MarketingInsideOut.com

I certainly didn’t “read” Olympics when I saw this today. But then, the Olympics isn’t exactly top of mind for me. (Triple salchows don’t make me giddy. I’d rather watch reruns of the Shopping Channel.  Or do laundry.)  I use Google a couple dozen times every day and usually quickly understand (and appreciate) their seasonal/holiday nods. But this one was far from a quick read for me. However, I’m a Google diehard, work in the marketing profession, and have an insatiable curiousity…so I took the time to figure it out. Now, Google’s a useful tool with a value in its own right so a visual that didn’t “connect” quickly isn’t damaging. What if the example was a TV commercial that some client paid big bucks for?  Like some of those that ran in the Super Bowl. How often would a consumer really take the time to try and figure out what the message was supposed to be?

Have you ever read something over and over and over again and still had to ask…”what the heck does that mean?”  As if some massive garbled filter has turned it into incomprehensible pap.

Granted we are an industry with our own jargon, but some take it way over the top to an art form.  Recently, I read a document written by one of the top brand consultancies and all I could do was shake my head.  And to think people pay a lot of money…

It’s rampant, in every industry.  But there’s hope. Bullshit now has a number. And you now have the power to calculate it with this handy little tool that lets you know if your document is full of it. 

Bullfighter — originally produced by Deloitte Consulting but now distributed as a freeware product comes with a jargon database and an exclusive Bull Composite Index. 
 

In Sunday’s New York Times business section, R/GA chief Bob Greenberg outlines why he believes that in order to cut through the clutter, advertising needs to be shaken up, and shaken up immediately. While this isn’t the first I’ve read of his point of view, this one goes in a bit of a different direction. His point is that many agencies are so tethered to a 30-second TV spot mentality because it’s the basis of their financial model. Are :30 spots fossilizing and are the companies that foot the advertising bills increasingly aware of it? Worth a read.

So you want to choose an ad agency. How? You’d think there’d be a clear easy way – but apparently not. Most start by creating a long, laborious, redundant and thoroughly bureaucratic document called an RFP or request for proposal. At least a 1/3rd of the questions are written in a way to elicit responses of no use whatsoever, in the selection process, or in any process for that matter. The main purpose of the RFP appears to be a test to ensure that the agency is able to withstand massive amounts of torture. Once written this document is distributed to somewhere between 15 to 150 ad agencies almost anywhere on the globe. There is a steadfast deadline and many an agency has crumbled when their document reaches the appointed desk at 12:05 pm – the deadline was 12:00 pm. No kidding – they’re that anal! You’d think the future of the free world depends on it.

Once the completed RFP has been submitted to the prospective client it immediately goes to a nearby credenza where it sits – forever. Oh no, no one ever actually reads it. But somehow, the agency list is reduced and the finalists are selected. Time for more torture.

Now the agency has to put together a huge presentation – the “dog and pony show” that forces every department in the agency into producing work based on a brief outline prepared by some liaison at the client company – with little or no input from their key players. Sometimes the client company will compensate the agency for some of this work – but that’s pretty rare. Yes, usually we’re asked to do about 6 weeks of work for a chance to get up and present during the same week (or day) as the three to six other contenders – for nothing. Now many of us are seasoned presenters – but let’s face it – we don’t have all the facts – we’re workin’ in a vacuum. We’ve planted a stake in the ground based on very little knowledge and we’re goin’ for it. So now we have to get up and present our “recommendations” to a group of people who know this company inside out – do we look stupid? What do you think?

Once we’re done we writhe in agony waiting for the Q&A. Here’s where they ask questions like: Why would you focus all of your media dollars on 4th quarter when we decided 10 years ago that we would never run 4th quarter media? Good question.

So now we sit and wait for the verdict – and if we win the process was brilliant, these clients are geniuses and we’re lucky to have found each other. But if we don’t…

The American Dream. Everyone can agree on its fundamental promise: if you have a great idea or an incomparable talent and dedicate yourself to its promotion, you can earn untold fame and fortune.

In 1996, Google’s founders were in a doctoral program at Stanford University. They’re currently worth more than $7 billion each. Before 2002, Kelly Clarkson was a cocktail waitress. Then she won American Idol, and she hasn’t delivered a chocolate martini tableside since.

But what happens if you don’t develop the next whizbang new-media outlet or can’t sell records to millions of American teens and tweens? That’s where there seems to have been a fundamental shift over the last several decades.

Now, I wasn’t around during the Eisenhower years. In fact, I didn’t have a desk job until the Clinton Administration. So my theory comes out of historical review and not personal experience. But after the Second World War, at least, there seemed to be an unspoken clause in the Contract of the American Dream that said: “If you’re not the next Sinatra or Rockefeller, don’t worry. All you have to do is work hard for eight hours a day, five days a week, and you’ll still live comfortably. You can buy a new car every few years. You can have a house and a family. You can go to Disney World. And you’ll die a happy American with a pension.” (I realize, of course, that this was true primarily just for white men, but hear me out.)

That’s where we were fifty years ago. For nearly four decades, there was a slow erosion of that unwritten promise. Then came the Internet and globalization. And now we’re in the first decade of the new millennium, where pensions are a thing of the past, eight hours of work is simply a good start to the day and you can easily run up a tab of more than $15,000 for a Disney vacation for a family of four. (Assuming you can find time for vacation, much less cough up the cost of a Hyundai with not much to show for it but sore feet and a couple of mouse-ear yarmulkes.)

Which brings me to my point. The American Dream has persisted — if not in actuality, at least in perception — for generations. But the generation that’s now entering the workforce seems to be the first to figure out that the Dream has changed, that there really isn’t a safety net if you don’t succeed big and fast. And this seems to have caused a certain sense of desperation. The dot-com bust, 9/11 and the following economic unease sealed the deal for these kids.

In advertising and design, this has led to an odd trend that I’ve noticed over the last few years. More and more kids are “slash” graduates — copywriter/designers, public relations/account service, designer/art directors, account service/account planning/copywriters. Their cover letters and interviews are unfocused in their purpose and passion. They just want a job, and they’ll be anything you need to become gainfully employed.

This is perfect for unfocused agencies. They get cheap labor in whatever department is lacking. (“Damn the precision communications objectives for the client. Let’s just keep a solid bottom line.”) But what happens in fifteen years when that recent graduate is now in their late 30s and still running traffic, playing account service and occasionally writing a terrible headline? They have no future. Not in a solid agency environment.

This is not an industry that allows a shotgun approach to talent. It takes years of practice, determination and mentoring to grasp the importance of your individual role in what is ultimately a huge process. Yes, you need to see the entire process to fully understand your role. You just can’t be the entire process.

As I’ve said, a certain desperation on the part of today’s job seekers is partially to blame. But an even larger part of the blame rests with those who are sending these kids into the world unprepared — their college professors. Advertising is an ever-evolving industry. What worked today will leave you penniless tomorrow. Unfortunately, most advertising programs are staffed with people who either couldn’t make it in the real world or who’ve been out of the game too long to understand or familiarize themselves with the daily changes that effect marketing strategy in the Too-Much-Information Age. Today’s slash graduates are the result. Who else would tell these future professionals that they’re more likely to get a job if they know a little of everything instead of a lot of one thing?

That’s not how it works. Unfortunately, many graduates are finding that out after spending more than a hundred grand on their education. Even more unfortunate is that some of them will only discover it after fifteen years of working as an account executive/media planner/copywriter.

When it comes to helping clients deal with the news media, those of us who are “newsies”-turned-PR pros know what it’s like to be caught in the crosshairs of a news event—from both sides. We know, for example, what it’s like go through the day-to day newsroom “spin cycle” with the impossible deadlines—and the even more impossible demands of harried editors and producers. We know, too, how capricious news selection can be—and just how tough it is to defend just why a particular item makes the news, while other seemingly more newsworthy items did not.  Look at the front or section pages of any newspaper, from the esteemed New York Times to the Podunk Woolgatherer, from CNN to Channel 49 -TV, and chances are you’ll come across an item or 10 that make you wonder what the heck THAT editor was “smoking.”

And if you are one of the favored few whose event, product, issue, whatever, is deemed newsworthy on a particular day, your next big worry might well be, “Will I be quoted accurately, or will I come out sounding like a nut case.” Worse yet, if, in fact, you do sound like a “nut case”, will that hurt your product/issue/cause?  And, if you are misquoted or misrepresented in a way that substantively (and I’m not taking about a mere word or two gone awry here) hurts your business, product or cause, what can you do about it?

There are plenty of ways to maximize your odds of being represented accurately—and to counteract misinformation. We’ll explore all of that at a later date. However, first let’s focus on the most fundamental—yet least applied — tenant of newsgathering: As a potential news source, you have rights, too. That’s right, here’s what we tell our clients:
 

• You have the right to know what questions the reporter will ask. 
  Unless the interview is “live,” and few are, prior to the interview ask the reporter what general questions he or she will ask in the interview.
• You have the right to know that the reporter truly understands your responses.
  If you suspect the reporter does not fully understand the issue, ask if he or she needs additional examples or information. 
• Be quoted accurately.
  Everyone makes mistakes — even the most professional and conscientious reporter.  Still, if you are seriously misquoted or if your information is taken out of context, contact the reporter and ask that a correction or clarification be printed.  (If it’s a TV interview, contact the news director and ask for an on-air correction.)  This is important.  Unless the faulty information is corrected, it will appear over and over again in subsequent news stories.  A local TV station may “feed” the misinformation to the network (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) with which it is affiliated, thereby spreading the misinformation nationwide.  Thanks to the recent reporting scandals at The New York Times, most reputable news outlets are more willing than ever to make corrections to erroneous stories.
• Be treated fairly by the news media. 
  If you are constantly misquoted or misrepresented by a particular reporter who seems to have an “ax to grind,” and you’ve talked repeatedly to the reporter and his or her boss, take it up the ladder — to the publisher, if need be, or the broadcast station manager. If that doesn’t work, consider taking that news media off your “call list,” but do this only as a last resort.

So, you ask, what do you do if that news media is the only game in town and you need to get the word out to your community? Actually, this comes up a lot—particularly in rural areas.  Here’s what one of our clients—the officers of health foundation—did. After a false and misleading article appeared in the local newspaper (the editor was for the project in question, but was over-ruled by the publisher, who also happens to be her father-in-law), the foundation officers decided to fight “ink with ink.” Rather than deal with their biased local newspaper, they are creating their own “press.” Plans are underway to publish and distribute a weekly newsletter and email blast to garner local support for the foundation’s project, while dispelling the misinformation that is sure to be published in the local press. Will this work? That remains to be seen, but at the very least the foundation officers will have exercised their “right” to dispense accurate information to the residents of their community.

You’ve probably seen the commercial. Happy couples, sappy scenes, classic ending with a couple lounging in side-by-side bath tubs looking out into the seascape. Tagline: When the moment is right, will you be ready? It’s a pretty lame attempt to get your attention for an erectile dysfunction product (and if it is so great, why on earth are they in separate tubs?). Like most TV pharma ads for erectile dysfunction, whose advertisers spend $400+ million annually; this commercial is, for the most part, completely forgettable. Except for one thing…

Picture this, a room full of friends chatting. TV on as background. Monotone voice on the commercials starts in with the facts about potential drug side effects. Completely ignored by everyone in the room…until an actual doctor on screen says “Men who experience an erection lasting more than four hours should seek immediate medical attention.” Every head in the room turns to look at the TV and the question hangs in the air: “Four hours?”

You can almost see every man’s brain frantically coming up with a mnemonic to memorize the brand name CIALIS. After all, this is probably the best reason you’ve ever heard to seek immediate medical attention. Beats incontinence.

That one sentence in the disclaimer rattled off by the doctor in the newest CIALIS TV spot that launched mid January is by far the most memorable thing in the entire commercial. Can you recite any other sentence in this high production value (read high budget) spot? Interesting don’t you think? Especially in light of the fact that those FDA required disclaimers usually undo whatever positive impact an ad may have had. But this time that one possible side effect may very well be responsible for multiplying the sales of CIALIS by untold numbers. CIALIS, the drug from Eli Lilly and the Icos Corporation launched in 2003 in the US is the only impotence drug whose sales are increasing. The disclaimer allows consumers to draw their own conclusions. In this case, for some it’s, “You can become the human version of the Washington Monument.

This example (love it or hate it) is a great demonstration that letting the viewer come to their own conclusions, without the usual blatant, agonizing justification and hard sells can sometimes be the best sell of all. The non-sell sell. When viewers can deduce for themselves (giving them credit for brains) what’s in it for them, it becomes more personal…and their idea. And people like an idea better when they think it’s their own. Of course having a high interest subject matter to work with doesn’t hurt either.

‘Tis the season for weight loss commercials.  And if I’m going to have to live through the constant reminder that I too should be losing weight could they, at least, be slightly less painful to experience.  There are two basic formulas, with a few noteworthy exceptions, but the bulk of my takeaway is: I’m not buying any of this crap!  Formula one tends to be shots of obese and frumpy women who have miraculously transformed into body building babes.  Do I look that stupid?  How about sharing the missing link that let fat and frumpy get abs of steel!  That’s just a little too much of a stretch.  Among the stories of miraculous weight loss lives the Kirstie Alley/Jennie Craig adventure.  And I’ve gotta say, she’s lost 50 pounds and looks so much better.  Just not enough better to be flying through the air over the heads of much smaller, skinnier guys in that dance sequence.  Don’t you worry for their lives?  I hate to be the first one to say it but “Kirstie, honey, you’ve got to work on the next 50!”

Formula two focuses on the doctor recommendation.  One problem though – the doctor is 12 and graduated last week.  Oh yeah, and the doctor is gorgeous because typically they’ve used the product.  Are you kidding me?  One model-like recent med school graduate even shows a picture of her three stunning kids.  Hey guys, ever hear of credibility?  I’m guessing no.  And I have to ask myself, if you’re blatantly lying to me about this – how many others lies are there: no you won’t be hungry, oh yes, the food is delicious, you’ll feel better than you’ve ever felt, it costs pennies a day, with virtually no effort – all seem abundantly believable.  Yeah right.

There is one weight loss ad that I admire.  It has lousy production value and the writing is stiff and awkward but it makes a point that I can actually buy.  The basic message is: when does it make sense to spend $150 on diet pills?  When you’re over 20 pounds overweight and everything else had failed.  I get that.  I believe that.  OK I do have other questions – but, at least, it gets me that far.  What does all of this tell us?  If you’re stuck on formulaic solutions – ditch them – they don’t ring true.  And, if you’re an agency offering up formulaic solutions – shame on you!