social Proof" affects us so much, maybe the artists at art festivals could use this principle to their advantage. A psychology-savvy artist looking to sell his work could set up his booth and hang his paintings around the tent, but intentionally leave one or two painting-sized empty spaces where a person would expect to see a piece of artwork. Then he could watch and see if more people than normal enter the booth interested in viewing and purchasing the art.
Would this have worked for the artists at the Dallas CityArts Festival? I don't know. But it wouldn't have hurt for them to give it a try.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Communication and Intelligence
We seem to measure intelligence by communication.
Granted, the “standardized” and “objective” measures of human intelligence, such as IQ tests, focus heavily on math and logic and pattern recognition and spatial reasoning. But in our normal, everyday lives, when we meet someone new, don’t we automatically assess the person’s brainpower by what and how well he communicates? If we know nothing else about two people, don’t we attribute a greater mental faculty to him who speaks with the thoughtful grammar and extensive vocabulary of a character out of Pride and Prejudice seems to possess a greater mental faculty than to him who makes gratuitous use of profanities, favors slang and lazy pronunciation, and haphazardly inserts the word “like” into his statements? Or, when we hire someone to say, fix a computer problem, don’t we think him more intelligent if he converses with us and explains to us how the computer thinks and why the problem occurred, instead of getting frustrated in his explanations or talking incessantly and incomprehensibly about some technological “thing”?
Perhaps this subconscious judgment is justified. After all, a large and properly used vocabulary is a sign of a well-educated person. Good communication requires a specific type of intelligence – that of knowing one’s subject matter, certainly, and of reasoning logically, and of reading one’s audience and understanding how to relate to them. Perhaps communication is not a bad standard for an off-hand measurement of intelligence.
But then, what happens when we communicate with someone whose native language is different from our own? When I was in college, several of my friends and acquaintances were international students. They came from Taiwan, Germany, Nigeria, Colombia, and a few dozen other nations, to study in the U.S. Some of them had been speaking English their entire lives; some had learned basic English just before they arrived.
As much as I love other cultures and try to be loving toward everybody, I found myself naturally drawn to those international students who could speak English almost as fluently as I, a native speaker, could. It was easier to exchange jokes and stories from our childhoods and commentary on music when we could understand each other without many confused looks. Although I tried not to feel this way, it was easy for me to get frustrated or bored when I would talk to a new friend with halting English.
And then I started thinking. All of these international students must be EXTREMELY smart. To travel half-way around the globe to study at a university where all classes are taught in a foreign language and only a few others (if any) can speak one's native tongue, must require incredible intelligence and stamina (not to mention courage). Especially for our friends from countries like China and Japan, whose studies required them to learn an entirely new alphabet, in addition to a language. Most American students struggle to keep up with classes in their own language, let alone a foreign one.
Yet, before I considered this, it was so easy for me to feel condescending toward a fellow student whose English was more limited than my own. Why? What causes us to judge someone's intelligence based on the ease with which they can communicate? Is it ever justified? And when it is not justified, what do we do about it?
Questions to ponder....
Granted, the “standardized” and “objective” measures of human intelligence, such as IQ tests, focus heavily on math and logic and pattern recognition and spatial reasoning. But in our normal, everyday lives, when we meet someone new, don’t we automatically assess the person’s brainpower by what and how well he communicates? If we know nothing else about two people, don’t we attribute a greater mental faculty to him who speaks with the thoughtful grammar and extensive vocabulary of a character out of Pride and Prejudice seems to possess a greater mental faculty than to him who makes gratuitous use of profanities, favors slang and lazy pronunciation, and haphazardly inserts the word “like” into his statements? Or, when we hire someone to say, fix a computer problem, don’t we think him more intelligent if he converses with us and explains to us how the computer thinks and why the problem occurred, instead of getting frustrated in his explanations or talking incessantly and incomprehensibly about some technological “thing”?
Perhaps this subconscious judgment is justified. After all, a large and properly used vocabulary is a sign of a well-educated person. Good communication requires a specific type of intelligence – that of knowing one’s subject matter, certainly, and of reasoning logically, and of reading one’s audience and understanding how to relate to them. Perhaps communication is not a bad standard for an off-hand measurement of intelligence.
But then, what happens when we communicate with someone whose native language is different from our own? When I was in college, several of my friends and acquaintances were international students. They came from Taiwan, Germany, Nigeria, Colombia, and a few dozen other nations, to study in the U.S. Some of them had been speaking English their entire lives; some had learned basic English just before they arrived.
As much as I love other cultures and try to be loving toward everybody, I found myself naturally drawn to those international students who could speak English almost as fluently as I, a native speaker, could. It was easier to exchange jokes and stories from our childhoods and commentary on music when we could understand each other without many confused looks. Although I tried not to feel this way, it was easy for me to get frustrated or bored when I would talk to a new friend with halting English.
And then I started thinking. All of these international students must be EXTREMELY smart. To travel half-way around the globe to study at a university where all classes are taught in a foreign language and only a few others (if any) can speak one's native tongue, must require incredible intelligence and stamina (not to mention courage). Especially for our friends from countries like China and Japan, whose studies required them to learn an entirely new alphabet, in addition to a language. Most American students struggle to keep up with classes in their own language, let alone a foreign one.
Yet, before I considered this, it was so easy for me to feel condescending toward a fellow student whose English was more limited than my own. Why? What causes us to judge someone's intelligence based on the ease with which they can communicate? Is it ever justified? And when it is not justified, what do we do about it?
Questions to ponder....
Friday, June 12, 2009
Unmeltable Ice Cream - brought to us by Cold Stone
A few days ago I read a report on MediaPost.com that Cold Stone Creamery debuted a new ice cream: Jell-O pudding ice cream, which reportedly combines the texture and flavor of Jell-O pudding with that of our favorite frozen dessert. For a limited time this summer (until July 28), Cold Stone is offering this new product, designed to transform into a pudding-like state (rather than a soupy mess) at room temperatures. Innovative, huh?
So, like any good marketer (or rather, like any human being with curious taste buds), I went to my local Cold Stone Creamery last night to test this new product.
I ordered "Chocolate-y Goodness" - chocolate Jell-O pudding ice cream with caramel, peanut butter, and fudge as mix-ins. The verdict? It was interesting. This new dish has the cold creaminess of ice cream, but is thicker and richer and sticks together more - like pudding. I could twirl the Jell-O pudding ice cream around my spoon, and it wouldn't drip off as normal ice cream would.
Plus, the chocolate flavor was chocolate pudding flavor, not a typical chocolate flavor. Don't believe that there is a difference? Close your eyes and try to imagine the taste and smell of chocolate pudding. It really is different from the taste of regular chocolate ice cream. (Still don't believe me? Go eat some pudding already - or, better yet, go try Cold Stone's Jell-O pudding ice cream, and see what I mean.) I didn't try the other Jell-O pudding ice cream flavors - butterscotch, vanilla, and banana - but I would imagine they exhibit the same taste phenomenon.
In the end, I'm not quite sold on this Jell-O pudding ice cream yet. It tasted good, and it was fun to try; but it was...different. It certainly is not your typical ice cream. And I think it lacks an important part of ice cream's charm - that emotional pull of remembering summer days as a kid with your family at the park or at the baseball game or on the front porch, licking away before your treat melted (or before your older brother snatched a bite of yours). That emotional, nostalgic, happy-childhood-memories connection carries huge weight in our reasons as consumers for liking a product.
I think I'll have to try the Jell-O pudding ice cream a few more times before I can give it a hearty thumbs-up. But go try some yourself. We'll see if this new innovation by Cold Stone will "stick."
So, like any good marketer (or rather, like any human being with curious taste buds), I went to my local Cold Stone Creamery last night to test this new product.
I ordered "Chocolate-y Goodness" - chocolate Jell-O pudding ice cream with caramel, peanut butter, and fudge as mix-ins. The verdict? It was interesting. This new dish has the cold creaminess of ice cream, but is thicker and richer and sticks together more - like pudding. I could twirl the Jell-O pudding ice cream around my spoon, and it wouldn't drip off as normal ice cream would.
Plus, the chocolate flavor was chocolate pudding flavor, not a typical chocolate flavor. Don't believe that there is a difference? Close your eyes and try to imagine the taste and smell of chocolate pudding. It really is different from the taste of regular chocolate ice cream. (Still don't believe me? Go eat some pudding already - or, better yet, go try Cold Stone's Jell-O pudding ice cream, and see what I mean.) I didn't try the other Jell-O pudding ice cream flavors - butterscotch, vanilla, and banana - but I would imagine they exhibit the same taste phenomenon.
In the end, I'm not quite sold on this Jell-O pudding ice cream yet. It tasted good, and it was fun to try; but it was...different. It certainly is not your typical ice cream. And I think it lacks an important part of ice cream's charm - that emotional pull of remembering summer days as a kid with your family at the park or at the baseball game or on the front porch, licking away before your treat melted (or before your older brother snatched a bite of yours). That emotional, nostalgic, happy-childhood-memories connection carries huge weight in our reasons as consumers for liking a product.
I think I'll have to try the Jell-O pudding ice cream a few more times before I can give it a hearty thumbs-up. But go try some yourself. We'll see if this new innovation by Cold Stone will "stick."
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Marketers, just do work.
One month ago, I graduated from college. With a degree in marketing. Wanting to do interactive advertising.
Which means that, over the past few years (and even more over the past few months), I have been digging through job postings, prowling through lists of "The Top ___ Ad Agencies," and trekking through dozens of agency websites. I was quite impressed with the first several ad agency websites I explored - especially those for interactive* agencies. [for those of you not quite sure what "interactive" means, see my definition below]
Beyond the "coolness" factor of the clean or eclectic, minimalist or avant-garde, always esthetically pleasing, full-of-white-space-and-streaming-video, often Flash-driven sites, I especially loved the inspiring "our philosophy" sections that I would discover on these sites. Wow! these agencies "got it" - they understood things that we had been talking about in my marketing classes. They understood that marketing isn't just about shouting messages at consumers and convincing them to buy stuff so that companies can make money. No, it's about building relationships, and creating value, and partnering research with creativity, and having an integrated strategy, and being remarkable, and earning fans, and starting conversations, and developing trust and transparency.
I was so excited to discover that agencies have this fresh and original look at marketing!
Until, a few days ago, after wading through the millionth obligatory "marketing philosophy" page, I reached an exasperated conclusion: ALL of the advertising agencies that are worth their salt "get it" already. ALL of them understand the current approach to marketing, such as I described above. ALL of them have, basically, this same core philosophy. THEY'RE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING. Which means that none of them are really original any more. They don't need to keep saying the same thing that everybody knows already.
So, my fellow marketers and advertising professionals, quit talking and just get back to marketing. Take your lofty philosophies (most of which I agree with, by the way), and use them! Do marketing! And do it with excellence and effectiveness, and be remarkable, and earn fans for your clients, and stop trying to use your philosophy to prove that you're different. Just do great work.
Yesterday I stumbled upon this article on MediaPost.com, describing the website of NC-based agency Boone Oakley. Boone Oakley seems to be saying the same thing I've been thinking (just in slightly different words than I would have chosen). And actually, their "website" isn't a website at all, but rather an interactive (haha) YouTube video. Check it out: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=107402
*definition of interactive advertising (by Haley) - advertising that involves two-way communication between a company and its customers, rather than the traditional one-way communication found in media like tv commercials, radio spots, billboards, magazine ads, etc. To do this, interactive advertising agencies often use tools like public relations events, customizable products, Internet ads, company websites, online contests, customer review sites, microsites, blogs, text-messaging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhone applications, etc. Hence the website of any agency that does any interactive work at all is typically very creative and...well...interactive.
Which means that, over the past few years (and even more over the past few months), I have been digging through job postings, prowling through lists of "The Top ___ Ad Agencies," and trekking through dozens of agency websites. I was quite impressed with the first several ad agency websites I explored - especially those for interactive* agencies. [for those of you not quite sure what "interactive" means, see my definition below]
Beyond the "coolness" factor of the clean or eclectic, minimalist or avant-garde, always esthetically pleasing, full-of-white-space-and-streaming-video, often Flash-driven sites, I especially loved the inspiring "our philosophy" sections that I would discover on these sites. Wow! these agencies "got it" - they understood things that we had been talking about in my marketing classes. They understood that marketing isn't just about shouting messages at consumers and convincing them to buy stuff so that companies can make money. No, it's about building relationships, and creating value, and partnering research with creativity, and having an integrated strategy, and being remarkable, and earning fans, and starting conversations, and developing trust and transparency.
I was so excited to discover that agencies have this fresh and original look at marketing!
Until, a few days ago, after wading through the millionth obligatory "marketing philosophy" page, I reached an exasperated conclusion: ALL of the advertising agencies that are worth their salt "get it" already. ALL of them understand the current approach to marketing, such as I described above. ALL of them have, basically, this same core philosophy. THEY'RE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING. Which means that none of them are really original any more. They don't need to keep saying the same thing that everybody knows already.
So, my fellow marketers and advertising professionals, quit talking and just get back to marketing. Take your lofty philosophies (most of which I agree with, by the way), and use them! Do marketing! And do it with excellence and effectiveness, and be remarkable, and earn fans for your clients, and stop trying to use your philosophy to prove that you're different. Just do great work.
Yesterday I stumbled upon this article on MediaPost.com, describing the website of NC-based agency Boone Oakley. Boone Oakley seems to be saying the same thing I've been thinking (just in slightly different words than I would have chosen). And actually, their "website" isn't a website at all, but rather an interactive (haha) YouTube video. Check it out: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=107402
*definition of interactive advertising (by Haley) - advertising that involves two-way communication between a company and its customers, rather than the traditional one-way communication found in media like tv commercials, radio spots, billboards, magazine ads, etc. To do this, interactive advertising agencies often use tools like public relations events, customizable products, Internet ads, company websites, online contests, customer review sites, microsites, blogs, text-messaging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhone applications, etc. Hence the website of any agency that does any interactive work at all is typically very creative and...well...interactive.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
So It Begins
Having finally run out of excuses for staying so behind the Web 2.0 curve, today I start a blog. Here's why: I'm a thinker. I love thinking about things. One of my favorite ways to spend my free time (when I have free time) is to take a long walk, or a long drive, or to sit in the park, and think. Think and have conversations with God. Sometimes the things I think about aren't worth sharing with anybody else; but sometimes when I think, I get ideas that maybe aren't half-bad. Some of those ideas are rather good, I think (God must be the One giving me those). And so, if I get ideas that I think are rather good, and if I can articulate them well, I think that someone else might like to hear about them and think about them with me.
So here I have this blog. Here I will share what I've been thinking about things like marketing (my career passion), life (something everybody wants), God (Someone pretty amazing), politics (no comment...yet), and other topics that wander through my head. I hope you will enjoy these posts - if not all of them, then at least some of them. And I hope that you will join these conversations (for that is what I desire them to be), and share with me what you think about the things I've been thinking about. If you think an idea of mine is half-baked, please correct me (nicely, though). And if you like these ideas or these conversations, feel free to steal them and share them with your friends. Only, be a good friend and tell them where you found these ideas; they might like to join in, as well.
I look forward to conversing with you.
- Haley
So here I have this blog. Here I will share what I've been thinking about things like marketing (my career passion), life (something everybody wants), God (Someone pretty amazing), politics (no comment...yet), and other topics that wander through my head. I hope you will enjoy these posts - if not all of them, then at least some of them. And I hope that you will join these conversations (for that is what I desire them to be), and share with me what you think about the things I've been thinking about. If you think an idea of mine is half-baked, please correct me (nicely, though). And if you like these ideas or these conversations, feel free to steal them and share them with your friends. Only, be a good friend and tell them where you found these ideas; they might like to join in, as well.
I look forward to conversing with you.
- Haley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
