Find What Makes You Human

What makes a company feel comfortable with communicating and the things that make people likable and interesting are inherently different.

Companies like to stay “on message,” repeating the same kinds of things over and over. They like to look the same wherever you find them. They avoid incongruence and disagreeableness. Redundancy is lauded as an exercise in brand building.

Interesting people, quite obviously, are the opposite of all these things.

As I’ve said before, this is probably a function of both nurture and nature for most companies. Decades of training from marketing types expert in the art of the big idea and a natural leaning to avoid risk rather than embrace it.

Secondarily, we know our rational brains are actually pretty irrational. Often our decisions are a product of emotions rationally explained in the aftermath rather than a step by step pre-purchase process.

Wine tastes better when it costs more. We may buy a t-shirt on sale today, but disrespect the company who sold it the next because of some perceived lack of worth. Blind taste tests provide better information for psychologists to ponder than an indication of what products will eventually sell.

Any brand is an amalgamation of every ad, every product experience, every passing mention, every in-life product placement. It’s everything a person has thought, consciously or not, right or wrong. And now there are more opportunities for people to stumble across you than you towards them.

So while big campaign ideas are still relevant for some objectives, a much more persuasive brand is such because of a series of smaller interactions, a brand formed by the sum of all the good feelings from a series of experiences, complemented by interesting narratives, not existing because of them.

This is our landscape. One in which word-of-mouth is the ultimate driver of purchase in a marketplace full of more inputs than have ever existed. One in which reasons for purchase are anything but rational, and most of the subconscious data has more room for disruption from our pre-packaged persuasions.

We can’t build influence in this space by yelling louder. We must be good listeners, engaging in reciprocal relationships and mindful of the needs of others. And to be talked about, we should do all these in ways that people find worthwhile enough to share. Yes, the sorts of things likable, interesting people might do.

In describing advertising today, Mark Crispin Miller said, “The most obvious metaphor is a room full of people, all screaming to be heard. What this really means, finally, is that advertising is asphyxiating itself.”

So instead of choking ourselves to death, the brands who simply choose to breathe will be the ones who win.

(photo via vw-busman)

Cultural Resonance & Gallagher

“Cultural Resonance is achieved when your audience uses what you’ve created to talk to each other about something meaningful that they’ve been observing in their culture.”

–Mike Arauz

The thing about cultural resonance is that our culture is constantly in flux, constantly changing. So for us to remain meaningful, we must change right along with it. Seems simple enough, but this is in direct competition with the single, simple brand message.

With your basic 360 degree mass marketing model, the goal is consistency, to be “on brand” or “on message.” You do this so you define the culture, but are not defined by it. Not often is the goal to simply stay meaningful. Irrelevance is one of those sad realizations that companies come to about 2 years too late. And that’s the good ones. This shift doesn’t sneak up on you overnight.

So we need to be more malleable in our messages and more eager to evolve. Frankly, people who are the same forever at some point just stop being interesting. The Gallagher watermelon bit was hilarious with the first smash. And probably the hundredth. But after decades of comfort in his one great bit, Gallagher confused a flash of resonance with sustainable interestingness.

I wish I could remember who said it, but the fundamental corollary is this – are you creating stuff people want or making people want the stuff you create? Are you reflecting the culture that surrounds you or only imposing your vision upon it? The survival companies, those well prepared for this economic reset are those defined by their audience in the products they create, the services they offer and their attitude towards the culture they share.

On Failure

A couple posts ago, I made a quick aside on good failure. Basically, I think there are two kinds, often confused when maybe they should be conflated.

1. Shotgun – the “do tons of things and cross your fingers” approach

2. Scientific – the iterative “i made no mistake but learned one more thing not to do” approach.

And as I said, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. We’re not scientific enough to embrace the iterative approach all the way. And the shotgun approach doesn’t really satisfy the need for fiscal discipline that most companies have. Either way, failure is difficult, so some level of hedging is probably needed.

A few reasons why:

1. The comfort of reach and frequency - While returns are clearly diminishing on any traditional ad buy, we are pretty good with arriving at a rough rate of return.  At least it’s more knowable than if you don’t have those two metrics.  Without reach, we’re sort of working without a net.

2. The hand wringing, blinding focus on the avoidance of failure - Jonah Lehrer has a post up today about people that remember everything, as in, can forget nothing. Sounds pretty awesome at first, until you read a little further and find that most of them go nuts, often after having difficulty with simple tasks we are able to complete without thought. It’s excruciating.

He struggled with mental tasks normal people find easy. When he read a novel, he would instantly memorize every word by heart, but miss the entire plot. Metaphors and poetry – though they clung to his brain like Velcro – were incomprehensible. He couldn’t even use the phone because he found it hard to recognize a person’s voice “when it changes its intonation…and it does that 20 or 30 times a day.”

Which is the way most companies react to failure. They hash and rehash. It paralyzes them for future experimentation, and often causes them to walk away completely after casting the entire thing as something that “just doesn’t work.” No question we need to do our best to find answers, but we need to be scientific enough to gain the knowledge, while forgetful enough to, as we say in Texas, get back on the saddle.

3. The Luck factor - Frankly, some things were because we just got lucky. We happened to be in the right place at the right time. So for all the picking apart and recap that’s possible, it’ll never lead us all the way to a replicable solution. In fact, it could keep us chasing after something that’s passed. And the inherent luck in some solutions is just unknowable with any level of assuredness.

Bottom line: We are shifting into a culture that favors doing over saying. We know this. And we know doing things creates a situation in which success only comes when we cause a reaction, not simply an impression; reach is unforecastable and frequency matters little. So if you’re looking for a pre-destined ROI, you’re in the wrong game.

And while scientific failure may be great to help get passed failure avoidance, it may be an obstacle to assessing the luck factor. The shotgun approach is awesome in the name of experimentation, but it sure doesn’t make anyone feel all that comfortable. So in that middle ground rests good failure.

Bartelby will tell you…

Bosses of the world beware. We just found this site and you might be on it. Okay, maybe not. But it’s a fun one.

Here’s another fun one.

Op! One more.

Tony Schwartz, R.I.P.

We’ve lost a good ad man.

Sometimes known as the “wizard of sound,” Tony Schwartz is most famous for helping create the “Daisy Ad” in 1964. You know the ad — the one that ran only once; the one with the little girl hauntingly (and somehow endearing) counting; the one some say began the now commonplace negative political advertising era.

Read his obit here.

And see the “Daisy Ad” here:

 

It’s on, YouTube.

Chocolate rain. High school kids beating each other up (this one doesn’t deserve a link). Laughing baby. Kitties bopping their heads to techo music. Or kitties talking to each other. Or kitties that make weird noises. While stalking moths… 

 

I remember the first time I fell in love with YouTube. It was when my mother told me about Eydie Gorme, and I said, “who???” So I looked her up. A Wikipedia page came up on Google. Wiki, schmiki. I wanted to see Ms. Gorme in action.

 

And indeed I did. And I had a choice!

 

Like a maniac, I scrolled through the sidebar looking for the next Eydie Gorme vid. There she was, singing Sabor a Mi. Singing with Los Panchos. Singing in English…

 

When I’d gone through all of them, I thought I’d play a trick on this YouTube. Thought it was so smart. I’LL show it!

 

I searched one obscure artist after another.

 

They were all there.

 

What was happening? Weren’t my artists obscure enough? Can’t I outsmart this thing?

 

Defeated, I resigned to look at laughing babies for an hour and a half. And I admit: I enjoyed every minute of it.  

 

Blasted, YouTube, you comprehensive library of awesomeness. You win.  

And in my Opinionation, Blossom’s Hats Totally Gave Her ESP

I remember this old Blossom episode where Blossom and Six are sitting around wondering what foreign language to take in school. After a mildly amusing dialogue between the girls, Blossom goes into a rant about how she shouldn’t have to take a foreign language, that they’re in the United States of America, that all foreign language study should be abolished, that she should only be required to learn what all Americans are speaking…Spanish.

(Ba-dum-PUM…)

You may have noticed that Spanish has worked its way into mainstream American lexicon. “Queso,” “hola,” “cerveza”… these words are likely to be a part of your vocabulary. And don’t tell me you don’t know at least one way to insult someone’s mom in Spanish.

A recent analysis by the Census Bureau reveals that the names Garcia and Rodriguez are among the top ten most common surnames in the United States. This evidence of a steadily rising population of Hispanics in the United States substantiates the growing trend of Spanish ads appearing on English-language channels. Shrewd advertisers will recognize this as an opportunity to market their products to a very important audience.

And who is this audience, exactly? According to John Gallegos, of Grupo Gallegos in Long Beach, California, this audience is divided into three categories:

LEARNERS: foreign born, Spanish dominant, 3 av kids, 65% rent

STRADDLERS: immigrated young, 4 av HH size, blue collar/semi prof, bilingual/mostly Spanish

NAVIGATORS: English dominant, some Spanish, 78% at least some college, semi prof/prof, 60% own home, HH inc $76K

While Navigators may not be the target audience for Spanish-language advertising, Learners and Straddlers definitely are. As Gallegos says, “any product and any service should be sold to Latinos in this country.”

And I agree. I must admit, I was skeptical about Spanish advertising in English-language media. I thought that the majority of Hispanics in the United States were like me, second-generation U.S.-born half-breeds who only happen upon Spanish-language advertising because we actually tune in to Spanish media, thanks to our affinity for Maná’s music and Sábado Gigante.

But the more I thought about Spanish advertising in English-language media, I realized that not only does it make sense to run Spanish-language campaigns on English-language media, it’s progressive.

This lingual-to-media do-si-do is a reflection of our ever-evolving culture. And it’s not just Spanish ads on English media…lately I’ve been hearing ads in English on the local Spanish-language radio station. [A bit of anecdotal information:] Also, my mom—who was born and raised in Mexico—asked me to change the language settings on MSN messenger on her computer from Spanish to English. Her reason? Because she’s “used to it in English.”

American culture—though rich and unique—is still young in comparison to the rest of the world. It is constantly changing, and though I don’t think the primary language will switch from English to Spanish any time soon, I do think that Spanish advertising will become a key player in the acculturation of the United States. The Latin Boom isn’t just about the success of Ricky Martin or Shakira or Jennifer Lopez anymore. Oh no. The Latin Boom is creeping its way into our shopping habits now. It’s the reason we cruise down the “Ethnic Aisle” at the grocery stores. Don’t even get me started on the success of chipotle and habanero sauce. They weren’t just invented three years ago.

What we may be looking at, my friends, is a more bilingual people whose interests, shopping habits, and vernacular may change noticeably in the years to come. How progressive. How modern. How…American?

Surely, the Blossom writers didn’t have Spanish advertising in mind as a catalyst behind the Hispanicization of American consumers. But that doesn’t keep me from thinking that maybe Blossom was on to something.

–Tanya Schmidt

The Adman

If you took any communications classes in college in the last, oh 50 years, it’s very likely that you heard the term “adman.” This term not only describes the 40-year-old men who “invented” advertising some 50 years ago, but illustrates a world in which socks didn’t have elastic, the women in the office were typically typists or secretaries, files were kept in actual filing cabinets, pre-Post Its, pre-Ipods, pre-Internet. Almost sounds pre-historic.

In the early days of advertising, when folks asked you what you do for a living you didn’t respond with “media planner, copywriter, account executive…” Oh no. You pressed your thumb behind your jacket lapel, arched your back, raised your eyebrow and with a half smile and a proud look in your eyes, you simply stated, “I’m an adman.”

At least that’s what it’s like in my fantasy ad world of 50 years ago.

Here’s my take on what an adman was. An adman was a Bill Bernbach, Leo Burnett, John Wanamaker, David Ogilvy. An adman was an ambitious superstar who grew up listening to the radio with his family and sitting in un-air-conditioned classrooms, then offices. An adman slept with his tie and shoes on; he came home at 7 pm every night to a warm dinner and smiling family. All admen—ALL admen— talked like Edward R. Murrow and would have raised their eyebrows at the idea of “viral marketing” – not because it goes against their conventional ideals, but because it sounds like something you caught in the war.

An adman is tall.

An adman is from New York City or the Midwest or somewhere that’s otherwise wholesome and “American.”

An adman is a man.

An adman is white.

Of course, these are not the prerequisites to be an adman anymore. And thank goodness.

Sure, the adman needed to exist. He changed (and continues to change) the face of business, mass communication, the culture of a nation. Without him, Super Bowl parties wouldn’t be the same. There’s nothing like a group of your closest friends eating chips and salsa and merrily chatting during the game, only for the party to come to a complete stop when the commercials come on. And when the screen goes black and you go “oooooooohhh” because you know someone’s losing a lot of money right about now… that’s a lot of salsa.

Without the adman, there wouldn’t the agency as we know it today. And somewhere between 1940-something and now, the adman has evolved from an old school gentleman to the people we work with today. The people we admire, our department directors, our colleagues, our clients. Thanks to the adman, we are all admen. As Helmut Krone said upon Bill Bernbach’s death, “He elevated advertising to high art and our jobs to a profession.” This holds true not only for Bernbach, but all the original admen. And for that I’m glad. Especially since I don’t want to sleep with my tie and shoes on every night.

–Tanya Schmidt

Consumer Generated Reviews and the ROI of Impact

In one sense, a brand means trust, the comfort of knowing that you probably won’t have to buy the same thing twice. Back in the old days (you know, like the 80’s), built up trust was much easier to retain. Bad brand experiences could generally be confined to small groups in small areas if handled correctly.

But in the age of hyper-connectivity, the age of endless, easily-searchable information, these small groups can efficiently find each other and connect.

A new Deloitte study revealed what most of us probably already knew, consumer generated online reviews received insanely high trust scores. 99% of internet users find them either very or somewhat credible. Which begs the question, where the hell do we fit in? Strategy doesn’t mean much when the product has a fatal flaw, and no matter how deftly we build up a media buy, it falls flat if the product happens to, let’s say, poison children. But it’s even scarier in the un-extreme cases where brands mean less because they signify less. Lower priced items still have to beat the quality barrier to have a shot of making it past the reviews, so it starts to become much like the pharmaceutical problem of two identical products with different labels.

So again, where do we fit?

Seems to me we sit now in the middle, somewhere between useful and totally inept in a world that little else matters than the voice of the people. But luckily many of those people are still vain, so brands as badges still holds true, keeping us afloat on the relevancy scale for now.

But it looks as though there will be a split in objectives. Some agencies will satisfy the need for business strategy, a direct response, ROI driven model that is all about immediate needs of the marketplace, while more closely tying together with logistical business demands and CEO vision.

And the other side will focus on the need to capture imagination, to gain attention, to give permission for companies to be talked about. And here, experience will be more important than ever.

The difference in strategy with experience is that we’re not just creating ads for the sake of informing the publics, but we’re leading the loudest 10% into deeper relationships, while giving them permission to discuss these with the other 90%. This is what makes integration so vital. You don’t walk away from awareness and reach for a deep connection with a few, just like you don’t walk away from the few for the many. It’s the advertising equivalent of the balance of faithfulness and promiscuity.

If we look at average number of searches for certain product before and during larger campaigns, you’ll notice that with the added awareness, an obvious thing happens, the search queries for that product increases. You’ve intrigued enough people that at the very least, they’d like to hear more.

At that point, you have to be there waiting for them with the kind of experience that makes sense for that target and that market, and then supply those people with the tools to tell their friends, all those people stuck back in the ‘awareness’ stage.

So, the traditional part is easy. Buy enough media and enough people will hear about you. But, finding the right message that allows people to open up to not only what you have to say, but what their friends say, is more important than ever in an environment in which those conversations carry so much weight.

But, back to my point. We hear a lot about agencies re-integrating, and companies consolidating their marketing dollars with fewer agencies. And while all this is probably for the best as creative and media have already become more deeply connected than ever before, it may not be far enough. The kind of integration we need is the meshing of ROI and Attention models. Both are fantastically important, and neither one will be going away. Unfortunately you’ll find too often that it’s one or the other, not a balance of the two.

While our strategies are becoming more involved, and expanded to include more methods, it’ll be even more important to have steady hands to guide the process, understanding not only what makes people tick, but what makes business tick and finding happy balances that bring both these goals into alignment. That’s the kind of integration we need in order to stay relevant.

So can we really affect what a person writes in a review? Maybe not. But by understanding the delicate balance of business objectives and the new marketing environment, we will be much better positioned to have greater impact on the direction and craft of creating products that succeed in this marketplace.

From Paul’s article on the Madison Avenue Journal

The New Levenson and Hill Blog

Well, we’ve made it this far. I guess we should probably write something interesting.