Jan 18, 2010

It’s Not The Medium, It’s The Money


The other day I was talking with a friend who was once very involved with the ad business until he found more lucrative pastures and went his merry way. We were talking about how much the business had changed since the early 90s and he voiced a question I’ve heard asked a lot recently both inside and outside the ad industry: why are clients still spending millions of dollars making TV commercials.

Like most intelligent people, my friend understood why a company would need to have some sort of TV presence: millions of people watch TV, it’s an effective way to reach certain audiences, not everyone owns and uses a DVR, etc. and so forth.

What baffled him instead was why so many clients continued to spend such a large percentage of their budget producing said TV commercials. The multimillion dollar budgets, the month-long trips to exotic locations, the millions spent on special effects... that’s all still there. And while there’s admittedly less of it than there was in say 1987, it hasn’t disappeared as quickly as a pure business analysis would demand.

For to restate what has (for many of us) become obvious, TV has become just one of the many places a consumer may see a brand’s message, the reach is nowhere near as broad as it was in the days of three networks, achieving the degree of frequency and ubiquity possible in the pre-internet days is all put impossible and the number of people who do own and use DVRs to fast-forward through TV commercials is increasing daily.

Despite this, many companies continue to spend vast sums of money producing TV commercials, an action with numerous repercussions. The primary one being that the TV commercial becomes the centerpiece of their marketing campaign and time and money is not spent on other programs that might actually increase sales more effectively, e.g product design, customer service, R&D.

The blame here falls pretty heavily on the marketing departments of the companies in question. Ad agencies don’t help, but for the most part, they’re just enablers. (And who can blame them? The profits from a big budget TV shoot are still pretty sweet and as much as certain members of the creative community would like to pretend otherwise, in the absence of wealthy corporate patrons, ad agencies still need to turn a profit.)

Which is why there’s a whole lot of head-scratching these days about why the same company that will put up a hue and cry about spending $30,000 for a Facebook program will gladly (and rapidly) spend twice that amount to fly a TV commercial director and his entourage to Istanbul (first class) or reshoot 2 not-very-critical seconds of a 30 second TV commercial just to make sure the grass is the exact right shade of green. (I am not exaggerating here. The amount of money spent on shooting TV commercials is truly mind-boggling, even more so when you factor in the many millions that large packaged goods companies still spend on testing and re-testing these commercials before they go into full production.)

And while attention to detail is a glorious thing, there’s a point at which it veers towards insanity. The insanity in the marketing community seems to be a result of fear and stagnation more than anything else. Fear, because marketing jobs seem to be even more tenuous than advertising jobs (if such a thing were possible) and stagnation, because right now, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of reward for shaking things up.

I say “right now” because this too will change. Perhaps not fast enough for some companies, but for others, the ideal marketing person is going to be someone who’s spent time at companies who “get it,” someone who realizes that the millions that were once lavished on television production are better spent on things like experience design (there’s a reason Lee Clow called the Apple Store “the best ad Apple ever did”) or the sort of Zapposesque customer service that builds DWOM (digital word of mouth).


That’s the sort of person who’ll be running most large marketing departments ten years from now. They will be the “Marketing General Contractor” I described in a post I wrote last summer. And they will smile at the old-fashioned notion that shooting a TV commercial requires a year’s worth of testing and planning, lavish lunches at Nobu and the expenditure of 70% of their annual budget.

Jan 14, 2010

Is "Post-Posting" Cheating?

Put this up on my Posterous site, but thought that Toad Stool readers who haven't seen the light yet and become Facebook fans might want to weigh in:

Is checking in after the fact on a location-based service like FourSquare cheating?

Jan 12, 2010

SXSW!!!!!!!!!


The dream is getting more and more real.

We've worked out a deal with SXSW Interactive to make the Hive Awards a part of the festival. So we will be down in Austin with our very first show ever on Friday, March 12th at 8 PM. (Still working on the "where" details.)

Texas-sized props to Hugh Forrest of SXSW for making this happen, to Katie King for answering all my "but wait, what about...." type questions and Lisa Owens for helping us find the right location.

We are absolutely thrilled to be a part of the most important tech event on earth, and even more thrilled that so many of our fans and supporters will be there to help us celebrate.

Details to come as to venue, presenters, etc.

HIVE AWARDS DEADLINE IS JANUARY 31. DO NOT MISS OUT - ENTER NOW!

Jan 5, 2010

Multimedia Madness


In a recent piece on the ephemeral iTablet, the New York Times’ David Carr seeks to revive the MultiMedia Myth. You know, the old canard that says that people want to jump back and forth between words and video while they’re reading.

That was the whole premise behind CD-ROMs and we know how that ended up.

Now of course there are situations where “multimedia” works well. Instructional material (e.g. How To Do A Sit-Up, How To Retile A Bathtub, How To Roast A Chicken) and breaking news stories come to mind.

But for most everything else, reading is a completely different activity than watching.

First off, we read in very different places and frames of mind than we watch. Take silence, for instance. There’s a reason “talking websites” are viewed with disdain. We often read in places where we can enjoy the silence (or the background music) or where we don’t want to cut ourselves off entirely from the world around us (via headphones) as we do with video and audio.

Carr cites being able to bring the iTablet to bed to read a magazine and then being able to click on a video of one of the photos. All well and good if you live alone, but if there’s someone else in the bed with you, a video blaring away on your iTablet is pretty annoying.

Our frame of mind is different when we read too. Even if it’s a magazine article, reading happens at one’s own pace. You can daydream, project, fantasize, question, imagine. And then pick up where you left off. That’s something you really can’t do with video since daydreaming isn’t the sort of planned activity that would let you hit the pause button at the exact right moment.

Reading lets us project ourselves onto a scene. Video lets us see how someone else imagined that scene. Both valid, but different enough that we rarely want them happening in the same place.

Finally, there’s the ability to skim. If I’m reading something, I can scan the page and make a pretty quick determination of whether it’s relevant or not. Something I can’t do with a video.

There are lots of reasons a tablet-like magazine reader with the ability to display incredible photos would be a good idea.

The ability to transform those photos into video isn’t one of them.

Dec 29, 2009

Toad Stool Top Nine of '09


With a hat tip to the BBH Labs blog for inspiring this, here are my Top Nine Blog Posts from 2009, in Lettermanesque reverse countdown order:

9. "BORN DIGITAL" (July) A look at how the perpetually wired preschoolers of the Bobos are the first generation we can say was truly "born digital."

8. "DON'T SUCK" (July) Why having a good product or service is the best defense against social media blunders.

7. "CROWDSOURCING IS JUST CREATIVE GANG-BANG 2.0" (September) How certain ad agencies see the crowdsourcing trend as a way to recreate the creative gang-bang for free.

6. "LIFE IN THE BUBBLE" (November) A look at how and why the majority of social media users are observers rather than active participants.

5. "MAGIC ADVERTISING WORDS" (September) On why many marketers still cling to the outdated notion that the right ad can blind consumers to their product's shortcomings.

4. "THE END OF CREATIVE HEGEMONY" (September) Why the Mad Men era creative department, of the sort still in power in most traditional agencies, is no longer relevant, and what creativity will look like going forward.

3. "DOES CREATIVITY STILL MATTER?" (February) A look at the role of "creative" advertising at a time when consumers increasingly rely on search for product information and where it does and doesn't make a difference.

2. "THE STUBBORN, MULE-LIKE TENDENCIES OF REACTIONARY THINKING" (October) Why most marketers and agencies have a tough time accepting all the things that "we" accept as the converntional wisdom, and how and when they'll catch up.

1. "THE SHELF LIFE OF REVOLUTIONS, PARTS 1 - 3" (January/March) A psycho-economic historical overview of twentieth century marketing trends and how we wound up where we are now in the Era of Customer Service.

Enjoy!

How To Lose A Customer: Citibank Mortgage


We've had the mortgage on our house for seven years and, thanks to an automatic payment system, the mortgage has been paid ahead of schedule every single month.

This month, however, Citibank Mortgage managed to somehow lose track of the payment. (Our bank has records showing that it was paid and money was transferred on the usual date.)

The harassing automated calls began sometime last week (we were away) and continued through this morning... despite our getting on the phone 3 different times and speaking with someone at Citi Mortgage who claimed they'd rectify the issue.

This morning we received another automated call, this despite the Citi mortgage website showing that we are actually paid up through February 2010.

Another call to Citi Mortgage, another profound apology. (Based on the South Asian accents of the people we spoke with, I can only but assume we are actually speaking with a call center in India and not anyone in any position of authority.)

So here's what I don't get:

1. Why, after 7 straight years of prompt payment, would they feel compelled to immediately subject us to 4 harassing phone calls a day over a payment that, if it were late (it wasn't) would only have been two weeks late? I can understand if we were consistently late or if we had a funky adjustable mortgage. But we don't. Wouldn't a polite call or note asking what was up been the smart thing to do?

2. Why has no one in a position of authority with Citi Mortgage called to apologize? It's not like they're the only game in town and in the midst of The Great Recession, good customers are hard to come by. Harassing a good customer over the holiday for an error of your own creation seems like just the sort of circumstance a "we're very sorry let us make it up to you" letter calls for.

One of the great things about the digital era is that we can record shabby service for posterity and I firmly believe that it will eventually catch up with the perpetrators. Good customer service is often seen as wasteful because it requires real humans with the power to make decisions exercising subjective judgment rather than computer programs acting on a set of pre-programmed variables.

The problem is, in the long run, the latter is always going to prove far more costly.

Dec 16, 2009

The Art of Conversation

Conversation

People often talk about how Twitter is great at conversation, but the majority of folks I know rarely experience it as anything other than a one way street.

But sometimes a great conversation does happen, most often spontaneously.

The attached PDF is a loose transcript of a conversation that broke loose for about a half hour involving 18 people the other night based on a simple tweet I put out asking whether David Armano's accepting a position at Edelman said anything about the struggle between ad agencies and PR agencies for control of social media. (And since there was no hashtag involved, I'm sure I missed out on several side threads that took off.)

It took on several interesting tangents, and while I know most of the participants in real life, I did get to meet some new people as a result.

Which is why Twitter proves so addictive.

The Downside of Clever

One of my pet peeves are ads that try too hard to be clever and wind up ignoring the product and audience.

To wit: this morning I saw an all-type bus shelter ad for J.C. Penney that read "For the record, no kid wants a sugarplum."

Clever line, will likely win some awards and the creative team will proudly display it in their portfolios.

But what does J.C. Penney get out of it?

Bubkes.

If my own reaction is common (and I suspect in this case it is) my thoughts immediately turn to Hanukkahs past and my dismay at receiving clothing of any sort as a present instead of toys. Which then immediately leads me to Toys'R'Us or GameStop or Amazon or even Target- any store that I know sells lots of toys-- and how I should make sure all my kids' gifts are toy-like.

J.C. Penney sells clothes as far as I know. And while the website indicated that they do sell toys (I just checked) they've given me no reason to choose them over the aforementioned stores: the ad tells me nothing about the size of their toy selection or even that one exists. (Or if it does, I haven't noticed it after about a dozen viewings.)

Clever is good and can help create a strong brand image, particularly in a parity category.

But clever for clever's sake? #Fail.