We've all been there - the website that was obviously designed by internal staff that doesn't come close to being user-friendly or correctly informative.
It's not that there's anything wrong with an internal team of web or graphic designers, writers or tactical planners, other than the fact that they are internal (translation: they are too close to their subject matter).
Being close to the subject matter often makes creative teams susceptible to building websites and marketing materials that only do what the company wants, without taking into consideration what the consumer needs. RONA's website is a good example. They have obviously used some internal categories for sorting their product. User-friendly? I think not.
The initial strategy for the website should be tested with an external audience if it can't be built by an external team. Sure, internal teams often are an economical choice, but if the end product doesn't speak to the consumer then you have not only wasted that internal money but you have lost potential sales.
So how to avoid this issue?
Don't make assumptions about what the consumer knows. Build your website with logical navigation - logical for someone who doesn't know anything about what you do.
Start your messaging with what is in it for the consumer. Count the number of times you use the company name or the word "we". Then compare it with the number of times you use the word "you". For many companies, "we" far outweighs the use of "you". That's the sure test of navel gazing. It isn't about the company, it is about the consumer. Check your current marketing materials and see if you have fallen into this trap.
In our current "it's all about me" society, all your marketing materials should demonstrate the value to the consumer immediately. For websites, you have about three seconds to make your point.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
When is humour not so funny?
This past week, Ford Motor Company was the latest victim in the on-going battle of humour versus social acceptance. (click here for related article)
We know humour in advertising is one of the best ways to get attention and retention. Some statistics show that there is a 70% higher recall on advertising built around humour. But humour is also one of the best ways to cross the line with your audience.
Ford's attempt at being amusing "Drive it like its stolen" was created by a team of creative folks who were out of touch with their audience. While the outcry against this ad has been focused on Winnipeg, I would suggest that this campaign would be offensive in most of Canada. There is an understanding that advertising will not promote any criminal activity and this comes very close to that line.
Black Diamond cheese also spent some time sitting on the line between humour and socially acceptable behaviour. In their ad "The cheese is mine, cat!" the rather frightening old woman swats her cat right off the table. Just in case animal rights folks didn't have enough to talk about I suppose. Fortunately for Black Diamond, they changed the ad without a ton of negative publicity around it.
Humour really is a bonus for advertisers when done correctly. See YouTube if you don't believe me. The kind of exposure that clips on YouTube can bring (what we used to call referrals) is invaluable.
There is an old saying "Any publicity is good publicity". Not really true anymore. Folks are much more discriminating than they used to be and if you offend them - well, just kiss their business good-bye.
So how can you know that your humorous ad isn't going to have negative impact? A few easy rules:
1. Try to get someone on the creative team who is the same age bracket as your audience.
2. Make sure the creative team is aware of current events and news stories from your target location.
3. Test the ad with the full spectrum that your audience represents, and finally
4. If you don't find it funny, don't let your creative team talk you into it.
And always remember the death bed speech, "Dying's easy, it's comedy that's hard".
We know humour in advertising is one of the best ways to get attention and retention. Some statistics show that there is a 70% higher recall on advertising built around humour. But humour is also one of the best ways to cross the line with your audience.
Ford's attempt at being amusing "Drive it like its stolen" was created by a team of creative folks who were out of touch with their audience. While the outcry against this ad has been focused on Winnipeg, I would suggest that this campaign would be offensive in most of Canada. There is an understanding that advertising will not promote any criminal activity and this comes very close to that line.
Black Diamond cheese also spent some time sitting on the line between humour and socially acceptable behaviour. In their ad "The cheese is mine, cat!" the rather frightening old woman swats her cat right off the table. Just in case animal rights folks didn't have enough to talk about I suppose. Fortunately for Black Diamond, they changed the ad without a ton of negative publicity around it.
Humour really is a bonus for advertisers when done correctly. See YouTube if you don't believe me. The kind of exposure that clips on YouTube can bring (what we used to call referrals) is invaluable.
There is an old saying "Any publicity is good publicity". Not really true anymore. Folks are much more discriminating than they used to be and if you offend them - well, just kiss their business good-bye.
So how can you know that your humorous ad isn't going to have negative impact? A few easy rules:
1. Try to get someone on the creative team who is the same age bracket as your audience.
2. Make sure the creative team is aware of current events and news stories from your target location.
3. Test the ad with the full spectrum that your audience represents, and finally
4. If you don't find it funny, don't let your creative team talk you into it.
And always remember the death bed speech, "Dying's easy, it's comedy that's hard".
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Burger King versus Wendy's - who has made the biggest mistakes
Only two fast food franchises actually stand out as knowing what they are doing. McDonald's and Tim Horton's. Even when McDonald's changed their slogan and poor Ronald disappeared, you still knew it was a McDonald's ad. And they've stuck by their new branding for a long time, even in the face of criticism. Tim Horton's has handled their brand so well that you know you're watching or listening to a Tim Horton's ad by some magic combination of music, tone and relationships without really being able to define how you knew.
And then there are Burger King and Wendy's. Two very different, dreadful accidents of marketing.
Wendy's fell prey to a lack of planning (at least that is my assumption since I really can't see Dave Thomas approving the messes that have been produced in the last few years) and to hitching their brand to the all too delicate thing that is a human being. I had great respect for Wendy's marketing when Dave Thomas was at the helm. He was personable. He looked and spoke like everyone's favourite uncle. But since Dave's passing, Wendy's has been a curious mix.
This is not necessarily the fault of the advertising agency handling their work. Sometimes the creative can only be as good as the creative brief the client provides. I'll never know who holds responsibility for the current fearful campaign. But seriously, who is the audience they are trying to reach with ridiculous red braided wigs on unlikely candidates? Sure men in their early 20s love humiliation as a form of humour, but is this truly the audience? And while humiliation might be funny to some, it is only funny when it happens to someone else. So where is the connection the audience is supposed to make with the characters in the ads? And when I look at the patrons at Wendy's, I'm not seeing a lot of 20-something men.
Business brands need to be careful about hanging their hat on human beings. Humans are fragile machines that will eventually break down, sometimes beyond repair. If there is no other choice but to have the owner (or heaven forbid, his children) be the face of the brand, make sure there is a succession plan in place, not just for the business but the brand.
And then there is Burger King. If there is nothing else to measure the dysfunction of their marketing, there is certainly the impression that more Burger King's have closed in my adult life than have opened. And in the ones in my area that have survived, you could shoot a cannon into them and never hit anyone.
Again, I preface this with the disclaimer that it may not be the agency's fault. blah, blah, blah, see above.
Biggest question - what defines Burger King's brand? They have tried so many different tactics, personae and music riffs over the last decade. There has been no consistency, no staying power with any of the brand representations. Pick something for heaven's sake, and then stick to it. It would be nice if you didn't choose to frighten people (the King Mask character peaking in windows and suddenly being discovered in your bed was the stuff of horror films). And maybe stick by your marketing team, instead of ditching them when sales go down. Tim Horton's has that figured out. They've been working with the same people for over 10 years. And it shows in the calibre of their marketing and in the size of their audience.
I may be dating myself but "have it your way" had some legs. Still think it has some legs. Especially in this era of "what's in it for me".
So two brand lessons here, no matter what size your business may be. 1) Don't hang the brand on a human but if you need to, have a succession plan. 2) Make some good decisions about what your brand is, and then stick to it. Should sales go down, do some research to find out why before you blame the marketers and rush in to change everything.
And then there are Burger King and Wendy's. Two very different, dreadful accidents of marketing.
Wendy's fell prey to a lack of planning (at least that is my assumption since I really can't see Dave Thomas approving the messes that have been produced in the last few years) and to hitching their brand to the all too delicate thing that is a human being. I had great respect for Wendy's marketing when Dave Thomas was at the helm. He was personable. He looked and spoke like everyone's favourite uncle. But since Dave's passing, Wendy's has been a curious mix.
This is not necessarily the fault of the advertising agency handling their work. Sometimes the creative can only be as good as the creative brief the client provides. I'll never know who holds responsibility for the current fearful campaign. But seriously, who is the audience they are trying to reach with ridiculous red braided wigs on unlikely candidates? Sure men in their early 20s love humiliation as a form of humour, but is this truly the audience? And while humiliation might be funny to some, it is only funny when it happens to someone else. So where is the connection the audience is supposed to make with the characters in the ads? And when I look at the patrons at Wendy's, I'm not seeing a lot of 20-something men.
Business brands need to be careful about hanging their hat on human beings. Humans are fragile machines that will eventually break down, sometimes beyond repair. If there is no other choice but to have the owner (or heaven forbid, his children) be the face of the brand, make sure there is a succession plan in place, not just for the business but the brand.
And then there is Burger King. If there is nothing else to measure the dysfunction of their marketing, there is certainly the impression that more Burger King's have closed in my adult life than have opened. And in the ones in my area that have survived, you could shoot a cannon into them and never hit anyone.
Again, I preface this with the disclaimer that it may not be the agency's fault. blah, blah, blah, see above.
Biggest question - what defines Burger King's brand? They have tried so many different tactics, personae and music riffs over the last decade. There has been no consistency, no staying power with any of the brand representations. Pick something for heaven's sake, and then stick to it. It would be nice if you didn't choose to frighten people (the King Mask character peaking in windows and suddenly being discovered in your bed was the stuff of horror films). And maybe stick by your marketing team, instead of ditching them when sales go down. Tim Horton's has that figured out. They've been working with the same people for over 10 years. And it shows in the calibre of their marketing and in the size of their audience.
I may be dating myself but "have it your way" had some legs. Still think it has some legs. Especially in this era of "what's in it for me".
So two brand lessons here, no matter what size your business may be. 1) Don't hang the brand on a human but if you need to, have a succession plan. 2) Make some good decisions about what your brand is, and then stick to it. Should sales go down, do some research to find out why before you blame the marketers and rush in to change everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
