A special place in hell for marketers

There's a certain line in the sand with marketing - and it keeps being crossed. I believe there should be a special place in hell for marketers and programs that haven't the wits to know when they are irritating their audience. Irritation doesn't breed happy brand experience in anyone's world.

The first special place in hell goes to programming that blatantly uses paid product placement to finance their projects. A little product placement may be amusing but, when it is in your face every five minutes, it screams of desperation.

Case in point - So You Think You Can Dance, Canada (SYTYCDC). I've watched both the American and Canadian versions and the Canadian one is a patchwork quilt of useless product sponsorships that precede nearly every commercial break (as if what we see in the commercial break isn't enough).

Now I get that marketers are having to be more creative in how they reach their audience but the product sponsorships on SYTYCDC are embarassingly uncreative. The Aquafina glasses the judges have strategically placed in front of them so they are in every shot is quiet and traditional.

The Canon sponsorship of 'how the stars get their transformation' is ridiculous. Quick snapshots of the dancers getting their make-up applied - honestly how many times do we have to see the same style of snapshot? If anything, it demonstrates a lack of creativity when using the camera. Good message? I think not. (And of course it is followed in the commercial break by a Canon ad.)

The Joe fresh stage for the audience to dance on is also leaning toward nonsense. A nasty excuse to get the brand in front of both the studio audience and the viewers - and of course followed by an ad in the commercial break.

Finally, as if this wasn't enough, and gracious there may be more that I've forgotten (which indicates how successful this is), is the Tylenol Muscle and Back Pain backstage update. Followed by chatter from the dancers as they breeze by the camera and, you guessed it, a Tylenol ad in the commercial break.

Now in my world, each and every one of these product placement sponsorships should be asking for a discount because their impact is watered down by being trapped with all the other ridiculous activities of paid sponsorship. Is SYTYCDC that desperate for money - or are the advertisers not finding value in buying regular advertising spots? In either case, perhaps a measurement of the value of the programming, or how it is presented, is in order - by both the producers and the advertisers. Perhaps they should just pay for their 15 minutes of the program and spare us the commercial break. Imagine that - network television could become commercial break free! Obviously not commercial-free, but we'd get more program in the one hour than the 40 out of 60 minutes we currently get.

Oh, and the second special place in hell goes to the marketers who think it is clever to buy space to play the same ad back-to-back. Yes, a 15-second ad becomes a 30-second one when you play it twice in a row, but for heaven's sake - do you know how irritating that is? Just a suggestion - negative impact is not a good brand experience and while it gets someone talking about you, it isn't in a pleasant way so they aren't going to support your brand. Fools.

Message match your meaning

Okay, so maybe I watch too many crime shows, but the new Air Canada television campaign is rather spooky to me. It's supposed to be the re-launch of the brand but, to me, half of it looks like a murder mystery. The smearing of red paint with fingertips is too much like writing with blood. (maybe I should seek help?)

I seriously believe an airline wouldn't want to be associated with spilled blood, so what were they thinking? The company's in trouble financially and they spend money on a high production ad that doesn't really sell any of their services but certainly puts a negative picture in my mind.

It is however an excellent example of what can happen to your marketing message if it isn't clear, concise and tested. Branding is important, don't get me wrong, but when your budget is tight, delivering messages that are high level and don't actually have a specific call-to-action are not a good use of your money (but it certainly puts cash into ad agencies' wallets). Of course, maybe Air Canada doesn't have anything positive to say about seat sales or services (that's certainly the sound of things in the media over the last while) so this weird bloody ad is all they have in their pocket.

There aren't a lot of ads, television, print or otherwise, that people take the time to discuss to discover what their impressions actually are. So you're stuck with their first impression - good or bad.

And it isn't just the words you use. In the case of Air Canada, there's nothing wrong with the words of the commercial. In this case, it's the visuals. So make sure your images are worthy of the message - both supporting it and enhancing it. For some people something as simple as brussel sprouts can be such a negative image that your brand is scarred forever.

Depending on the audience psychographics, you could find customers turning away simply because the imagery doesn't match their temperament. And the only way to know for sure is through testing or being completely in touch with who your customer actually is deep in their heart.

The more you know about your customer, the more you will be able to reach them with engaging and motivating messages. It's worth the research to not become an airline that markets writing in blood.

If only they could remember why they were unique

Automakers are a fine example of what happens when everyone looks and sounds the same. I'm pretty sure their television ads are actually intended to demonstrate the quality and value of the product, but when everyone is saying and looking the same, why even spend the money?

When was the last time you saw a television ad for a car or truck that truly inspired you, either emotionally or mentally? For the last several years, there are only three vehicles that actually stand out for me. That's three, out of hundreds.

The Cadillac CTS 'Hammer' ad is one of them. As an A-type personality, the message fits me to a T. I found myself emotionally involved in the delivery of the message because it totally defines my personal style. I intentionally watched it a second time to learn what car was being promoted. And since then, I just watch it because I love it.

Kudos again go to Cadillac for their ad with Kate Walsh. I don't think there has ever been such a sexy promotion for a car. Again, I got emotionally involved. Had a wonderful sensation of 'mmmmm'.

So with two ads, back to back, Cadillac stood out with great writing, great delivery and great emotional impact. So the Cadillac CTS is the only vehicle currently being marketed that means anything to me (and I drive a Ford Focus).

In the past, Jeep was able to get my attention with their hilarious 'Rock me Gently' ad. I enjoyed it so much, I didn't even realize until just this minute that it was a 60 second ad, not a 30. While it probably doesn't speak to everyone, it engages a certain audience in a memorable way.

And finally, the whole series of swamp ads from KIA for their Sportage are memorable and entertaining. Particularly their lastest Goth version. If a vehicle can deliver this much fun, it needs to be in everyone's life.

So there - three out of hundreds of cars and trucks over the years. Buying a car is a big decision. It costs a good portion of most people's annual income. If you can't find the unique selling proposition and demonstrate in an engaging and informative advertising campaign, why bother selling it at all?

The Cadillac ads are a great example of how we've become more about "what's in it for me" than about features and benefits. We are emotional buyers.

Now for the benefit of the marketing firms who put together the majority of boring, repetitive, indistinguishable advertising for the automotive industry, I will say we have no idea what the creative brief looked like, how creative you tried to be and how often the auto execs kyboshed your ideas. In my experience, executives are executives because they know how to organize and manage people, not because they are creative or willing to step out of the safety of "everyone else does it this way". In most companies, you never get to be an executive if you are creative and willing to be different.

Being different takes guts. Entrepreneurs with guts are the ones that grow their business. Business people who are afraid to be different than their peers, find themselves lost in the shuffle. That's a good message for small business, but on topic today is how this insistence on continuously developing 'typical' advertising is one of the reasons auto sales just aren't what they used to be.

In a recent press release, I wrote about how the auto makers and their behemoth structure keep them from giving their customers what they want and need. This is definitely true where their marketing is concerned.

Make sure as small business owners you don't fall into the same trap. Understand your unique selling proposition and if you can't figure out what it is, then either speak to your customers to learn what they think, or for heaven's sake, just give up and walk away. There was, at some point, something unique about your business. Remember what it was and market that in an equally unique way.

Perhaps the automakers need to figure out what was unique about each of their models and if they can't remember, stop making them.

This week in television ad land

We haven't talked about television very much because in most cases it just isn't a good buy for rural & small business. But there are certainly lessons to learn from what the big guys are doing with their ads.

Let's start with my favourite ad of the last couple of months. It's a Jeep ad using pop music as support. People who have attended my workshops know I despise pop music in ads because you remember the music but never the vendor. In this case, the ad is so well done that I remember the vendor just so I can reference it successfully to others.

So take a look at the "Rock Me Gently" Jeep ad. Why does this ad work so well?

First off, the acting is great. The guy has so many terrific expressions that actually match what's going on. And they have done a great match between generations. The guy is young to appeal to a 20 - 35 audience but used music from a generation older. They have made the music an integral part of the ad, not just background music. (and the music sticks in your head altho not sure that's a positive attribute) And laugh! Oh my goodness, after watching it 50 times I still laugh when I see it. And humour is the #1 way to get people to remember your ad. Jeep has found humour that is great to participate with, without being rude or disgusting.

Kudos to the creative team. Positive genius!

Now, the medium success on Canadian television. Aviva Insurance is starting to advertise and went big with the buy. They are on American Idol, Family Guy and some other huge audience spectaculars. Primarily, not sure the buy is worth it. So much of this audience group is outside of their target market. But hey, more people will see it even if they won't care. Maybe a really targeted buy to some specialty channels would have been a better use of the money. It isn't all about being on the biggest shows, it's about using the money sensibly to hit your specific market more often. For every hit on American Idol, no doubt there could have been five hits on a specialty channel.

The ad talks about changing insurance. They have tried to go for humour but it falls down. Mildly amusing at best. The big issue is the colour choices for the banner at the end that identifies the company through logo and website. You can't read the website address and the yellow just overwhelms the screen. You instinctively watch the announcer rather than reading the text in the bright yellow box. Yellow is the most conflicting colour to the human brain so maybe not the best choice for so much screen space.

But bravo to the folks at Aviva that built the survey that supports this ad campaign. It is amusing just walking through, but when you select the "relief" button you can really see that someone has a great sense of juxtaposition. The yellow is still really hard on the eyes so folks will probably rush through it, but at least the exposure and more of the story are there.

And last, and certainly, least - the new RONA split 15-second spots. I've only seen one of them, but in that one they share information that isn't even correct in an attempt to sell more of their product. In the front end 15-second, you get a question. In this case "Can you use the same drywall in all rooms". In the back 15-second, they give you the answer (after you have sat through other people's ads). In this case, they answered "no". Well really, of course you can use the same drywall in all types of rooms. You may not want to, but you can. And in my opinion, split 15s just make people watch the ads in between with more vigour while they wait for the answer. So other advertisers should be thanking RONA for this less than clever sales tactic.

What's the big learn from today's rant?

1. Know your audience and the audiences around them. Jeep does a great job reaching a broad audience base by using music that is now multi-generational.
2. Humor is your friend. Especially when you can do it without being disgusting.
3. Make sure you use great talent. Whether it's your actors or your designers, great talent shows. Jeep has used a terrific creative team and a brilliant, funny actor. Aviva has used some good ideas but the visual team (or the corporate folks with the final say) have mucked it up with the insistence of using so much yellow.
4. Don't use yellow if you don't have to. It hurts the brain.
5. Be smart with your buy. Target your audience and use the methods that reach them with as little spill into useless audience as possible.
6. Don't stretch the truth in your advertising. You'll get caught and it's a negative mark on your brand.

Know your audience means save your money

I just finished reading a newspaper article about a government program for interest-free, forgivable loans. The director of municipal housing for London, Ontario was interviewed:

'Louise Stevens, London's director of municipal housing, said the program was well-publicized in London in lending institutions, libraries, realtors and the media.

"We promoted the heck out of it," she said.'

One of the conditions of this program, in which renters can get a loan for a downpayment on purchasing a house, is household income of $50,000 or less.

So let's take a look at the city's tactics in this "well-publicized" plan versus audience behaviours.

Families with less than $50,000 income are probably not hanging out at the bank. And a majority of folks under 40 years of age do their banking on-line so they're rarely in the bank, if ever. So using funds to promote this program in lending institutions should probably have been kept to a minimum. A nice message to the lending officers might have been enough on the off chance that someone making $50,000/year decided they could afford a house (never mind all the public relations nightmares going on in the US about housing costs and loans and the impact rising interests rates have had on people's ability to pay their mortgages - that has had so much play in the Canadian media that lower middle income families are likely stepping cautiously).

Libraries. Hmm. I love the library. Bought my house because the library is right next door. But I know I am an anomaly. Reading for fun is becoming less and less a popular hobby, especially with people in lower income and lower education brackets. Research is done online for those with a computer rather than wading through the stacks at the library. And in this time of over-packed schedules, I can't think of anyone in my experience intentionally wandering around the library to find adverts from the city or anyone else.

Would you have a chat with a realtor if you didn't think you could afford a house? Of course, they would want to be aware of the program, but again, not necessary to put much money under it.

And now the buggaboo of all buggaboos - the media. And by this, she means mainstream media. Newspapers and radio. Maybe even some television.

Newspaper readership has been deteriorating for over a decade. Partly because people are less interested in reading, partly because mainstream journalism has become an entertainment industry rather than a credible news source in many cases and finally because the internet allows people to streamline their experience with less newsprint in the house and less black smeary ink on their fingers.

Loads of statistics across the country show that newspaper readership goes up with higher education and household income. So, doesn't look like a favourable buy for households under $50,000.

And beware of misleading comments in the readership statistics of newspapers. London Free Press says that 71% of adults 25 - 49 read their newspaper each week (notice it doesn't say every day). Which properly translated means these people open the newspaper a minimum of once a week. So which section? How many of them only look at Friday's entertainment section? How many only look at the classifieds? Sports page? Lifestyle?

Radio is challenging at the best of times. Each market has more radio stations than you could possibly need. London has at least seven stations, not including all the stations from surrounding areas that spill into the market. Radio is terrific if you can really nail down the habits of your audience, but again you are trapped with figuring out when they are actually listening. No point in running ads when your audience isn't there.

And then television, one of the most challenging things to buy on a tight budget. London does have a local station, but with all the specialty channels and major networks, how many Londoners are actually watching? Not many.

So it is easy to criticize but is it easy to figure out what might have worked? How about an online component, even it is only a targeted ad on the newspaper's website? How about unaddressed admail directed to those neighbourhoods with the correct demographics? How about some kind of partnership with Walmart or Zellers? An insert for their shopping bags?

Municipality employees often make tactical decisions based on their own life experience, not through any solid research into the habits of their audience. Which is why so much municipal marketing money is wasted. And don't get me wrong - municipalities aren't the only ones who do this. Large corporations right down to the mom-and-pop corner store are frequently guilty of this.

Don't waste your marketing dollars. If you don't know the habits of your audience, find someone who does. And be open to new ways to talk to your audience.

"We promoted the heck out of it" is obviously a relative statement, but I certainly don't think the tactics she listed would equal promoting the heck out of anything.

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".