I've spent a lot of time this fall talking to people about marketing. Mostly to small businesses, but to people at agencies and various media (advertising) venues.
One thing that seems consistent, and it has me formulating a resolution for myself this new year, is that people all approach their problems from their own perspective. My resolution is to try to neutralize that in my own approach.
What I mean by one's own perspective, and how it manifests itself, is that to a soldier every solution tends to be a military one and to an evangelist every solution tends to be a spiritual one. In marketing this tendency leaves businesses, particularly small and medium businesses, vulnerable to both the isolation of their vertical industry and the manipulation of the various advertising sales people they encounter.
To be sure, small business owners are pecked to death by sales people. To the newspaper ad sales people, every marketing problem is solved with a newspaper ads (preferrably a contract for regular newspaper ads), the Advo sales person will solve all advertising problems with cooperative mailers, the local radio and tv with their respective media.
What happens, beyond the need to plan and decide when and where to spend those precious marketing dollers, is that these various advertising sales people offer up their creative resources as a part of the package. Now, in addition to a fractured media plan, you have fractured messaging and a complete lack of graphic standards. Each element is judged independently of the other advertising and generally given a pass if the logo and phone number are correct.
For my cohorts in Mercy's masters program this is immediately flagged as a non-integrated approach and a huge loss of opportunity (and likely money). The problem with assuming a single perspective or multiple perspecitves taken seperately is that there is no synergy. The sum of the parts is at best going to equal the investment, but rarely every exceed it. The newspaper ad sales people are not concerned with coordinating the message of your ads with other media... they'd prefer you spend more on newspaper and less on everything else. Every ad sales person has that perspective (that's what they're paid for).
Since it's the end of the year, you should take a breather. While you're at it, take a couple steps back. Don't look at your marketing from the perspective of your business, and certainly don't look at it from the perspective of the people who sold you the time, space, location... etc. Try to approach your business as a customer or prospective customer. Try to put some new eyes in your own head and re-introduce yourself to your business and brand. Realize the full-effect of the advertising, not merely the amount of it.
The main caveat to all that I've said, and this is a challenge I make to myself in 2009, is that for a marketer all problems have marketing solutions... God, grant me some perspective.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
TLA's gone FUBAR
I cringe every time I hear someone in power, or seeking political power, pronounce the word "NUCLEAR" - "new-cue-lar" -- not that it sounds any more annoying than "ex-scape" as the pronunciation for "ESCAPE" or the possibly the most commonly mispronounced month of "FEBRUARY" (so many of us have dropped the first "R"). But, perhaps because so much is riding on the handling of all things nuclear, one hopes that people handling those things have a grasp of the fundamentals. To make an analogy, would you trust anyone who told you they were a "lib-arian"?? (Perhaps they just started last "Febuary!")
But what's got me started today is the "TLA" — and even as what I've poked into this blog rings through your mind in your own voice (or what you imagine mine to be) you might be thinking:
TLA- Three letter....
Abbreviation? Acronym?
Just another observation, but I am hearing people use the word "acronym" in place of "abbreviation" - when the two are entirely different things!
When you refer to standard operating proceedure as "SOP" — (ess - oh - pea) - you've used a three letter ABBREVIATION.
On the other hand, when you refer to a police officer as a "COP" -- you've used a three letter ACRONYM. Cop is supposedly short for "constable on patrol," although I think I may have been told that by a law enforcement officer (often referred to as LEO's ... another acronym) who simply preferred that to being called a "pig" — the latter being neither an acronym or abbreviation, but simply insulting.
What's really funny about people referring to three-letter-abbreviations as three-letter-acronyms is that they're just as likely to be more or less than three letters as an actual acronym.
I guess fair is fair, if we're going to play with what the "A" in TLA means, we might as well mess with the T and the L. Can't PS3 be the TLA for the Sony video game system?
I guess we're all comfortable referring to the highways by their TNA's, but that sounds pretty suspect. I am not sure I want to have a conversation with my kids about TNA's until well after they should have already received their drivers' licenses... if ever.
This raises a lot of issues. Or is this TMI?
But what's got me started today is the "TLA" — and even as what I've poked into this blog rings through your mind in your own voice (or what you imagine mine to be) you might be thinking:
TLA- Three letter....
Abbreviation? Acronym?
Just another observation, but I am hearing people use the word "acronym" in place of "abbreviation" - when the two are entirely different things!
When you refer to standard operating proceedure as "SOP" — (ess - oh - pea) - you've used a three letter ABBREVIATION.
On the other hand, when you refer to a police officer as a "COP" -- you've used a three letter ACRONYM. Cop is supposedly short for "constable on patrol," although I think I may have been told that by a law enforcement officer (often referred to as LEO's ... another acronym) who simply preferred that to being called a "pig" — the latter being neither an acronym or abbreviation, but simply insulting.
What's really funny about people referring to three-letter-abbreviations as three-letter-acronyms is that they're just as likely to be more or less than three letters as an actual acronym.
I guess fair is fair, if we're going to play with what the "A" in TLA means, we might as well mess with the T and the L. Can't PS3 be the TLA for the Sony video game system?
I guess we're all comfortable referring to the highways by their TNA's, but that sounds pretty suspect. I am not sure I want to have a conversation with my kids about TNA's until well after they should have already received their drivers' licenses... if ever.
This raises a lot of issues. Or is this TMI?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Tatoos: proof that some of us just don't listen.
There are two things that, should you be listening at all, suggest that a tattoo is not a great investment in yourself.
Now, in keeping with my policy this is NOT an opinion or judgment. I have a lot of inked friends that I care for very much and no amount of tattooing would change the way I feel about them.
No, this is not about the efficacy of tattoos, only the apparent logic, reason or flight from them. I was reading earlier today that 25-30% of adults under the age of 30 have tattoos. This doesn't surprize me at all, if you spend time at the waterpark near my house (dorneyparkdotcom) you'd guess a much higher percentage.
The first is Professor Mc Monkey McBeane -- a character from one of the deepest wells of wisdom the average child is likely to encounter: Dr. Suess.
Dr. Suess was a genius (again, observation, not opinion) and among the many didactic works he graced us with "The Star-bellied Sneetches" delivers a profound message, the truth contained seems to ring louder by the day.
In this story we have two classes of Sneetches (on the beaches) those with and those without stars on their bellies. The non-starred Sneetches suffered from horrible discrimination that all came to an end when Professor Mc Bean brought his wonderful Star-On machine... for a small fee the one rejected starless Sneetch could acquire his or her mark and cast off their oppression.
What happens is a history repeating itself as I compose this entry: once the starless Sneetches have stars, the cachet is lost and Professor McBean offers to REMOVE stars from the previously superior star-bellied Sneetches, for just a few bucks. And thus begins the cycle until all the Sneetch cash is in the pocket of Prof. McBean.
Have you heard the ads for tattoo removal? Are they running them during LA Ink, or Miami Ink? I think the article I read mentioned the "cover-up" is a big issue for wedding shops and that there is a $30 make-up kit expressly for this purpose. What really brings this to mind is that "Wrecking Balm" has become a major advertiser on one of my favorite radio stations. It just seems like there is a pretty good business in tattoo obliteration.
While the love of Mom is probably worthy of that sort of posterity, it sure seems like a lot of people have other loves that faded much more quickly than their tattoo proclaiming it.
Now, I've probably exposed myself as an old fart with this rant, but I'll seal that deal with this second observation: Popeye aside, what old dude with a tattoo has encouraged you?
Among those friends I mention with tattoos are many my senior to whom I ascribe considerable wisdom. Now, I don't go about surveying my friends about their tattoos, but as many times as it comes up with my older friends there is an expression of regret or minor disdain. The body they put the tattoo on has changed, and the tattoo has changed with it. I've seen illegible designs, but mostly just blurry ones that probably looked very crisp a few decades ago.
It's interesting to me that people get tattoos as a permanent memento (great movie by the way, tattoos played an integral part in the plot) and yet the medium is far from permanent. To be certain, you can go to your grave with the tattoo, but like the proverbial river, it won't be the same tattoo.
Something I shared with some friends in my motorcycle club -- if you're going to do this, be a big spender and find a friend who attended a reputable art school, or is generally so picky they annoy the heck out of you. It's also possible that the best tattoo artist in your town is one of the worst in the country, for pete's sake, shop around.
But, my best observation, listen to your Doctor (Suess) and to grandpa and his friends.
Now, in keeping with my policy this is NOT an opinion or judgment. I have a lot of inked friends that I care for very much and no amount of tattooing would change the way I feel about them.
No, this is not about the efficacy of tattoos, only the apparent logic, reason or flight from them. I was reading earlier today that 25-30% of adults under the age of 30 have tattoos. This doesn't surprize me at all, if you spend time at the waterpark near my house (dorneyparkdotcom) you'd guess a much higher percentage.
The first is Professor Mc Monkey McBeane -- a character from one of the deepest wells of wisdom the average child is likely to encounter: Dr. Suess.
Dr. Suess was a genius (again, observation, not opinion) and among the many didactic works he graced us with "The Star-bellied Sneetches" delivers a profound message, the truth contained seems to ring louder by the day.
In this story we have two classes of Sneetches (on the beaches) those with and those without stars on their bellies. The non-starred Sneetches suffered from horrible discrimination that all came to an end when Professor Mc Bean brought his wonderful Star-On machine... for a small fee the one rejected starless Sneetch could acquire his or her mark and cast off their oppression.
What happens is a history repeating itself as I compose this entry: once the starless Sneetches have stars, the cachet is lost and Professor McBean offers to REMOVE stars from the previously superior star-bellied Sneetches, for just a few bucks. And thus begins the cycle until all the Sneetch cash is in the pocket of Prof. McBean.
Have you heard the ads for tattoo removal? Are they running them during LA Ink, or Miami Ink? I think the article I read mentioned the "cover-up" is a big issue for wedding shops and that there is a $30 make-up kit expressly for this purpose. What really brings this to mind is that "Wrecking Balm" has become a major advertiser on one of my favorite radio stations. It just seems like there is a pretty good business in tattoo obliteration.
While the love of Mom is probably worthy of that sort of posterity, it sure seems like a lot of people have other loves that faded much more quickly than their tattoo proclaiming it.
Now, I've probably exposed myself as an old fart with this rant, but I'll seal that deal with this second observation: Popeye aside, what old dude with a tattoo has encouraged you?
Among those friends I mention with tattoos are many my senior to whom I ascribe considerable wisdom. Now, I don't go about surveying my friends about their tattoos, but as many times as it comes up with my older friends there is an expression of regret or minor disdain. The body they put the tattoo on has changed, and the tattoo has changed with it. I've seen illegible designs, but mostly just blurry ones that probably looked very crisp a few decades ago.
It's interesting to me that people get tattoos as a permanent memento (great movie by the way, tattoos played an integral part in the plot) and yet the medium is far from permanent. To be certain, you can go to your grave with the tattoo, but like the proverbial river, it won't be the same tattoo.
Something I shared with some friends in my motorcycle club -- if you're going to do this, be a big spender and find a friend who attended a reputable art school, or is generally so picky they annoy the heck out of you. It's also possible that the best tattoo artist in your town is one of the worst in the country, for pete's sake, shop around.
But, my best observation, listen to your Doctor (Suess) and to grandpa and his friends.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Don't get me started....
New to the blogospere, I don't see any reason to elaborate on the presidential race or the financial crisis. No doubt countless gazzillabytes of data in cyberspace are already occupied with those topics. It could be their only useful purpose is to crowd out the data once occupied by discussions about Brittany Spears or various American Idol contestants.
I also read recently, in the course of my studies, that the most popular topic for bloggers is themselves. I am certain this is a natural phenomena, but if I am going to be boring anyway, I'd rather not bore people with myself. In fact, I think I'll try to avoid boring you, unfortunate reader, with my opinions.
Boredom through a few observations:
General Motors - who's stock closed today at $9.45 has managed to perform worse than the market - while we're all fretting the implosion of mortgage banks, GM had a stock price of around $30 just one year ago. The recent market "collapse" is around 7%... GM's had a real collapse of about 66%
Just an observation... but they seem to do a lot of ads that feature cars they don't make and sell cars to people who can't buy them. The Volt is supposed to come out in 2010... I suppose if you're convinced by the idea of a plug and drive car built in America (though it remains to be seen how much of it is really made here) you've decided to put off your next car purchase until you can get one. So, in effect, the advertising for the Volt works against sales in the short term. I wonder how dealers feel about that right now?
The other GM ad I was referring to has a very nice gentlemen talking to a bunch of kids about hydrogen cars. "see kids, the exhaust is water!" — Once again, I am sure it's very gratifying to the shareholders of GM that marketing dollars are being spent selling cars that don't exist to people not old enough to drive.
If GM is still in business by the time those kids get their licenses and if the hydrogen infrastructure and propulsion technology becomes practical, I am sure GM will be in great shape. Isn't the word "if" the starting point for every financial crisis we face right now?
THEN & THAN — I am seeing this a lot, which is odd because I am (as evidenced by my own writing) no scholar of the English language. People every where have either fallen into this typographical error or have simply lost track of the difference between those two words.
What I see most is the use of THEN where THAN seems to be intended. Than as a conjunction or preposition - "Better this THAN that." expressing a preference for the former over the latter. Whereas if we say "Better this THEN that." then is the next in order of time. Than is a comparative.
Hey, I don't make up the rules, I probably don't follow them all that well, but this one seems to have been laid waste in writing for the web and e-mail.
Cast his lot. Last thing... promise. I was listening to Fox or MSNBC this afternoon and a reporter or anchor (some sort of talking head) mangled a statement about a US Senator "Casting his lot" with the most recent mortgage bailout bill.
It seems obvious that what was meant is the Senator was casting his ballot in favor of the bill, or that the Senator has put at risk something of his reputation or political capital to help it pass. But the idea of casting lots has nothing to do with either of them. The expression is ancient, it even appears in the bible (remember, the Roman guards cast lots for Jesus' clothes) but it has nothing to do with legislative process or the actions of a representative.
Perhaps we should not listen so closely. But to the extent that we're hearing, some precision and fidelity to one's intent and meaning is not too much to ask.
Cheers,
Seventex
I also read recently, in the course of my studies, that the most popular topic for bloggers is themselves. I am certain this is a natural phenomena, but if I am going to be boring anyway, I'd rather not bore people with myself. In fact, I think I'll try to avoid boring you, unfortunate reader, with my opinions.
Boredom through a few observations:
General Motors - who's stock closed today at $9.45 has managed to perform worse than the market - while we're all fretting the implosion of mortgage banks, GM had a stock price of around $30 just one year ago. The recent market "collapse" is around 7%... GM's had a real collapse of about 66%
Just an observation... but they seem to do a lot of ads that feature cars they don't make and sell cars to people who can't buy them. The Volt is supposed to come out in 2010... I suppose if you're convinced by the idea of a plug and drive car built in America (though it remains to be seen how much of it is really made here) you've decided to put off your next car purchase until you can get one. So, in effect, the advertising for the Volt works against sales in the short term. I wonder how dealers feel about that right now?
The other GM ad I was referring to has a very nice gentlemen talking to a bunch of kids about hydrogen cars. "see kids, the exhaust is water!" — Once again, I am sure it's very gratifying to the shareholders of GM that marketing dollars are being spent selling cars that don't exist to people not old enough to drive.
If GM is still in business by the time those kids get their licenses and if the hydrogen infrastructure and propulsion technology becomes practical, I am sure GM will be in great shape. Isn't the word "if" the starting point for every financial crisis we face right now?
THEN & THAN — I am seeing this a lot, which is odd because I am (as evidenced by my own writing) no scholar of the English language. People every where have either fallen into this typographical error or have simply lost track of the difference between those two words.
What I see most is the use of THEN where THAN seems to be intended. Than as a conjunction or preposition - "Better this THAN that." expressing a preference for the former over the latter. Whereas if we say "Better this THEN that." then is the next in order of time. Than is a comparative.
Hey, I don't make up the rules, I probably don't follow them all that well, but this one seems to have been laid waste in writing for the web and e-mail.
Cast his lot. Last thing... promise. I was listening to Fox or MSNBC this afternoon and a reporter or anchor (some sort of talking head) mangled a statement about a US Senator "Casting his lot" with the most recent mortgage bailout bill.
It seems obvious that what was meant is the Senator was casting his ballot in favor of the bill, or that the Senator has put at risk something of his reputation or political capital to help it pass. But the idea of casting lots has nothing to do with either of them. The expression is ancient, it even appears in the bible (remember, the Roman guards cast lots for Jesus' clothes) but it has nothing to do with legislative process or the actions of a representative.
Perhaps we should not listen so closely. But to the extent that we're hearing, some precision and fidelity to one's intent and meaning is not too much to ask.
Cheers,
Seventex
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)