A survey recently conducted by Mormac Brand Re-engineering showed that 90% of small business owners do their own marketing. In some cases this meant everything, including graphic design. About 12% did have professionals handling their graphic design and web page development but all other marketing tasks were handled by themselves. This was particularly true in start-up businesses.
And people wonder why 50% of small businesses close in the first year and 70% are gone by year five.
You wouldn't go into a serious court case and handle it yourself. You'd take your lawyer. You wouldn't battle the tax man by yourself, you'd take your accountant. You have financial advisors, insurance advisors - so why don't you have a marketing advisor?
The Canadian Bankers Association recommends this list of advisors to help small business be successful: "Lawyers, accountants, financial advisors, communications and marketing specialists, insurance agents, computer and technology experts – all can provide professional advice and other services to you."
Lately, I've heard small business owners saying, "I can't pay for a marketing specialist right now, I have to make more sales so I have more money." And where are those sales going to come from if you aren't marketing yourself correctly? And realistically, poorly-handled marketing costs you money - it doesn't make you money.
Now I know some small business owners think that to get good solid marketing advice they have to pay through the nose. But this is not necessarily true. A consultation on the habits of your customers and how that plays into delivering strong messages may be all it takes. Marketing isn't just advertising (which is where an awful lot of money is spent). A small business marketing consultant should save you money and increase your sales.
You don't need a glitzy, glamorous advertising agency to help you get a handle on your marketing. Check around. There are entrepreneurial marketers out there with the experience and skills to review your plan and give advice, without having you tie yourself to full agency services.
Do yourself a favour. Stop thinking you know how to do everything. You don't. And no one expects you to - except maybe yourself. Get a marketing advisor just like you get a lawyer or accountant.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
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:
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.
'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.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Navel gazing doesn't deliver your message
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.
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 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)
