• Home
  • Who we are
    • John Durham
    • Chris Arens
    • Jim Nichols
  • What we do
  • Clients/Partners
  • Intelligence
  • Case Studies
    • Freewheel.tv
    • Del Monte Foods
    • Travel Ad Network
    • Additional Case Studies
  • Contact

Archives

Monthly Archive for: ‘March, 2012’

Home / 2012 / March

3 brands that made the wrong friends 0

A key objective of social media is to acquire citizen evangelists — people who love your brand and make their adoration known. But what happens when you attract followers that do real harm to your brand?
When you open up a brand to community participation, you give everyone an opportunity to participate in defining its essence. But your responsibility as a brand steward requires that you protect your brand’s interests. Just as attempting total control of a brand is unwise, so too is abdicating your huge potential influence on shaping what it stands for.
3 brands that made the wrong friends
Here are three examples of brands that attracted significant “bad followings,” along with four tips to avoid problems for your own brand.

Lowe’s

3 brands that made the wrong friends 
A few months back, TLC launched a show called “All American Muslim” about a football-loving, Pop-Tart eating nuclear family that happens to observe Islam. DIY giant Lowe’s purchased ads on the show as part of its extensive buy on TLC, not out of any desire to support Muslims, but rather because the show offered an efficient way to reach their target.
Unfortunately for Lowe’s, a Christian group interpreted the buy as a political statement — that Lowe’s was supporting a “dangerous religion that condones terrorism and is a real threat to American society.” The group threatened to boycott. Lowe’s, trying to avoid controversy, acquiesced to their demands and cancelled the buy.
Reaction to the cancellation was mixed. Many were critical of the company for bowing to pressure from anti-Muslim groups. They made such a flurry of comments that this became a mainstream meme. Thus, Lowe’s became embroiled in a controversy it had tried to avoid.
Of course, not everyone disagreed with Lowe’s decision, but they clearly misinterpreted it. Thousands publicly defended the decision, assuming that the reason for the reversal was that the company shared their virulently anti-Muslim views.
Lowe’s original decision to buy ads was economic. Their cancellation was also an economic decision — a desire to avoid any form of controversy that might anger some of their customers. But by not explaining the rationale for their actions, they became involved in a political and religious controversy. They made large numbers of friends and enemies — all for seeming to embroil themselves in a controversy that they were trying very hard to avoid.

Burberry

3 brands that made the wrong friends
The iconic plaid of Burberry has long been an oh-so-British, subtle way of conveying personal status. Less in your face than, say, sporting a giant Juicy logo across the butt, the brand’s particular plaid conferred arguably more status to its wearers because only high-status people recognized it. The great unwashed just saw plaid, while the gentry saw something very British-elite.
Then, Burberry plaid became a working class status symbol. There’s a subculture in Britain nicknamed “chavs” — there really isn’t an American equivalent. A chav is a sort of anti-social, possibly violent slacker. Chavs began sporting Burberry as part of their street ensembles, along with thick gold chains, track suits, and high-end trainers.
For Burberry, this popularization meant thousands of new customers; but at what cost? How can a brand retain its elite customers — indeed, its elite image — when one sees the plaid more often on “ASBOs” (slang for people with court-delivered “Anti-Social Behavior Order” judgments) than on the monied people that have been Burberry’s blue lifeblood for generations?
For Burberry, the solution seems to have been a recognition that the very notions of status and class have changed. When hiphop can help reestablish Cadillac as a high-status brand after decades of struggling, it’s clear that the rules of status have changed and that status brands have to reflect these new realities to grow their businesses. For Burberry, the transition appears to have been accomplished through continuing to associate itself with traditional English class signals — country life, the city, etc. — but a much broader marketing effort. Middle- and working-class people are likely to see the brand’s ads in their daily lives — 20 years ago they certainly wouldn’t have.

McDonald’s

 3 brands that made the wrong friends
Corporate-level messaging in social can very easily become a sword with a handle that cuts. McDonald’s recent experience provides evidence of this. They initiated two programs through Twitter that attracted both positive and negative followings.
First, let’s talk about #Meetthefarmers, a program designed to communicate stories about the positive effects of the McDonald’s supply chain and the real ingredients in its meals. The hashtag attracted some positive tweets from farmers clearly proud of their products and their business partner. It also attracted — you guessed it — a bit of snark. This tweet will give you a sense of some of the tenor of those negative tweets:
“Hey @McDonalds, I’d like to  who grow the dimethylpolysiloxane & tertiary butylhydroquinone for your fries!”
The hashtag certainly attracted a following, but not the sort of supportive crowd that was desired.
Another program was #McStories, a hashtag designed to get people to tell their best McDonald’s experiences. It also attracted a number of rather negative brand portrayals.
To its great credit, McDonald’s does not appear to have done the “big corporation flip-out” we’ve seen from many large companies. They ceased the programs, learned a lesson, and moved on to further experimentation. I suppose when you are McDonald’s, some negative tweeting can be seen for what it is, a momentary blip. It does point, however, to the need to be mindful that when you ask consumers to unleash creativity, you are doing just that — taking something off the leash and out of your control.

Four ways to avoid damage from bad fans

Presented above were three examples and three different situations. In the Lowe’s example, intolerant people thought they were helping the brand. With Burberry, the challenge was juggling the different perspectives and values of two sets of consumers. In the third, it was about followers who probably aren’t customers, and in all likelihood, had little reach or impact into the customer base.
Whether we like it or not, our brands are being discussed across digital — “command and control” branding has been replaced by shared brand stewardship in which our customers have a vivid effect on brand perceptions. But the notion of total acquiescence to “consumer control” is moronic. We have the power and responsibility to mitigate damage and find opportunity. We are abdicating our duty as brand stewards if we don’t try to amplify positive voices and limit the damage from negative ones.
We can certainly do things to limit the likelihood of suffering damage from bad fans and followers. Here are four ways:
Do a reality checkWhatever brand you represent, you will inevitably find that some of your followers say and do things you wish they wouldn’t. Recognizing the difference between suboptimal communication and genuine problems is a critical skill. Also, consider the scale of the threat. For example, my guess is that the decision to pull ads from “All American Muslim” was an overreaction to what was actually a very small number of potential boycotters. There is absolutely no way to absolutely please everyone.
Think about how your actions and programs might be interpreted
Be prepared for predictable blow-back. Is it surprising that “McHaters” wrote critical messages about the golden arches? I think not. By anticipating possible backlash or negative consequences, you can craft better programs and know how to react when problems develop.
Consider whether you can turn bad fans into business opportunity
To be sure, where there’s smoke, fire may develop. But also consider the opportunity that the new followers represent. Are there ways to turn a potentially bad situation into a good one? For Burberry, the solution appears to be maintaining elite brand symbols but democratizing the touch-points.
Grow thick skin
It would be nice if we could control every aspect of our brands and the ways people perceive them, but we can’t. Trying to actually weakens our influence. If your brand is going to be active in social — and it is whether or not you have a social program — you need to be prepared to take a few hits along the way. The thin-skinned who overreact to these hiccups inevitably exacerbate the problems. Because, most of the time, the damage is small and transitory. I have no doubt, for example, that the “McProblems” outlined above made for a few crappy days in the social department. But just a few months later, the situation is forgotten in all but a couple of small trade articles. Hardly a mortal hit, and by taking that punch, the brand learned more about what to do in the future.
In a world of new ways to connect with consumers, there will be triumphs and missteps along the way. What is most important is that we do our best and get better through our experiences.

“” image by Keoni Cabral via Flickr.

“” image via Flickr.
“” image via Shutterstock.

Posted on: 03-24-2012
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

Secrets Of A Digital Evangelist (Mediapost 3.21.12) 0

The role of the digital evangelist inside a large brand can be a difficult one.  The road is marred with people who’ve taken on that responsibility before, and in many cases they’ve left feeling unfulfilled at best, or battered, bruised and beaten at worst.  It can be a thankless job as you spend every waking hour developing innovative strategies, evaluating an endless stream of intelligent, venture-backed companies and holding one-on-one meetings to educate and expand the horizons of your colleagues.  But don’t lose hope!  The day of reckoning is upon us (or at least its very, very close).

I know many people who’ve played that role in brands, and I’ve played that role in agencies that wanted to drag their brands kicking and screaming into the digital age.  It can be considered a pretty sexy job, to be positioned as the expert in a trailblazing category of media.  It can also drive you crazy, because more often than not you’ll get buy-in from people in face to face meetings, but when push comes to shove and the dollars are being allocated, you may not see your conversations come to a satisfying fruition.  To be successful in that role, wherever you may be, I do have some advice…

1. Start At The Top

When you first take on that role, even in the interview process, you want to go as high as you possibly can in the organization to get buy-in on innovation.  Speak to the CMO, but also speak to the CEO and the CFO if you can, because most of the time the budget allocations for marketing include all three, not just the CMO.  You want general buy-in from all the involved parties that innovation is looked on favorably in the organization, and that your ideas will be supported and the first place to cut the budget won’t be in the innovative marketing bucket.

2. Focus On Key Colleagues

This is a political decision, but it is an important one.  You need to focus your efforts on no more than three people in the organization at the brand manager level, or possibly the director level, who are interested in being, and want to be viewed as, innovative.  These are going to become your best friends in the organization.  They will control specific budgets, they’re going to want to advance in their careers, and they’re going to be interested in digital.  You invite them to meetings, you engage them in healthy discussion, and bring them to dinners, parties and events.  I know it sounds a tad bit cheesy, but these are the people you want tied to your hip.  You want them to go to bat for the ideas you develop together (yes – together).  The rest of the people should be involved, but you will know quickly who your lowest-hanging fruit allies will be and the rest may end up playing second fiddle.

3. Don’t Take Center Stage All The Time

This one is not so easy.  You need to make sure that the ideas you created, or were involved in, are seen as coming from other places in the organization.  You are to be the “man behind the man” or the “woman behind the woman”.  It’s your job to make sure everyone else sees the benefit of the digital platform, and that they’re perceived of as innovative.  You don’t need the attention because everyone will know you were involved, and that is good enough.  It’s your job to evangelize the platform, not take all the credit.  That may mean you miss out on the internal award at the marketing conference, but that’s ok.  You can’t take an award to the bank and cash it in – you get compensated on other metrics and those are what you should be focused on.  If your partners win, you win.

Of course, patience is also a must in this role, because at least half of your ideas will never see the light of day.  That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t work on them.  Think of it as practice.  You need to put in the time, and sharpen the pencil that is your brain, in order to come up with the best ideas.  The best ideas are the ones that will succeed and you will be viewed as a success as a result!

Posted on: 03-23-2012
Posted in: treffiletti.com

Relevance + Recency + Frequency = Resonance (Mediapost 3.14.12) 0

Marketing is all about psychology.  It’s about culture.  It’s about audience.  These are simple facts, but the other fact is that technology is substantially changing the psychology and culture of the audience.

The fact is the Internet has had an enormous impact on the audience we speak to as marketers, and as a result its made them more difficult to affect, yet when you affect them its easier to see the results and affect their behavior.  That has resulted in a culture with a higher barrier of entry, but once you get over the barrier they’re more malleable than ever.

My hypothesis is based on the fact that the pathways for consumer, and overall human, education have changed.  If you go back 20 years, and you ask someone a question they either know the answer or they don’t.  If they know it, it’s because they read it or learned about the topic previously.  If they don’t know the answer, they make a decision to go learn about it or to have someone teach them about it.    Fast forward to today… if you ask someone a question and they don’t already know the answer, then they whip out their phone and Google a response in 60 seconds or less.  The path to drive learning is shorter, and it requires less anticipatory knowledge about a topic when the human understands that every answer is less than 3 clicks, or 60 seconds, away. 

This immediate gratification for knowledge is coupled with the fact that a consumer is deluged daily.  The average consumer spends approximately 12 hours per day consuming information, which consists of more than 100,000 words and 34 GB of data (according Time Magazine).   There are around 3,000 marketing messages thrown at a consumer every day.  The level of clutter is high, and this is coupled with the self-selecting data that a consumer is searching for throughout the course of an average day.  That means for a marketing message to resonate with the consumer, it has to score high on the relevance and immediacy quotient in order for them to take action.   It also has to be frequent, which brings us back to the age-old model of reach and frequency.  It’s simple mathematics that relevance + recency + frequency = resonance for a marketing message.

Of course, the culture has changed because if you achieve that formula with the audience (relevance + recency + frequency = resonance), then things can take off.  We’ve created a culture of virality, wherein a message that is resonant can be shared among consumer-to-consumer groups.  This virality drives additional reach and resonance because it feeds the other elements of frequency and recency.  That creates a circular situation, driving interest and consumer engagement.  The psychology of the audience is such that if you can get over the barrier of entry and gain access to the mind of the mob, then the mob takes over and shares the message quickly. 

What this means is that marketers should be spending their time strategizing about how to achieve relevance through creative and recency and frequency through media.  The purpose of that forethought is to make the best use of the eyeballs for the audience when you have them, and increase the likelihood of their engagement.  If you don’t think of these elements in combination, and if you don’t enable the sharing of the message for the supposed eventual activation of audience, then you aren’t setting yourself up for success.

Are you using that formula for success?  Let us know on the Spin Board!

Posted on: 03-18-2012
Posted in: treffiletti.com

Where Is Sisyphus Today? He Works At An Agency. (Mediapost 3.7.12) 0

I say this with love, but if the Greek King Sisyphus were “alive” today, his punishment would be to work at an agency.

Sisyphus was punished for the crime of trickery against the gods by being damned to hell and forced to push an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down the hill, and this was to go on for eternity.  It’s a common analogy brought up in today’s ad agency world because most agency executives feel that working with clients and delivering success is Sisyphean in nature.  They rarely get recognized, they almost never get kudos, and for their efforts they typically get procurement pushing on their fees, and clients threatening a review.  It’s painful, it’s debilitating and it’s just a bummer.  That being said, maybe there is indeed light at the end of the tunnel!

On Monday of this week, Matt Straz wrote that agencies are starting to think like tech start-ups by investing in technology and hiring smart people.  Last week I wrote about the possibility of ad futures models for agencies as a new revenue stream.  I’m not sure I agree 100% with Matt’s opinion that the “agencies are back” but I do see them having an opportunity and if they’re smart, nimble and fearless they could reinvent themselves into a model for success!

Mad Men returns this month, but the world of the agency could not be further from that world if it tried.  The world of the agency is going to become more like the world of finance, banking and analytics than the creatively-driven, ego-centric world of Don Draper.  It may very well be the age of math men rather than mad men, but regardless there’s definitely a future, and that could not be said just 5 years ago.  Maybe that future is more “Boiler Room” than Mad Men?

I built the first stage of my career on agencies and I will never forget it.  It’s an intoxicating business (in many cases, literally).  You have real authority in the industry.  You are (if you’re good) looked upon as experts, and the largest brands in the world look to you for advice.  There are perks unimaginable to many, and unattainable to most.  When you’re on the outside looking in, it’s an amazingly attractive business.  However, when you enter into it, you see some of the cold underbelly of the business.  There are too many late nights, and they happen eight days a week.  There’s travel with schedules always in adjustment until the last minute.  You’re at the whim of your clients, and the effort you put in is almost always thankless, knowing that your hours of overworked exhaustion made someone else on the client side look good, but they may never utter your name in recognition.  The worst part is that when you do a great job, the halo effect of that work lasts only until the next time you’re in the room and you’re being re-evaluated based on what you did last, not what you did before.  The bank account never seems to be overly positive, but is most certainly rather neutral, if not in the red. 

The agency world can get past the Sisyphean feel if it can reinvent itself in terms of technology and strategy and expertise, and get away from execution and tactics.  Everyone knows this, but no-one is sure how to get there.  The performance pricing that many agencies are testing is one way to get there.  Only charging for the higher end of the work is another, potentially giving away the execution.  Creating new revenue streams for technology consulting, integration and education (or strategy) is even better.  The holding companies are full of smart people who need to be deployed in the right manner.  The typical deployment of talent in agencies is to put your best people against your most pressing challenges in the hopes they can fix them, but that is the absolute wrong way to do it.  You should take your best talent and deploy it against the strongest opportunity for growth.  Put them against these areas of higher margin, higher priced solutions and have them sell these through to your customers.  Invent new revenues that you know will eventually supersede and replace the outdated, commoditized ones.  Then, and only then will the boulder get to the top of the hill and stay there.

Of course, pushing a boulder up a hill is a great workout.  Maybe they just like it?

Posted on: 03-9-2012
Posted in: treffiletti.com

The “Futures” Of Ad Exchanges? (Mediapost 2.29.12) 0

What’s the future of the ad exchange model?  It’s clear that ad exchanges and DMP’s are the future of the media business as media has become more and more of a commodity and data has become a requirement to add value, but where are things headed?

Many people refer to the commodities exchanges as the future of the ad exchange model, but to do so requires there be a marketplace for the buy and hold of media assets.  At first I was skeptical of that version of the future because there are not too many media buying shops willing to take the liability of those media assets on their books, but then I realized that market already exists and thrives and its called the Upfront.  In the television Upfronts, marketers and agencies buy and hold the media until a later time of the year, in some cases they put them all to use and in some cases they put them back into the market as scatter, taking the financial hit in the form of a cancellation clause.  If marketers had the chance to buy, hold and resell that media at either a profit or at least a break-even, wouldn’t they consider that?

The “futures” market is a tenuous one, especially in a volatile stock market and one where economic indicators are so across the board chaotic, but the advertising marketplace continues to grow.  More money is flowing into TV advertising every year, and the Internet continues to expand regardless of the almost infinite supply of impressions.  OOH and print may not be growing, but they are still finite assets that retain value, and marketers still want to take advantage of them.  A futures marketplace could indeed be valuable if the marketers and agencies were set up to take advantage of it.

The agency category is the one I find the most interesting here, because it’s the model that has been most in flux over the last 10 years.  The Internet and digital, more than anything, pushed margin’s down on agency commissions and as a result the agencies have been innovating to find new revenue streams.  Creative continues to be uncommoditizable, and strategy continues to be only semi-monetizable, so the agencies have focused on media buying – specifically by creating trading desks and analytics groups.  The agencies are focusing on the data and they are driving the media landscape into a commodities market.  If you agree this is the case, then it makes sense that the agency category may shift to a buy and hold strategy for media.  Some agencies do it already and have done it for years by entering into upfront agreements with the portals and larger publishers.  If you have money in the bank, and you know you’re going to be buying media for your clients, why not try to buy it at the low and sell it at a profit, which is still probably a discount to your clients?

Of course there’s the argument that the large marketers and public companies might be the ones to take advantage of this model because ultimately they are the ones who buy the media, and are ultimately responsible for its use.  I can foresee a model where the marketers buy the media on the market, hold and pay their agencies to put it to good use, rather than paying them a commission for it.  There could even become a secondary market for marketers who want to trade and barter media for their benefit.  The opportunity is endless if you commit to the idea that media can be bought, held and sold on a futures platform rather than the way most agencies buy now, which is last minute and through manual insertion orders.

For this model to truly succeed, the media buying agencies need to mature.  Currently they are full of young, undeveloped, and in too many cases poorly trained, buyers.  These new buyers would be analysts and traders.  They would be evaluating trends and matching those market trends against the needs of the clients.  I don’t see these buyers being compensated to the same scale as Wall Street bankers, but I see them commanding stronger salaries than the current media buyers.  It’s a skill and one that could not be easily replaced by some smart person off the street.

What do you think?  Can a future’s model succeed in this business?  Would it have to be cross-platform, encompassing online and offline, or could a stand-alone online marketplace exist and survive?  Let me know what you think by posting a comment on the Spin Board!

Posted on: 03-4-2012
Posted in: treffiletti.com

Recent Posts

  • Industry News for 05082012
  • Industry Links for 05072012
  • Industry Links for 05092012
  • Simplifying the Display Landscape
  • Viral Vid: Alex and Liam do Wal*Mart
A member of the collective of companies
© 2010-2011 Catalyst SF All Rights Reserved. Website by